Now, Look Here (publicistics) — Part One

Chris Myrski

Here are 3 volumes of my publicistics, consisting of 4 sections: “For Journals”, “For Newspapers”, “Feuilletons”, “Others”, which comprises very big period of time, from about 1990 and till 2017.


Chris Myrski. Now, Look Here (publicistics — first volume).


The Works of Chris Myrski
    Now, Look Here (publicistics — first volume)    

© Chris MYRSKI, 2001 - 2017


     This is the first volume of my publicistic materials and in size about 2/5 of all things, which are conditionally put under the heading “For Journals”. It comprises very big period of time, from  about 1990 (when Myrski emerged as writer) and till 2017 when I decided to put an end to this enormous book (where the number of all papers reached 68 what is exactly the number of my years at the end).






(publicistics — first volume)

Chris MYRSKI, 2001 - 2017

     [ There is no idea about the cover, because in this book are gathered great variety of different journalistic materials, it is not a work of fiction, and such books are usually not illustrated. ]




     I. For Journals

     In the second and third volume follow:

     II. For Newspapers

     III. Feuilletons

     IV. Others



     This book contains all my publicistic works, written in the period of Bulgarian transition to democracy, which has begun in 1989, and should have ended when our standard of life will reach the former level. Judging by our rates of development and the muddle in which we state this can continue for a whole generation or 25 - 30 years, but even for a decade was accumulated certain amount of things, so that I decided to gather them in one place. Based on the time in which I have written them, it is normal to expect that they will deal mainly with the democratic phenomenon, which is one interesting and stable social phenomenon (when it exists for more than 25 centuries), but, of course, it does not pose any panacea, that will directly solve our problems (more so because for the present it has led us to a bigger mess), and it surely has its innate and unavoidable (if I can use this economic term), or necessary, drawbacks.

     In other words, one constructive, even if in some cases also utopian and idealized, critique must be useful for people, who like to ask themselves questions about the world and the society (although in our dynamic times such people are not much; but in which epoch they have been much?). And that it is really constructive can be concluded at least by the fact that the author is not related to whatever political or leading economic or other structure, so that he can be maximally unbiased. But he has, of necessity, mainly left-wing political convictions because they, at least for more than a century, happen to be a kind of criterion for healthy reasoning. This is so for the simple reason that our world is unjust and cruel to the isolated and weak individual, and it is a function of society to make it a bit more just and favorable, what is, namely, the quintessence of the "socio", or the right of the weak. This has been known from deep antiquity, but only in the society of universal prosperity (or post-industrial society, or of the well developed capitalism, or how else you name it) it became possible to convert the wishes to reality for the wide population. Or, if you like, just take it that the author is not of the strongest of the day, and when so then he sticks to the interests of the weak.

     The sequence of the materials is as a rule chronological in the framework of the sections, but the very sections are something questionable, where under materials for journals is understood that these are longer and more serious works, but for the everyday press are needed a bit more "chewed up" things, where one should not ponder much about the matter. For this reason in the newspapers are used shorter columns, to be possible to take a quick look over them, what is preserved also here. The feuilletons is clear what they mean, though to some extent this is a laughter through tears, in most cases, but that is why the satire is invented — to allow us to bear easily the burdens of everyday life. In the section "Others" are gathered such things which I have not succeeded to decide where else to put.

     About a dozen things were published in some newspapers, although mainly in abbreviated (and mutilated, I would say) form, many things I have posted to editorial offices and they have remained without reply, but the majority of the materials were written primarily for the pleasure of it (well, and for filling of the time with something, because one "professionally" unemployed has in his disposition a big amount of this special "product"). Of course one should not expect to "discover America" here, but you will most probably find some different from the official press (or propaganda) look, for the reason that the author is not between those people who keep an eye on the media, so that there is no danger for him to begin to say platitudes. Many of the things are not actual today (and other ones will become such with the time), but it, the journalistic work, is, in principle, tied to the moment of activity and is aging fast, what does not mean that the model of reasoning or the conclusions change (i.e., under similar circumstances we will again behave "silly but in our own way", how sounded one phrase from totalitarian times), and that is why they are left here, to give the readers better possibility to appreciate the author as independent (but really) creative worker.

     Well, this is all, my dear future readers, and if you, occasionally, happen to like some things of the written, then just drink a glass of liqueur for "repose of the sole" of the author, for it is not likely that this book will see the light of day when he is still alive (if not for other reason than at least because publicistics is gathered for long years and published, eventually, after death). It is better to accept that my name is this, with which I sign under (because — well, for what reason you do not like it?), and that the date below is put as a moment when I decided to gather all these things in one place, and in no way is beginning or ending date. Pleasant reading then.

     2001,   Sofia, Bulgaria       Chris Myrski 

     P.S. In 2017 at last I have closed this enormous book.






Chris MYRSKI, 2001 - 2017

Contents Of This Section

     Essay on the common sense

     About the turn to the left

     How much has to win a company in order to have no gain?

     Our people again hoarded goods by higher prices

     Too good is not good!

     Are we free, or on the contrary?

     Political gratitude

     Neo-Malthusianism, or rational judgment

     Myths about democracy

     About the ownership and its future

     Just injustice

     In ovo e veritas

     Oh, 'manci, 'manci -pation!

     What we want to tell the world?

     In Bulgaria everything is quiet

     Political parties in Bulgaria

     About the degradation of morality

     Is it possible moderate communism in Bulgaria?

     Essay on the common sense — II



     Relatively recently I heard one old anecdote, that the socialism was a "victory of all progressive forces over the common sense". Not absolutizing this questionable opinion one should not forget also the popular wisdom that in each joke there is some truth, so that let us try to find whether in this case, really, some truth exists.

     The notion "common sense" usually is taken for primary and non definable. It means something deeply inherent to the human nature, instinct about reasonability when there are not enough data and methods provided for taking of the decision, motivation on the level of not hampered by education ordinary human individual, at the level of children's primitiveness of reasoning. If we want to be more exact we must add that this is definition of the author acquired on the basis of ... his common sense.

     Each society, however, imposes layerings to this notion, creating in this way some norms of coexistence. As far as the interests of individual always enter, in one or another degree, in contradiction with the interests of society, it is possible that the needed behaviour of the average member of society contradicts to the common sense. When there are several strata, groups, or classes, under the term average member of the society must be understood the averaged value for each of these groups. Anyway, I don't intend to revise the historical materialism, I just want to say that the more exact the norms of behaviour for the greater part of society agree with the common sense, the more natural these people perform their duties to the society. Inasmuch as the main goal of each society (its ruling part) is to preserve (as long as possible) this society, and the common sense of each of its members is characterized with unavoidable egoistic trend, then the decision received on the path of least resistance is in this, the society to require norms of behaviour maximally close to the common sense of each individual.

     1. Let us begin with simple examples: about the unnecessary prohibitions.

     We were used to seeing often enough in our country inscriptions like "No admittance" or "Show the pass without reminder" and similar examples, but this on places where this is not necessary. As far as everybody knows that the order is formal nobody respects it and does not require the passes (with exception of pair of days in the year, when there is the next "activity action" of some chief or other). Variation of this situation is when the main entry is guarded, but along with it there is some hole in the fence, which everybody can learn if he wishes. It is naturally, if something is forbidden, to know by whom, why, and what will be the consequences of not sticking to the order, but it is not at all always such the case  in Bulgaria. The result is that that one, who includes in his moral codex the rule "the more impudent wins", he usually wins indeed.

     Another variance can be seen in many of our apartment complexes. It is generally known that the footpaths, more often than not, are not made there, where the human flow is the biggest. Instead, though, to make them where they are needed, we put signs, set wire fences, or invite the general public to watch who goes through the lawns. The result, of course, is zero.

     Similar is the situation also when in the corridors or foyer where the people usually smoke cigarettes, instead of to put metal baskets or take some other measures for preventing of fire, or for bettering of ventilation, they just put sign "No smoking". In the result people again smoke there, but extinguish the cigarettes on the floor or where only possible, increasing in this way the danger of fire and the pollution around.

     Not much different is the situation with the mandatory examination sessions in the universities. It is invented a complicated system establishing when a given student can appear for the exam and how he will move to the next year, while at the same time are established also the allowed conditions for exceptions, which are used so often that, on the average, a quarter of the students make use of them, and this is not observed as hindrance to the process of learning. From the point of view of the common sense it is clear that, either the number of exceptions must be reduced, or the rules have to be changed.

     Maybe the most significant expression the unnecessary prohibitions find in the area of secrecy. The author has no intentions to announce "state secrets" citing here various examples of pseudo-secrecy, because each one of us could have given a number of such cases. However  illogical this may seem but in the most cases is applied the rule that all, what shows our backwardness, as in the area of economy, so also in the social and political spheres, is a state secret, which can discredit the system.

     2. Another more serious category of examples are those related with personal initiative.

     Many times we have discussed the question about the personal involvement in performing of some useful for the society activity, and the corresponding material and moral stimuluses. In spite of this, there are many examples of unsatisfactory decisions, when for equal in quantity and quality labor people receive entirely different payments, and there even happen that for a greater work is paid less. The common sense struggles to accept why a health nurse must receive for 6 hours of work in the polyclinic, say, 10 levs**, where for one injection at home — 5 levs; nor why for one hour of instruction a teacher receives 3 levs, where for private lesson — from 5 to 10 levs; similarly also with the building workers, auto-mechanics, and so on, and so on. Practically this leads to arising of personal disinterestedness in performing of the main work.

     The wish to advance in professional hierarchy, called sometimes unjustified careerism, has also its meaning for the initiative of the worker. It is logical that that one, who works more conscientiously and effectively, will move faster upward. Alas, very often decisive, if not the single one, happens to be the criterion for political activity and ideological consciousness — i.e. ranging on the scale of "our man".

     It is clear that the youth is the most revolutionary and initiative part of the population in each society. In this sense there should have been shown aid and support for increasing of self-dependence and feeling of responsibility of the young people before the society. Our system, however, hinders in all possible ways similar efforts of the youth — with the financial mechanism, with problems with the lodging, with the singleness of our youth organization, with the system of distributing of young professionals, and so on. In result of this the initiative of the young ones is restrained and they continue to want to have everything ready, as when they were little.

     The initiative is constrained not only in regard of various persons, but also in regard of whole enterprises. No matter that there were many talks about the independence of companies and the competition between them, nothing of this is shown in practice. Let us not discuss here the relation between the competition, market mechanism, deficiency, and socialism. It suffices to say that without competition there is no space for the initiative of the people and companies, there is no possibility for adaptive development of the economy.

     Related with the above-mentioned and sufficiently important for to dwell on it is the problem with the fight against monopolies. We not only don't have legal basis for such fight, but we think that this is fight against the social order (probably because in our conditions the state is the single monopolist). The common sense, however, requires that the bigger one producer is, the more was taken from him or it (where in Bulgaria the petrol is still sold cheaper to the state, and more expensive to the citizens or small companies).

     3. Let us now look for examples for contradiction to the common sense in questions related with the property

     In recent times in Bulgaria have begun to speak about equalizing of different forms of ownership: state's, cooperative, of group of people, private, shareholding. This is entirely in accordance with the normal human logic. But the problem is that for the moment we just speak about this (as also about the equality before the law, yet in many cases is needed the opinion of party or Komsomol organization confirming this "equality"). And, really, in Bulgaria the number plates on cars are different in colour (and the petrol is sold by different prices), depending on the form of ownership. We have wholesale and retail prices, but in practice these are prices by which is sold to different kinds of owners, where usually is applied the contradictory to the common sense rule: the bigger owner buys cheapen, and the common citizen — on most expensive prices. It is true that in this way is proved the advantage of the bigger owner, but it is also true that if it is based on this only tendentious price mechanism, then, surely, it is base on nothing!

     In defining of personal property the socialism goes out of the rule for elimination of exploitation of human by human. This is logical. Bad are only various deformations of this rule leading to exploitation of the common citizen by the state or by some different persons in the party or state apparatus. In usual practice it happens so that, even if one has enough money to buy himself a home, then he can't have a dwelling for less than 15 years, or he must enslave himself to that enterprise, which has given him the home. All knew that the state gives a credit of 15 thousand levs to young families to buy themselves a home, but they don't know whether at least 5% of them have received such credit. Similar is the situation also with the cars — the state's apparatus uses our money by zero percent interest for us, and we wait so about ten years. The same is true also for agricultural machinery and other means for small-scale productivity — there either such are not produced, or they are not sold to persons, or are scarce and deficit. In other words, if one has, after all, some rights to personal property, it is done everything possible (for various reasons) for him not to receive it.

     Not much better is the case with the fertile land for personal use (1-2 decares, i.e. 0.1-0.2 hectares). Such land simply is not given. People are satisfied with barren personal sites, that in addition to all can always be taken back by the state. Has, really, some authentic socialist thought that with one decare of land a person can turn to exploiter? At the same time, each year the winter comes "unexpectedly" and part of the harvest remains "as fertilizer". The common sense does not object to the big fields with wheat, maize corn, or palmetto trees, but there are great number of cultures that require mainly manual labour and give better results when one and the same person takes care for them. The land must be worked lovingly, and, however we twist our souls, no parent loves foreign children more than his or her own, figuratively speaking.

     4. We can't jump over some examples related with the education.

     Our educational system, beginning with the lowest and going to the highest level, sets accent mainly on memorization of the factual material and not on the especially valuable feature of the intellect to think, draw inferences and conclusions. It is true that nearly in each scientific area there are its "multiplication tables", which must be memorized, but no science consists only of tables and facts. (By the way, in Bulgaria only before about ten years was allowed to use mathematical tables during the exams.) Why don't we use more largely systems of tests, that are widely used in many well developed countries? Should we be afraid if somebody says something reasonable, which can turn out to be questionable?

     It is well known that in our country the education is free of charge and generally accessible. What can be better than something that costs nothing? Yeah, but in practice this leads to some abnormal situations, because the education, still, costs, and much money, to the state! It turns out that the exams in the universities are, in fact, not at the end of study, but in the beginning, when the given student has pretty hazy ideas about the chosen by him profession. The exams at the end are chiefly formal, because the state has already spent money, and the very university wants to minimize the percentage of "rejected production". And besides, the common sense suggests that if something costs nothing then, maybe, it really is worth nothing? Adding to this the compulsive character of education, which is not to the tastes of the youth of age, the abnormal competition when applying to the universities, no matter that there are all perspectives for humble life after graduating from them, the overloaded with ideological disciplines program of study, and other moments, and it happens so, that the student rarely chooses his specialty by vocation. All in all, must be contemplated some form of free of charge education, which will be applied only to diligent students, and the mediocre ones will have to pay something; must be thought about some system of bonuses and penalties; about specialized exams (rather tests) by applying, which will be established differentially by each university and for each specialty; and other measures, which will counteract to the minuses of the free education and support the pluses of the vocation as method for selection.

     Very important for each society is the question with reasonable establishing of different educational levels. The very name is not substantial, but what educational level one receives after finishing of the course of study. In the moment in Bulgaria exist secondary technical schools with level higher than secondary, language gymnasiums with level of tertiary education concerning the language, semi-high level (between secondary and tertiary) with real weight of secondary specialized, defending of PhD dissertations with level of diploma theses, formal tertiary party education, and other educational dissonances. In the same time many knowledges (about driving a car, typing on a typewriter, etc.), necessary for  everybody of us, are outside the sphere of educational system. The unreal educational levels lead to various deformations related with the formal treating of educational qualification and add bigger mess in establishing of the (already blurry concept of) intellectuals. The devaluation of our education continues.

     5. Let us now take in focus another circle of questions — related with the financial policy of the state.

     The finances are the money, which have arisen historically as universal tool for measuring of different values. Let us not discuss now the point, can they really be used for measuring of all goods. But we can't miss to stress on the idea for reducing of multidimensional space of different qualities to one numerical axes — the money. The common sense, not falling in details, naturally, chooses the more simple scheme. Our Party and Government, though, have stressed on the difficulties for reducing of all human values to the money, have decided that this is impossible, have tried to introduce other scales (like moral stimuli, ideological conviction, etc.), and at the end have settled on the scale "our man"! Our long experience, however, have convinced us that this also in not a solution. Shouldn't we return again to the idea of money, restricting only their power over the people, instead of to search for some other universal meter for values?

     The author does not state that he is familiar with the question of convertibility of currency, to what currency, up to what amounts, for whom and on what rates. These, surely, are difficult problems, which we must leave to the specialists. Nevertheless, it isn't clear why there still does not exist one and the same rate and from the both sides of the equation but we violate its symmetry? Neither is clear why we invent unreal rate for the Bulgarian lev and then try to "realize" it, were it paying some premium, were it via prohibitions, were it with the use of Corecom shops (where was bought with US dollars), were it using currency auctions organized by the Bulgarian State Bank, were it via the "black market", or with some other tricks. Have we not yet understood, that of all possible decisions this is the worse?

     The state apparatus must be supported, more so in a socialist state, where there are big social insurances and centralized financial regulation of the whole society. The imposing of everybody with taxes is unavoidable. But the common sense requires to collect taxes and payments for something produced, or in order to stimulate a given productivity, otherwise we can reach to the former notorious "teeth tax", with which our forefathers were burdened during the five centuries of Ottoman rule, for this that the Turkish rulers have rubbed their teeth when the wealthy Bulgarian hosts have given feasts to them. Nevertheless in Bulgaria (as far as it is known to the author) for to ascribe a home or some other possession to his /her relative, one must pay about 1,000 levs for a paper work that in no way can exceed 10 levs — it must be paid inheritance tax. The price of one foreign passport is circa 100 levs, but in the same time one domestic passport costs 6 levs. The folks still remember the time when people have had to pay bachelor tax if they have no children, even if their child has died. Must another plane crash down*** in order to change this anachronism? Is it possible, when the state gives a loan to require from 3.5 to 4 percent, but when we put our money in the banks, to give us only 1%? Is this not an indirect tax of about 3% for this, that we just have money which we can not spend, because there is nothing worth buying? Willy-nilly the association with the mentioned "teeth tax" comes to mind.

     The financial policy of the state is shown also in the question of pensions. Though I don't mean here the age of retirement, neither the percentage, but the fact that the pensions, practically, are not corrected in accordance with the yearly inflation. From the point of view of the common sense is necessary for the pensions to be released taking into account the standard of life in the given moment (and independently from the salary), or according to the corrected with the current standard working salary. If one is quiet about the amount of his /her pension, then a lot of people in the age of 45 - 50 years and having made their necessary years for pension, could have ensured their subsistence in various useful for the society ways, not occupying regular places in the staff, giving in this way free space for self-expression to others young and ambitious persons. It is necessary for the person not only to can, but to have interest to change the nature of his (or her) work, if this is for the benefit of the society, or if his health in our dynamical times requires such measures.

     The salaries of intellectuals (not only of artistic ones, but also of physicians, scientific workers, engineers, teachers etc.) are established centralized by the state and paid chiefly from the state budget. The common sense (and the principles of socialism) require that the salary is a measure for the social significance of the individual. Yet at the same time the salaries of the intellectuals are less than the nominal salaries of industrial workers with low qualification, less or about the average salary for the country, and twice less the salaries in the militia or army. It seems to be well-known the rule that the ability of state to take care about its intellectuals is measure for the financial well-being and level of development in it. We talk much about the leading role of intellectuals in the process of perestroika, about the cares of Party and Government, about the transformation of sciences in productive force, and the like. In practice, however, there are not at all rare cases when a medical doctor after (or before) his (or her) work sits behind the wheel of his private taxi; when philologists and other specialists with tertiary education work in teams of dyers; when Candidate PhDs (we had such degrees) and PhDs close jars with preserves for the winter or repair their cars etc., in order to earn or economize "a pair of levs". From our newspapers were heard even praising words about this, how a team of computer programmers have gone to the village to milk cows, showing in this way the "unity and solidarity" of Bulgarian people. Naturally, every rule has its exceptions, but our exceptions have turned to the rule: the more one learns, the less one receives!

     This rule, in addition to the negative pedagogical aspect, leads also to lessening of productivity of the intellectuals, taking up big part of their time for unusual activities. Where has gone the proverbial affection of the Bulgarian for science and knowledge — it was changed with anecdotes about the "learned" one! It isn't clear when at last we will stop trying to check whether the "learned" can do the work of the "unlearned"? The reversed experiments are not made, because the answer is clear! And in order not to accuse the author in partiality let us stress that the situation in Bulgaria is wide away from that of the times of the cult to Stalin in the Soviet Union, or in the times of the cultural revolution in China, so that we can wait a bit more and continue speaking about the cares of Party and Government, which (at least up to the moment) have come with such a delay, that immediately thereafter the question could have been raised again.

     Furthermore, the state uses the financial mechanism for stimulating of development of some industry branches declared for strategic and defining, what is logical in itself. But in Bulgaria for strategic were declared such branches of industry, in which we have had no traditions: electronics, mechanical engineering and metal processing industry, the "big" chemistry, and nowadays the biotechnologies. If similar measures are taken in the well developed countries that this is done so, that the production of the strategic branches were competitive. The policy of centralized planning and state monopoly, especially after the legendary April Plenum of the Central Committee from 1956, have lead to serious investment in this areas and ... to nothing more.

     If, roughly speaking, the standard of life in Bulgaria is 10 times lower than in many western countries (because the food prices, those the of productions of light industry, of cars and homes in our country, given in Bulgarian levs, are practically equal to the corresponding prices on the West, expressed in US dollars, with this "tiny" difference, that the average working salaries in Bulgaria are about ten times less), then in some of this areas were set "records". So for example, one personal computer of type IBM-PC/AT costs 2,000 - 2,500 dollars, or one average salary there, where in Bulgaria it costs (Bulgarian one, and "high-quality") about 35,000 levs or 10 annual salaries, what gives a quotient of 100 times! More or less the same is situation also with the video appliances. A bit better — with the instruments and the production of mechanical engineering. What concerns the "big" chemistry and metal-processing industry, if there the quotient is less, so this is at the cost of our lungs, because of the practical absence of modern and high expensive cleansing facilities. But on the other hand we very "clever" suppress the progress of agriculture, because in this area we really have had traditions. Such disproportions can't be explained from common sense positions.

     6. Maybe it is now time to cast a look at our attitude towards the nature.

     The author does not pretend on priority of the statement, that whatever out attitude to those like us is, such is also our attitude to everything around us, i.e. to the environment. The simple peasant kills some animal or cuts off a tree when he needs to eat or to warm himself, but not just to boast that he is stronger than the nature. We have cut down our forests and taken the most fertile land for to raise up our industrial giants; have polluted the rivers and lakes; have turned our parks to garbage pits; our Black Sea has become really black; the level of air pollution in the cities, industrial areas, and in the capital, has reached record values on a worldwide scale; we have made our "worthy contribution" also in the radioactive contamination. Together with this the road sign for bicycle alley is practically unknown in Bulgaria; and if somebody wants to keep a dog he must pay the corresponding (again record high) tax for his love to the animals and keep it in suitable cage, or teach it to fly — this isn't yet forbidden. In short, we have learned to show out contempt to everything around is (in the name of the great goal) and now the nature takes revenge on us for our unreasonable pride.

     It still is not clear why we have decided that the more developed we become, the more we must concentrate and enlarge everything. In the nature the things are mutually balanced, but we have decided that we are stronger than it and must change it. The industrial giants were not enough for us, we must have raised them near big towns, to the very capital. And is it possible for a capital not to be the best in every one aspect: in industrial, administrative, political, educational, and so on? It is true that in many western countries are formed separate administrative centers, separate small university towns, separate industrial areas, but this may be so because they can't "plan" so good the things as us?

     And what we have done with our homes? We have filled the towns, but also the small villages, with multi-storey apartment buildings — away from the earth, near to the industry. Instead of making "villages of town type" — with their classic two-storey houses and one decare of land around them, but with central heating and telephones, we have made "towns of village type" — have built panel houses and declared the villages towns! The common sense requires that the man lives amongst the nature, merges with it, if you want, and we have masked our incapability in this relation with loud phrases about "the cares of Party and Government and personally of the comrade ... ". But in the same time some "deserved comrades" have built themselves nice country dachas, and to the folks were explained that if they want to join the working class they should go to the towns, where they can receive their due "box" after approximately 10-20 years hard work of "deeds and only deeds" (it is known phrase of our Todor Zhivkov — "deeds, deeds, and only deeds"). Oh, silly people, why are you ashamed to be called peasants?

     7. In the end we must look also at the political life in Bulgaria.

     It is well known that the most progressive, honest, ideologically-convinced, capable, hardened in battles, and unable to make whatever errors part of Bulgarian nation is our communist party. We repeat this phrase for such long time that, from the point of view of the common sense, the diametrically opposed statement begins to impose itself, because "over-holy saint isn't loved by the very God"! From the positions of ideological monism we have forgotten the old truth that man is sinful, and the party consists of people. More than this, we have substituted the notions honour and bravery with ideological conviction; the democracy — with democratic centralism, degenerated in centralism and ovations; the deeds — with words about them; the wish of someone to receive deserved reward for his work — with the socialistic competition; the real thing — with the desired. And while the perestroika is expressed only in substitution of one person with another, of the "deeds" — with "work", of the very "perestroika" — with "new" or "real" such, of the "developed" socialism — with "real" such, but continuing officially asserting that in the given moment (as also in any former period of time) the policy of the Party was and remains the only proper one, the common sense will rebel.

     In the recent time was unambiguously raised also the question with multi-party system. There have arisen and make their first steps a number of independent unions and parties. There are talks about independent elections. In fact, the things are obvious: there can't be stable and adaptive ruling without negative feedback, and the feedback in the political life is the legal opposition. If one party does not allow the existence of official opposition, it either feels weak to stand against it, or then is just foolish — there is no other alternative!

     It is clear that today in our country are carried out stormy evolutionary changes aimed at stabilizing of the old and compromised political system. This is praiseworthy, because if the system succeeds to adapt to the new conditions in the world, then it is lively! But for this purpose, in order to make possible the renewing of the governmental bodies, the renewing of the very communist party through active fight within itself, the unavoidable condition is the separating of the party from the state! The common sense tells us that, as in the economy, so also in the politics, is in effect the rule: there is no development without competition!

     We all have different ideas about the democracy, but they are roughly reduced to the ability for the people to state openly their meaning on various questions of vital for them interest, in order to allow to the governing body to take justified decisions. Contrary to the common sense, however, the democracy in our country was restricted to the possibility for the common person: either speak in favour of the "Party and Government", or else regret about his silly demeanor! We as if have forgotten that each one of us has his own opinions and if for something important vote unanimously at least 90% (and we preferred the round number 100), then this means that people do not vote at all, because such unity is unnatural, it is compulsory! Anyway, at the present stage can be argued only about the form of democracy, not about the democracy in itself, inasmuch as each dictatorship (even that of the proletariat) shows weakness, and the successes of the dictatorship are only temporary and dubious!

     We shall not miss to put a pair of lines about the term "perestroika", which has already entered in many Western languages literally, with miniature differences. If we don't use special phrasal ornamentations the perestroika is, in its essence: a try to create democratic society under the conditions of inherited deficit and totalitarity of the "developed" socialism. Let us hope that this experiment will be successful!

     In conclusion let us return to the thought touched in the very beginning. We deliberately have not observed the real causes for the arisen contradictions between the common sense and the "developed" socialist society — let us leave the analysis to the specialists. Besides, the causes are, in fact, complex: as subjective, also objective, but errors generated by the very nature of the dictatorship as form of ruling, too. Some of them were noticed in time and were taken measures for their elimination (but they were not applied consecutively), others were left unnoticed in the atmosphere of political and economic monopoly of the state, and third will be only now acknowledged. Many problems have remained outside the scope of our examination. Ways for solving of this contradictions were also not shown, though in numerous cases the author has his own views, which have been touched in the course of narration.

     Finally, if we encounter so many problems in building of a really socialist society, then let us try at least to build one democratic society, a society of the common sense, without which we can't live even in the cellar of the European Home! Let us not forget this!

     December, 1989

     P.S. As you see, this is a view in the spirit of perestroika and it seems very naive with a hindsight of dozen years. But it is useful with this, that it is moderate and creative critique, aimed at evolutionary reforming of the socialism, because it, by God, has its enormous advantages before the unmoral and rough capitalism, to which we returned as a result of the quiet madness of our people. But these questions were discussed many times in this whole book, so that we will skip them now, yet the insignificance of the raised questions is remarkable. Because, surely, our problems under the totalitarianism not only look now insignificant, but they were such, compared with the real mess of our transition to the democracy. These were problems not only of our former system, but of the very centralized ruling, and even in the USA they couldn't have managed without their "perestroika", somewhere in the 70ties and 80ties of the former 20th century, because USA, as every self-respecting state, has its unavoidable centralized structures, like army and police at the least. So that our problems were not new ones, but they were for us the major ones.

     Because we have lived as in a greenhouse, in one sterile society, or, if we use one not very pleasant but true comparison: we have lived a life of well fed pets — dogs, for example. We were satiated, combed, and our hosts (i.e. the nomenclature) just took pleasure in us, but, naturally, they wanted that we behaved properly. And then, when the transition came, they simply unleashed our collars, and set us free in the big world. Yeah, but it, this world, was not so good as we have thought, when were fed and kept warm, and now we again look for new good hosts, though this time from the economically stronger Western countries. Be it as it may, the important thing is that we showed all symptoms of unleashed dogs, in view of which the author spoke in that times about the "syndrome of the unleashed dog" as our chief illness, which one great Bulgarian (our writer Ivan Vasov) has named in his time the "drunkenness" of a whole nation. Well, it isn't so bad if one drinks once in a while, but there must be some measure in everything, mustn't it? But thus rule was not in effect for us, because if the moderation is the main requirement for a quiet life and also a kind of criterion for reasonableness, then we have shown whatever else but not reasonableness!

     Though there is also something else. The very question is wrongly set at all, because not a single nation can be as much reasonable as one technically educated and thinking person like your author could wish. Id est, the reasonable social government, still, is only one big utopia for the masses and does not exist in the world! But it was a nice utopia, wasn't it, and nothing hindered one satiated little dog, like your author, to fantasize about the blessed country of the intelligent dogs. Or to dream about this, because when one well fed dog sleeps it has nice or "rosy" dreams. Well, now, because we are hungry, then our dreams are "blue", right?








     Hardly nowadays exists highly commented question in our political life than that about the eventual turn to the left: for parties and movements, for the country as a whole, when and will it happen or not at all, up to what extent to the left and for what time, and so on. One can bet about this, and not without reasons, of course. But, still, I can't get rid of the feeling that this is again political machination (with which we have become painfully accustomed), because the question is not set correctly. Because the question is not "will we turn to the left", but "when will we turn to the left"? The more important arguments here are the following:

     a) The truth is in the middle — statement, about which we have information for more than 25 centuries, but what, surely, was known earlier. In a dynamic environment, if the situation was not such in regard of some parameter, then we should have reached to one of both ends, and having once taken this value the things would have simply not depended on this parameter (but here is quite obvious that many things depend on this, will we turn to the left or to the right).

     b) This movement is one ceaseless oscillation. Having in mind that even the ancient Greek philosopher Platon was, in fact, greater communist than Lenin (because he was not only against the private property, but thought that the families, too, must disappear entirely and people must live not for themselves, but only for the state), as also greater utopist, of course, then it is clear that the leftism wasn't born yesterday. And what concerns the right-hand extremities, then not a few rebellions or revolutions have burst, for to cope with them. Because however just it seems, that only in the garden of John rained and grew the cabbage and potatoes, where in that of his neighbour Peter — not a drop, and only the family of John could eat their full, then it comes time, when the neighbour Peter becomes bored to look at his hungry kids and rejects this justice (one shell not forget that in English, German, even Russian, right as just and right as not left is one and the same word), and he revolts to seek social justice on the other, i.e. left (as it exactly is in English) side. So that, in short, neither one, nor the other, end is something set once and forever, and the nations always oscillate, where the governments try to balance between these extremities.

     c) The historical example in the development of ex-communist countries, which are before us in economic aspect, unambiguously shows (for the moment) tendency to the left. And if this tendency is not to be observed in some countries, then this is only in such like the former "great and indestructible" Soviet Union, which country has still not yet moved enough to the right! And before the facts even the politicians have to keep silent.

     In order to sum up these three moments is easiest to use the model of damped oscillation (that of a pendulum, for example), which is multiplication of exponential and sinusoidal functions and is shown schematic on the figure* (Fig.1.), with the curve "0" taken for basic. Of course, in sociology can't be spoken about such exact relationships and is not possible to define how much to the left or the right we are (i.e. the amplitude of oscillation) in the given moment, because we haven't two ideally pure left- or right- wing parties in the Parliament. Neither is it possible to establish exactly the period, so that if from the first utmost left point (say, in the upper part of the figure) to the second such one have gone 10 (conditional) years, and from the second to the third — 15 years, then this can be observed as sufficient precision. But this, that we can't use this method for good quantitative estimates, does not mean that it is bad in qualitative regard, because it accurately reflects gradually decreasing oscillations around given steady state value, which is naturally to accept in the middle.

     What is good in this qualitative model, above all, is that based on it can be made interesting conclusions. The first and most important observation in this case is that there exist two alternative ways for diminishing of the steepness of movement (according to the horizontal time axes), namely:

     1) via shrinking of exponential enveloping curve, which defines the rate of damping (not shown on Fig.1.), what corresponds to the curve "1" (the blue one), which falls down more smoothly, because it has the same period, but does not reach such great amplitudes; or

     2) via extending of oscillatory process on a longer period, what corresponds to the curve "2" (the red one).

     Both ways lead to relatively equal slope (steepness) on the corresponding parts of curves 1 and 2 (or from the beginning to the first semi-period, to the place where the dashes with the numbers are put, where they fall down; or later on, from the lowest position till the end of the first period, where they rise up — but everywhere on linear regions they move almost in parallel). Again must be clarified, that it can be argued about the point how much the slopes are equal, but in all cases they are less than the corresponding slope of curve 0 (the black one). And we pay such attention on the slopes, because it is natural to accept that the goal of each movement is to reach maximally fast damping by minimally possible steepness, i.e. to have smoothly and crisis-free movement to the new steady state value (to the horizontal axis). And, hence, such movement can be had, either when the curve is damped (its amplitude falls) absolutely faster, i.e. the curve 1 (what is the best variant), or when it damps relatively faster, i.e. the curve 2 (where its amplitude diminishes less, but then for a longer period of time), what in fact happens absolutely slower than the other variant (but is also painless).

     Let us now look more precisely at both variants, calling for help the pulse technique, where is explained that the period of oscillation is characteristic of the system (e.g., for the pendulum, of its length), where the damping of the exponent is characteristic of the environment (e.g., for the pendulum, this means whether it oscillates in air or in water). In our political case the "system" is the whole nation, the given country, from the point of view of its economic abilities, social consciousness and unity of the voters, of its natural conditions, traditions, and so on, i.e. this is such thing which can't be (at least this is not easy) changed. On the other hand the damping of the exponent depends on the environment, and in this case it is political, i.e. these are the parties, which help (or hinder) the given nation to reach the steady state value of equilibrium, and on this environment is possible, and also necessary, to show influence and change it.

     In other words, this means that in countries, where the political environment converges faster to the center, is possible to reach smooth transition also by relatively short period of oscillation, what speaks about powerful economies, socially conscientious and united voters (for example, in Hungary the semi-period is about five years, in Czech Republic and Slovakia, if we subtract a pair of years in view of their separation, as additional problem with which they have had to cope, it may become again so much, or a bit more). At the same time, in countries with worse convergence of political powers, the single possibility for smooth and crisis-free transition consists in longer period of oscillation (i.e. the adaptivity of their system is worse, what is related also with bigger social disagreements, which expresses themselves in worse convergence of political powers, as, for example, in Poland, if we take for beginning of the movement to the right roughly 1985, what will give a semi-period of about 9-10 years). Where there are also countries in which the political environment is so confronted, the social unity of masses so weak, that the single possibility to hold the situation from catastrophic slumping during the period of transition is in the multiple extension (slowing) of the oscillating process (for example in Russia, or rather in the former Soviet Union, where the desert of the great "Gorbi" is in this, that he succeeded to significantly slow down this process in the first several years with his perestroika, otherwise, by practically zero-valued exponent, should have happened obvious slumping in the civil war, which, for the moment, they nearly managed to avoid; so or otherwise, but there already a quarter-period of oscillation, even taking out 2-3 years for disintegration of their empire, has reached 6-7 years, what gives an expected semi-period of approximately 15 years). One may boldly state that, as it seems, the semi-period by the worst possible conditions can't exceed one generation (20 - 25 years).

     Let us now return to Bulgaria. Judging by a number of indicators (economic, social, ethnical, and others) we are closest to Poland, and by semi-period of about ten years can be expected, that also our next Parliament will still be right-wing, but somewhere at the end of the century, maybe, we will turn to the left. At the same time, however, I think, that we must not aim at the level (period) of Czechs and Slovaks, so that one turn to the left of the Parliament, but remaining still on the right of the center, would have been in my view an expression of awaken popular masses in the given moment. This is, maybe, the best for what we can hope in the coming elections, because there were times (and there will again come such times) when to the right meant good, but in the moment more to the left means better, more reasonable and mature!

     As an additional touch in this review one must also pay attention to the fact, that in the political case (in contrast to the mechanical) the environment (the parties) are not independent from the system (from the population), because they are part of the people, so that it is possible also influence from the part of the political forces on the people and vice versa. In this sense, the better converging environment leads to faster economic development and to more united social consciousness of the people, what enables reaching of a shorter period of oscillation, what, in the end, gives even faster damping (i.e., some positive feedback).

     And one more detail: the faster the convergence in the Parliament (and, respectively, amidst the people) is, the bigger is the help on the part of the West, because it is natural, when one invests money in something, to require also some guaranties for peaceful and crisis-free evolvement. In other words, the Western investments depend not on the direction of our deviation from the center (to the left or the right), but on the magnitude of this deviation, i.e. on the convergence of political powers. This is the only reasonable position, because when the divergence is not big the direction is of no importance.

     Saying this in other way: if we do not help ourselves, even God will not help us!

     1995 ?

     P.S. As the Russians like to say for something well guessed, I as if have looked in water (as a kind of magic mirror). Everything I have said 20 years before is right in broad lines (not in details, maybe). About this incessant oscillation, about the economies, the political life, the quiet or on the contrary evolvement, about the slowing down (delaying) of the Russians, et cetera. But I will try to restrict myself from further remarks and retain only those from the time of Russian translation, because the goal is to allow the people to read what I have written and not boast how clever I was and (as a result of this, mainly) have not been appraised in time.





     The question that we pose now is the following: how big must be the profit of a small company (like, say, one-, two-, or three- person, usually family, Limited Liability Company, Ltd), in order to have, after paying of all taxes, the same gain (or even less), as if the people have just invested the money used in the company during the year in form of personal deposits or government securities (GS) in the banks (which, above all, are also guarantied up to 100% in case of bankruptcy, according to our Law for Protection of Investments, where the companies lose exactly half of the money in case of bankrupt of the bank, where they keep them), taking in this way into account, via the increment of their savings, the inflation, and the persons who own the company, instead of working in it and earn in this way, work somewhere else, by the average for the moment working salary? This in my view means, that the company works without any gain (in idle, for "that one who blows" as we in Bulgaria say), that it has no financial interest in any way for its existing, and that, in fact, it is better if it has not functioned at all, because such production not only is not extended, but it can be even named "compressed"!

     So that, let us first introduce some names of variables, beginning with the letter a, with which we shall mark the common profit in levs (our currency, shorten as lv). With letter b we shall mark the relative part of the expenses to the profits or material consumption of the productivity (here in the expenses enter all expenses, not only those of materials), where for more convenient notation we will express b not in percents but as parts of the whole (say, 0.2*a instead of 20% a). Via letter c we will denote the average annual gain from deposits in levs (in the moment most profitable is in GS) and again as part, not as percentage (i.e. 0.5, not 50%, for example). The part which the state takes in form of taxes we will mark with the letter d, and the average net annual salary, i.e. without the income tax (IT) — with the letter e. Then, equating the profit of the company after paying the taxes to the possible profit of an average working salary plus the bank interest for the spent in the company money (because they were available by the owners, in order for them to be able to invest them in the company and use for production of whatever it is), we get (everything for a whole year), as characteristic of the work for nothing, the following simple equation:

     a*(1-b)*(1-d) = e + a*b*c      (1)

because a*(1-b) is the profit before the taxes; a*(1-b)*(1-d) — the profit after paying the taxes; and in the same time a*b*c is the profit from expenses a*b, if they were invested in a bank instance as deposits of private persons (from the owners of the company, who also work in it) without the need for existing of the company. Saying it otherwise, the left part gives us the profit of a small company, and the right part is a sum of the average salary and the profit from the spent in the company money, if it was not a company and only the used in an year money were standing on personal deposit. If we now leave on the one part only the letter a and solve the equation in regard to it we will have:

     a = e /( (1-b)(1-d) - b*c )                (2)

what is our final formula.

     In order to answer the set in the beginning question we must decrease the number of variables, giving to some of them values as near as possible to the real ones. We shall begin in reverse order of the letters, i.e.:

     e = 100,000 lv in an year — a nice round number, maximally close to the average working salary for the current year (it is not yet exactly calculated, for the year has not yet ended), what gives by 8,000 lv net in month (or, else, nominally 120,000 lv in an year).

     d = 0.3, i.e. 30% — this is the profit tax for the smallest companies with profit less than 1 mln lv yearly and for the new registered such, what is the lowest tax at all (usually it is 40%, and even more) and this, respectively, is the best for us case.

     c = 1.4 or 140%, whal looks a good approximation to the real situation, because in the beginning of the year the annual bank interest was 40%, in the middle of the year it become about 120% (for GS out of portfolio emissions of trading banks), in September the most secure bank, the National Bank of Bulgaria (BNB), has issued bonds with yearly interest of 130%, and the trading banks sold GS with 170% annually. Such was the case till the end of September (revolutionary month, at least for Bulgarian people — there were pair of revolution in Bulgaria in the first half of 20th century on this month), and now the newest information is that the basic interest rate (BIR) have become 300% and if it will stay so till the end of the year (i.e. "if our state will exist", as some wicked tongues say) can be expected that this will give averaged real gain about 160% in year (what is more than our gain of the averaged BIR), but we "out of modesty" will work with 140%, for to be sure that our estimation is not inflated.

     Then the formula (2) takes the form:

     a = 100,000 /( 0.7(1-b) - 1.4 b ) = 100,000 /( 0.7 - 2.1 b )      (3)

what is the relationship of the profit a of small company depending on the material consumption of production (part of the expenses to the profit) b.

     The first conclusion, that we may draw out of this, is that there exists critical or maximal value of b, and it is critical because the denominator of (3) turns to zero (and, as all of us have studied in school, it is forbidden to divide to zero) and maximal, because for b greater than this value the denominator becomes negative, and, respectively, a becomes negative, what has no meaning, because negative money means that the company looses if it works. Put it otherwise, the company begins to work for "that who blows" exactly by the maximal value of b. In our (most lucrative in relation to the taxes) case this value is: bmax = 0,7 / 2,1 = 0,33 or 33%.

     Let us now show this relationship in table form:

b (in %)152023252730
a (ths lv)2603574605717501430


     As far as there are no companies with less than 20% expenses (at least 10% go for the cheapest advertisement), neither there is somebody with up to such extent "weathered" brains for to earn one and a half millions (working with no gain, because that is what we calculate here!), then it turns that the left and the right end of the table are unusable. (Besides, when the profits are more that 1 mln levs the taxes d will be bigger, so that the expression for a will be different). In this situation remains the possibility by material consumption b of about 25% to get profits of half a million levs. But these are theoretical results because, practically, there is no such company that will spend less than 30% (even for freelancing professions are allowed 30% inherent necessary expenses without supplying documents). In other words, from the stated till here unambiguously follows that there are no conditions at all in Bulgaria for small business under this inflation level, and if someone, still, continues to perform such activity, than this is either by inertia, or because he simply cannot find a job!

     At a first glance here is concealed some "magic", because the company must not have all the money for the expenses for the year in the beginning of it, and if it turns 3-4 times the production cycle it will happen that it is possible to work also with smaller amounts in cash (and, respectively, the profit from bank interest in our calculations will fall down), and if the company bakes buns and pies, for example, then it will turn hundred cycles in an year. But in this situation we do not take into account the necessity for availability of stock, and expenses primarily for basic means of production (BMP), where one has to "throw away" at once the money at least for five years in advance and this in very big amounts, where the amortization becomes directly eaten by the inflation! And if we speak about production premises and equipment (and in our climatic conditions, as it is known, nothing can be produced in the open air) then the period of amortization becomes whole 25 years. And let us not forget that, by an actually pure accounting, the tradesman must, after paying out all BMP at the end of the amortization period, have exactly as much accumulated money as he needs for to by the same, now practically consumed, BMP product, where under this inflation rate he will have in the best case some 10-15% of the sum (and for the buildings maybe just 1-2%!). In this way the company, in fact, pays taxes for gains which in no way are gains, but this is subject for additional calculations with which let is not diverge now.

     So, and in order to convince ourselves that our calculations were close to the real ones, let us vary a little some of the parameters in the formula (2). For example, for a more respectable company the profit tax will be 40% (i.e. d = 0.4) and then we get

     a = 100,000 /( 0.6(1-b) - 1.4 b ) = 100,000 /( 0.6 - 2.0 b )      (4)

and bmax = 0.6 / 2 = 0.3 or 30%, what is even worse, how it has to be expected. (Table for a as function of b in this case we will not give in order not to bore much the readers.)

     If for this more "normal" d = 0.4 take also a more proper personal salary of 25,000 lv nominal in month (or 20,000 lv net in month), then we must vary e to 240,000 lv for an year, thing which may be expected to happen as prognosis for the next year beginning from October 1996, and then is right to accept c = 2.0 (i.e. 200%, hopping that the shocking bank interest of 300%, after all, will not remain in effect for very long time) and then we will have:

     a = 240,000 /( 0.6(1-b) - 2.0 b ) = 240,000 /( 0.6 - 2.6 b )      (5)

i.e. bmax = 0.6 / 2.6 = 0.23 or 23% (by c = 3.0, as it is in the moment, we get bmax = 0.6 / 3.6 = 0.16 or 16%!). This last thing, that every small business with material consumption about 20% already is ineffective for his owner, between us said, is pure communism! It becomes a bit "splotched" by the fact that the big manufactures, obviously (though for other reasons) are also ineffective, when hundreds of companies are privatized!

     These calculations have been done for trading companies, that pay profit tax, not for individual entrepreneurs (IE), who pay income tax (IT), but in reality the things don't differ much, because for 430 ths lv annual profit, for example, one must pay income tax in amount of 112 ths lv (by the table for 3,500 lv minimal monthly salary), what is tax of 26%, but if one adds also some minimal payment for social security it comes to 28%, what is practically equal to 30%. (Compare with table (4), where for b = 0.25 we have a = 571,000 lv gain, or profit before subtracting taxes (1-0.25)*571 = 0.75*571 = 430 ths lv, i.e. exactly as much as we have just now used by the calculations for IE. Besides, these sums are entirely real as average numbers for IE, if one does not deceit.)

     Could something, still, be bettered? Alas, there are not rose coloured perspectives, because even lessening of the profit tax to 20% for the small companies (a thing that hardly some government, no matter of what colour, will allow itself to do, because this makes strong impact on the state budget) will give bmax = 0.8 / 2.2 = 0.36 or 36% instead of former 33% (other things being equal), so that this has almost no effect on the production.

     The only way out of the mess is lessening of the profits from bank deposits (i.e. stopping of the inflation and stabilizing of the economy). By c=0.5, we have bmax = 0.7 / 1.2 = 0.58, what now is quite good. In the same time, by c=0.3, or 30% (which was the ambition of communist socialists, BSP, but it turned out that these "dear people" — their beloved addressing to the masses — have done their calculations without "the barkeeper", as the saying goes) we get bmax = 0.7 / 1 = 0.7 or whole 70%.

     So that it remains nothing else to us except to whistle the song "The communism is going back and strong embraces people's necks" (there was some joking song "The communism comes back"), because both, there are no conditions at all for whatever small business, and we have become so poor that are left only with our begging bowls (without quotes), with our minimal monthly salary of about 20 US dollars (or less than a dollar a working day, if you like it better so).

     October 1996



     The market system exists all around the world for many millenniums now and can be even said that the market is undefeatable as the very life. Saying "market" I mean place, structure, or organization, where gathered together many people, who present something, what is superfluous for them (called sellers), and another group of people, who look for something, what is necessary for them (called buyers). It has existed even in the times of primitive communes, has existed during Confucius, in ancient Babylon, while Socrates and Aristotle were alive, in the times of Christ, Mohamed, Napoleon, Marx, and also in the artificial communist society it was not entirely rejected, but only suppressed introducing price ceilings and various anti-market mechanisms.

     It doesn't matter how the change of values is performed: goods for goods, goods for service (or relations of any kind), or for some invented specially for the purpose beads, seeds of plants, shells, metal plates (regardless of their character — of precious, non precious, semi-precious  or "slightly ennobled" materials), and also for some specially printed pieces of paper, after the invention of stamping press. (By the way, maybe it is interesting to know, that the words: money, Münze, monetas, mangizi — Bulgarian Gypsy jargon —, and others, originate from the name of one fragrant ... herb, useful for peristalsis of the bowels and called miata in Russian, menta in Bulgarian, or mint in English, where it means also the place where these "mint"— in Bulgarian also mentè — is made, because the real estates are the real values.) It doesn't matter also by whom the offer and purchase of goods are made — by the very interested persons, or by specialized persons or organizations named traders or dealers or brokers (who break the hands of the seller and the buyer, what signifies the end of deal, though it usually is symbolic — a habit preserve only in competitions on boxing and wrestling).

     This, what matters, is that every market is defined by the very participants in it — we will call them for shortness sellers and buyers — and for that reason the markets in different countries differ so much. One is the market in London, another in Delhi, third in the Scandinavian countries, fourth in the Orient, fifth and sixth in America or the Far East, and so on. As far as Bulgarian market is dominated by Bulgarians, at least between the buyers (what is a strange thing on the background of this total misery in which we live nowadays), then our market is Bulgarian and, if it has to be qualified with one word only, then this word is "shocking"! I am stating this fact with some sadness, because the shock as medical treatment is applied only in extreme situations, when all other more moderate or reasonable methods happen to be useless; it is the ultima ratio (last resort, in Latin), and necessity for last measures means that we have lived rather unwise, for to fall in such position. In any event, however, the Bulgarian can be treated only with shocks (and often with no therapeutic effect) and it turns out that he has become used to buy, either by higher prices, or not at all, when he waits for the next price increase for to empty his pockets and put something in the fridge. Having in mind that as a nation we are neither more silly, nor more incapable than the Americans, for example, I wish to look more precisely on this our market anomaly and find the causes for it.

     On the first place, of course, stands our improbable poverty. It would have been more proper to say misery. For this reason a lot of Bulgarians "pounce" to buy the cheapest possible food, so that they even eat up the food for animals. For example, the pork belly (fat with bones) is real delicacy, but our people massively buy also duck "lanterns", bare bones, chicken heads and feet, and other things, which in the times of our totalitarian leader "Bai Tosho" (i.e. Todor Zhivkov) were not to be seen on the market, and prepare them for themselves, or at least extract the fat out of them. I don't intend to analyze here the causes for this condition (though it, on the whole, is clear that in times of initial accumulation of capital, in which we now have returned, the capitalism is most cruel and harsh for our long-suffered nation, because "money sticks to money", and for this some "dough", as the folks say, is needed), but to explain to our readers how they worsen the situation themselves, and at the end to propose some "medicine".

     However poor we are now we should not forget that the English say that they are not so wealthy for to buy cheaper things! In our case it happens that when all demand only tripe, or lard, or heads, etc., then exactly this food will grow more expensive (relatively), because the animals do not have, say, three heads, or five lungs, or dozen feet, so that it turns out that the poorest pays some part of the food (of dried sausages, for example) of more prosperous — i.e., just according with the saying "the sick carries the healthy"! The only "benefit" in this case is that in this way they can be cheated with smaller sums by some merchants, for the scales weigh weight and not the price (and if the product is cheaper, then they can be cheated less). There is a reason in this, and I have even heard from a fellow-buyer that the sellers are divided in three categories: honest — such that cheat with one scale interval only; common — such that cheat as much as the client allows them (usually a hundred of grams), because they don't keep the scales on the zero (or via other tricks); and inexperienced or "adzhamii" in Bulgarian (i.e. in Turkish), but they become gradually less and less. They cheat on especially big scale when "the water is muddy" and people line up in queues and buy with whole bags.

     Anyway, let us return to the question about purchases: in the moment is to be recommended to buy goods of better quality and more precisely for the meat — without bones and even tenderloin (unless you have a pet at home and have to think also about him or her). Another my advice to the readers is to forget, as much as it is possible, about fresh sausages and look for other alternatives — minced meat, meat (but not pork one, because all are searching it), white cheese, even meatless food. In the "normal" countries a kilo of fresh sausage (and even of good one) costs as much as two kilos of bread, but by us this proportion is roughly four to one (so that it can be said that in this regard we are about two times "more abnormal" than they are). And what concerns the bread, then we should have known long ago that the increased consumption of bread by us is consequence of our lowered living standard, not of some special culinary traditions of our people! So that, by the by, we must lessen the consumption of bread, what isn't a bad idea.

     One more advice: eat nuts (chiefly pistachio) — they are rich in proteins, but are only two-three times more expensive that the bread (if you bake them yourself at home, what isn't difficult to learn); they are the ideal and fast breakfast in any time and one does not get fat from them. (Again is parentheses I would like to mention that the Hinduism forbids the consummation of any meat: birds, fishes, even eggs and caviar, because they were the future children of the animals, and this not for a week or two, how it is by our fasts, but always, while nuts and spices are not limited, what means that the nuts simply substitute the meat, due to the fact that every religion collects in itself the ancient wisdom of the people.) The last touch in this relation: until the black bread is still cheaper than the white — eat black one, because this will not last for long time! There is almost no country in Europe where the white bread is preferred before the black one and for that reason it costs as much as the black one, but often cheaper (even in Russia it is so, and in Austria, for example, the only more or less similarly looking like Bulgarian white bread is called "Turkish"!).

     Enough about the question on poverty — it is not a sin, and even if it isn't something with which we could have boasted, isn't also a thing of which we have to be ashamed. This, what we could have felt ashamed of, is that we (as a result of our totalitarian past, most of all) have no market culture! We have distorted to such an extent the good word "speculate", that have transformed it nearly to a symbol of the evil, and you know that in the English it means contemplate, consider, and in a bit wider sense is used for persons who succeed to extract benefits from something, so to say, with their pure reason, not with work (production), buying and selling goods. It is spoken also about speculative knowledge, meaning knowledge just as mind game, not as something with which one can derive direct gain.

     The principal importance of these reflections is that, consciously or not, the merchants are those, who keep the market! To put it in technical terms, the merchants play for the market the role of negative feedback in the system — a role, without which no system could have existed for long time (more so for millenniums). In other words this means: when something grows, then something or someone must decrease it, and vice versa, in order not to burst the system. Exactly this is what the merchants do when they raise the prices if something is massively bought, for to enable the buyers, if they are "normal" ones, to decrease its buying and in this way to make so that there was enough of this thing for all (as for those, who have already bought of it, also for those, who have not done this, and for the sellers, too); and vice versa. And "thanks God" that this is so, and our market still holds, even by these shocking prices! Today the merchants sell, practically, only 2-3 days in a month (and get their win), where in the left time they just think (i.e. speculate) what kind of trick to use in order to make the buyers to buy. Naturally, for the sellers is better to have regular income, what will allow them to make regularly their purchases from the producers using regularly received from the clients money and, as it is said (in Turkish, but this is clear in Bulgaria), the "alish-verish" was going, yet, if our people are used to buy only on high prices (why — we shall explain soon), then the merchants are those who normalize the situation. Saying it otherwise — if it's not possible to manage without shocks then someone has to apply them! Like we this or not, but such is the truth, and the more Bulgarians perceive it, the better.

     Now some concrete advises for the "enlightened", i.e. for those reading in the moment. There are always several alternative products on the market — say: bread, potatoes, rice, noodles (oat-flakes, if you like), so that when one of them rises — you just buy another one! In normally saturated market and amidst people who do not suppress the market mechanisms, the prices of alternative products move, generally, in synchrony, and the application of this rule is more difficult, but then it isn't necessary to apply it, where the situation in our country is different. Try to recall that when the rice have jumped up abruptly (a la Bulgarian!) in the beginning of this summer, nobody has yet expected that there will rise also the potatoes and, most of all, the bread — simply the people have decided to buy en masse only rice (like the Chinese) and it has risen until was restrained from above by the international prices (approximately one German mark for a kilo on the average, by retail prices), then it stopped (until the people have eaten it up, and as far as we are not Chinese, after all, then this has continued for 4-5 months) and now it has begun again to go up.

     Similar was the situation with the potatoes, only with a delay of pair of months, so that those, who have bought themselves a bag of potatoes by 60 lv in August, in November consumed them exactly twice more expensive (taking into account also the bank interest, which in one month have reached 25%, and also the wastage, which the potatoes give during the storage, especially if they are lavishly nitrated), and now, when they have eaten them and gone again to buy, the prices have risen again. Similarly happened also with the onion. Likewise also with the white cheese, then the meat caught up the cheese and surpasses it (because it turned out that it is more suitable than the cheese for long-term keeping by deep freezing) and the meat reached 700 lv (and later fell to 450 lv, and this for the veal, which is considered better all around the world, and without bones). Now the minced meat stays at "surprisingly low" prices of 350 to 400 lv, or one US dollar, according to the exchange rate in the moment, but what is to be done when the people have filled their freezers, though at least in January it will jump up on 30-50%, if the meat will not fall lower than 600 lv, what is hardly possible by this dollar rate. And so on.

     In short: averaged on a longer period of time (an year or more) all looks out normal, but before the eyes of contemporaries happen price shocks (or skoki-jumps in Bulgarian, if you like it better so, but the etymological root here must have been the same). This will not happen if, when the rice goes up, people cease to buy rice and reorient themselves to potatoes, and when the latter rise in price begin to buy bread, or meat, or this, what in the moment is sold at acceptable prices. (By the way, almost nobody knows, that one standard egg must weigh approximately 60 gram, or in one kilo there must be nearly 17 eggs, but in no case less than 16, and without this idea one can hardly compare the prices of protein products.) The rule is extraordinary simple (but, as it is known from ancient times, the world is full with paradoxes and the simplest things are accepted with utmost difficulties) and it is the following: move at counterflow to the others in the market! Inasmuch as people nowadays believe to no one, there is no danger that all will begin to move at once in counterflow, so that your success is guaranteed.

     The more curious thing is that in this way you not only will help the others (what is true, but it is also true that the human being has never been altruist in his nature), but that you will help also yourself not to buy on high prices (exactly in the same way as the merchant, who is entirely indifferent to the interests of clients, turns to be the backbone of the market, which is designed and profitable mainly for the buyer). If the things have not been really so mutually linked, then the market wouldn't have survived till the present days.

     The situation is even more drastic on the money market, no matter that there they are pretty obvious and one could easily become oriented in the tendencies (or trends, if we don't want to fall behind the contemporary Anglicization on Americanization of Bulgarian language). As it turns out, in this year for roughly eight months the hard currency has already risen in price six times, where in the same time our lev in the best case (in government securities, GS) have done this approximately two and a half times (what means that there are different kinds of "mint" and some of them have not at all good effect on the Bulgarian stomachs). This, what is obvious in this case, is that in the change bureaus and banks are written both courses (buy / sell), and this, from what they profit, is not the price — low or high (that everything is relative was clear to the people long before Einstein has declared his meaning on the question), but the difference between both courses, where no merchant will begin to explain to you on which prices he has bought his goods — this is his own domestic cuisine*. Then, if we proceed from the purely Bulgarian rule of the Shopp (around Sofia), that "I don't want that I feel good, I want that my neighbour Vute feels bad", it becomes entirely obvious that one must buy hard currency when the traders win least of all from this, i.e. when the margins are narrowest. This is really justified because then you are most convinced that you buy the product (currency) on its cost price, where otherwise, when the margins are 20-30 lv, you, surely, fill the "throats", or pockets, of change dealers.

     Together with this the situation with the change of money (or shares) has its specific tinge, namely: as long as one can not predict exactly how the rates will develop, the people divide in two opposed categories (rather according to their way of thinking, for their goals are exactly the same — maximal gain) — the ones are such who buy when the prices go up, because they set on continuing of the tendency, and they are called bulls (for the reason that these animals strike with their horns upward), and the others are such who buy when the prices fall down, because they hope that the tendency will now change, and they are called bears (for the reason that the latter strike with their paw downward). Though this does not change our former reasoning, because here it goes about speculative buying, about investment of free funds, about playing on the money or stock exchange, and no one on the West will spent his last savings on such games, especially when the margins are about 10%. (Only that from here one may conclude that our nation consists mainly of "bulls", "cows", or calves, in short — of horned cattle, but as far as this doesn't sound nice for us let us not make this conclusion.)

     In brief: now isn't at all moment to buy currency (who has wanted could have bought himself in previous years, when nobody hindered us and we could have changed up to 2000 US$ in an year, what exceeds all savings of majority of Bulgarians, especially their one-yearly savings by average working salary, not in this disastrous year, of 80-100 US$; or then wait a pair of months more), unless we wish to make easier the realization of Money Board via even higher impoverishing of our nation (lessening the sum of money which has to be guarantied)**.

     The last distinguishing feature of our market from the markets in countries with normal market economy is obvious remnant of our totalitarian past, and this is our constant fear, that something on the market will end. Nothing ends on the market, with the exception of people's money! And this fear compels the Bulgarian, especially who is in advanced age (but half of the buyers are pensioners) to buy always on higher prices, because otherwise they would have become even higher. It is true that everything becomes more expensive (because our lev devalues with frightful speed), but not before the personal reserves of people decrease and it turns that, for one thing, they have bought things on high prices, and, for another thing, they will again buy dear, when they finish their supplies! Besides, it is naive to suppose that an average citizen will happen to be cleverer than the merchant, who is occupied only with this, and as far as the buyer also speculates in his own way (because when he goes to the market he thinks how to spend less money but to buy more things, i.e. also to extract personal gain), then neither part has rights to accuse the other one.

     So that, dear readers, think of yourself and don't buy high-priced goods and in big amounts, in addition to the things for direct consummation. Do not bother much about your poverty, be wealthy in spirit! Buy at wholesale only when something turns to be cheap, not when you are used to do this (there are habits, but there can also be "dishabits", as our folks say). At least one third of the people can do their pickles for winter (when we are so poor that make alone pickles) in time different from the others at least by a month and, hence, will buy the fresh vegetables cheaper. Buy alternative products — in this way you will buy cheaper, but also will variegate your food. Don't buy the most cheap product at all, because in this way you buy more expensively, due to the increased demand. Buy the cheapest thing in the moment, not what you have gone to search, and don't think that if a thing becomes a pair of days cheaper then it will continue to become more cheaper, because when you wait in this manner, say, a week and decide to go the next day really to buy, then it will turn out that it has risen in its price, on account of the fact that you are part of the market and, most probably, are one typical representative of the buyers and your insignificant influence has become quite important. In other words: don't hinder the market, for not to allow it to impede you in its turn!

     Do not forget the brilliant thought of great Ostap Bender (from the book "The Golden calf" of Russian writers Ilf and Petrov) that: "Salvation of the drownings lies in the hands of the very drownings!" There is much more truth in this joke than in the heap of phony "truths" that you may hear today at any time. Because this is, in fact, rephrasing of the old rule: "Help yourself, and God will also help you!".

     December, 1996






     Say our people, and one has to believe a whole nation, because it is cleverer than its politicians, if not for other reason, then because it has lived much longer than they have. Besides, there hardly exists nation where similar saying is not present, as much as this is a variety of biblical "over-holy saint isn't loved by God", so that this wisdom is common for all mankind. And its application here is about our euphoria of the Money Board.

     If we consider the things in chronological order then the first conclusion, which we should have made (if we are capable at all to make conclusions), is that if we have had some mutual understanding and strong hand (instead of our "pljuralism", for example, where in Bulgarian "pljuja" — and "j" is read as Latin 'i' — means to ... spit, here on the others), we could have alone made some kind of Money Board, because, surely, nobody has made such board to Germany, or USA, England, France, Canada, or some of the Scandinavian countries, but are made boards to countries in Latin America and some of the former Socialist Bloc, i.e. to countries where, by one or other reason, lacks strong central power. And we could have even made ourselves such board, that the Americans would have begun to be envious of us, because this, what has had to be guarantied are not all circulating in the country money, but only the current income for everybody, like salaries and pensions, and even not all of them but only some part of them, for the bread and sausages are sold not for foreign currency!

     Having in mind that the expenses for salaries in a decent company (with at least 20 persons staff) do not exceed 5-6% of the turnover of the company, and accepting the rule to be paid in hard currency only 1/3 of the salary, it turns out that the necessary currency amounts to only 2% of the turnover. Similarly has had to be proceed with the salaries in budget institutions, and also with the pensions and scholarships, which have had to be partially paid in hard currency, where for this purpose could have been used, if necessary, the blocked currency means from the fallen in bankruptcy (farsightedly, in the times of our communist leader Zhan Videnov) banks, not because this is rightful, but because these money the people, anyway, can't see for the moment and receive them only in tranches (portions)! Naturally, after advanced estimation, could have been relied also on new loans from the West. In any case, our average salaries in democratic times were somewhere about 50-80 US$ (where they have fallen below this, but never have risen above 120), and the pensions were roughly equal to the minimal salaries, so that as average income of a Bulgarian can be taken 60 dollars per month (this, obviously, is increased estimation, but let us calculate in the worst case), or 1/3 of this gives 20 US dollars. This is the amount, which our country should have been able to pay on the average to every citizen receiving salary or pension from a budget institution, in hard currency; the above-mentioned "decent" companies definitely could have been able to ensure about 2% of their turnover in such currency (how they also do this somewhere on their own).

     The condition for the possibility to introduce such Bulgarian Board could have been merely to perform the estimation of our salaries not in absolute money units, i.e. not in levs (and even not in some hard currency), but as coefficient to the minimal monthly salary (MMS) in the country, which, so or otherwise, must have been often corrected in the Parliament, where in very turbulent times this could have been done even each month. What concerns this coefficient, then this approach is long ago used in practice (even in the times of our "Bai Tosho" have existed uniform staff tables, only that their usage was compulsory, but the rejection of compulsion does not mean that these tables should not been used with recommendatory character — in the same way how the exclusion of religion from ruling of the state during Renaissance does not mean forbidding of religions at all —, neither rejection of the use of a suitable one-dimensional scale for comparison); similar tables are used by retirement, also by labour syndicates. If one is appointed to work with 1.78 MMS, for example, and if it is known that 1 MMS in the moment is equal to, say, 50,000 lv, then there is no problem, neither for the accounting department of the company, nor for the very person, to compute his (or her) salary for the given month and how much hard currency he has to receive. In doing this it looks natural that he will receive 1/3 of his money in levs as advance payment, another 1/3 again in levs as salary, and the last third in hard currency (it doesn't matter when) in order to make savings, if he wants (and if he can), up to whole banknotes, and what remains is to be transferred in the next month.

     This, about what even the Americans could have been envious of us, is that there are no problems (except the desire, of course) to compute the hard currency as combined in equal parts from three main currencies, by 1/9 MMS for each, so that when one of them rises and another falls the citizen will lose nothing (as far as this is called money basket it turns out that in this way each Bulgarian will slowly and diligently "weave his basket"); it could have been made even so that by the monthly announcing of MMS its corresponding parts are expressed in each of the currencies (according to the averaged for the last month price) and in levs — for alleviation of calculations. All this could have been made (but it was not made — because too many democrats have gathered on a small place)!

     The second thing, which can be seen also with a naked eye, is that if some board was at all necessary to be introduced, then this could have been done exactly one year earlier, or in June 1996, because even in May last year the dollar has risen twice above its set till that time value of roughly 67 lv for 1 US$, and when something changes two times each normal person must begin to think (weaker changes usually are not felt by people)! Only that then the red (i.e. the former communists) have not allowed a single thought about board to penetrate their minds, the blue ones (i.e. the democrats from the Union of Democratic Forces, UDF) were not in position to do this, and the other colours of rainbow, figuratively speaking, did not "spin the wool". The situation is very similar to that when a man courtships some damsel for a long time but always unsuccessfully until it was young girl, and his desire becomes reality after some 25-30 years, when he by inertia "seduces" her, but then she does not expect this at all and out of excessive desire to go with whoever man happens lies down at once.

     It is true that one usually does not what should be done but what can be done, but it is also true that the main thing that distinguishes the intelligent person (or party, or nation, if you like) is that he does exactly the necessary, or does nothing at all! For twelve months our national currency devaluated, roughly speaking, 12 times, so that the West bought us exactly dozen times cheaper. And mark that here I don't accuse the West in anything, because it (or they) waited with big endurance for us to begin to ask it genuflected on our knees, as if it has no interest at all in introducing of this Board and does it out of pure unselfish charity (in the same way as a masterful fisher does not begin to make noise to the fishes and invite them to go out on the strand to look what a tasty thing he will give them, but just throws some ground-bait to them and threaded the bait on the hook — if the fish becomes alone caught on it than this is its personal "democratic" decision).

     Anyway, after March the dollar has calmed down enough and followed only the normal for our country inflation of approximately 50% in an year and it was clear that it has nowhere else to jump, because the free market existed (via the change bureaus) and people have succeeded to spent their "totalitarian" levs — this was a natural process, something like the ripening of a purulent pimple, for example, which simply must mature in order to pass; suppressing this process was not clear where this could have conducted us. The red have succeeded to establish some speed of 2 to 3 times yearly impoverishment (taking into account the devaluation of our lev and the interest from government securities and deposits in the still left banks), what more or less ("awry-left", as we say) harnessed the situation; the people were to such extent dumbfounded by the big interests on their deposits and were not at all in condition to calculate how much they were losing, but there is nothing to be done, the capitalism requires capitals, so that they were to be gathered in the hands of richer ones, and the poor ones (who knows why?) had no desire to give willingly their money! Then, if we continue our analogy with the pimple, it might have really happen that one, walking in the yard, slips on a, I beg to be excused by the readers, fresh cow thing, and falling down sticks his hand with the pimple in it, after which wiping from the hand adhered to it "dirt" he, in fact, will smear better the pimple with this new "ointment". If on the second day after this happened that the pimple now heals, it is normal that even a clever man (more so our politicians) will imagine that this is the best medicine in such cases, isn't it?

     Till here it comes out that if the Board does not help us much, then it at least does not harm us. But this is not so because there emerges a third thing, which is also obvious — the Board exists, hence it "feeds" on something, and this, naturally, are the poor Bulgarian people. If we take that there are engaged only one-two thousand persons in it, where the half of them are, either foreign financiers, or receive salaries like for foreign financiers, this means that their salaries have to be somewhere between 1,000 and 5.000 US$, and if we take not the average but the minimal such salary as basis, then even a first-grader will calculate that a thousand by thousand makes a million green American dollars (not highly suffered Bulgarian levs, having shrunken not to centimes but to "millims"), and this each month and nobody knows for how long. So that the Board definitely harms, all the time!

     The fourth obvious thing, which also is not a plus, is that the Board is pure enslavement, because without its approval we not only can't execute our national financial policy, but are forced also to correct, as a number of financial standards, also quite many social and political aspects of our ruling (they might have not been ideal, but they now again will not be suitable for us). One politician, or large-scale ruler, can now not, so to say, go to the toilet, if he has not the consent of the Board. The latter becomes one additional big owner in the country, together with the state, or, as is often said, a state in the state, or rather a state over our state, and this owner begins now to buy everything that can be bought, for pennies, because when one has nothing to eat one sells literally everything out. The Board buys our banknotes, but it does not need them at all, so that it hurries to get rid of them buying shares in companies and banks, homes and buildings, machinery and equipment, because it works on its own business account, or works only for gain, like every other company! This, surely, will continue until it succeeds to convert our money in goods for itself, and/or Bulgarian money will become one small part it its assets. This, that the state is the biggest exploiter of the population, is known from the times of ancient Rome, or ever since the state exists as institution, but this should not arise whatever doubt at least in the people who have lived under the totalitarianism, where it was the only (and for that reason the biggest) exploiter; now emerges another one and superior owner — God help our people! And again, of course, the very Board is not to be blamed, because: who can accuse the cat that it eats mice? This is, saying it in Latin, in rerum natura, or in the course of the things.

     The fifth thing for everybody, who has lived at least five years of his conscious life in Bulgaria, and at least half an year in some normal Western country, is that the Board is simply not good for us in various aspects, because our, let us call it original, Bulgarian, view to the world and way of life rejects many Western settings and principles. As much as we try to enter in Europe we are, still, Orient (or, if you like, "hybrid" of Europe with the Orient). The clever people have long ago come to the conclusion that Europe ends where people begin to ... drink our (i.e. Eastern) boza, to say nothing about our tastes on coffee, bread, women, if you like, songs, and so on. For the Board, however, economic indicators are important, so that let us speak about them. When on the West they lessen some price this is done at least on 25% and normally on 50%, because otherwise nobody will buy the thing, where in Bulgaria the word "cheap" has directly magical effect (and, by the way, this word in Bulgarian sounds like 'evtino', we pronounce it like 'eftino', and I suppose that this is related with the Turkish kaif /keif /kief meaning ecstasy), but at the same time real diminishing of some price by 10-15% is a rare phenomenon, to say nothing about higher one. Although in Bulgaria the prices are around the Western ones, they, nevertheless, remain approximately two times lower than there (with the major exception of the prices on homes, which are as much high, if not even more, like those in the very center of Europe — in Vienna, for example). This is to be explained with our exceptionally low living standard under the democracy — not so low as in Albania, but, after all, our state begins not with the letter "a", but with the next one, so that it is normal to expect that we will be on the second place in poverty. The salaries by us are not a pair of times lower than in the normal Western countries, but somewhere in 30 to 50 times lower, and the Bulgarian works a whole month for less than one daily salary on the West.

     As a result of this happen, and will happen, various different market anachronisms; by us are sold, and will be sold, products with lowest possible quality in the region, people feed themselves with any kind of garbage, what makes it possible for the price of cat and dog food to reach the prices of white cheese (the main milk product in Bulgaria), and even higher; in Bulgaria does not exist, either open to the world market, or the old centrally ruled supply with goods, when people had at least accessible for all quantity — now, despite the relatively high quality of some products, the population massively consummates products with lower quality than in the times of our "Bai Tosho", and this on significantly higher (in proportion to the average working salary) prices.

     Naturally that, according to the Board, by us the situation should have been such, that, for example, a kilo of bread was equal in its price to a kilo of sugar, or like liter sunflower oil, or like two kilos rice, or even as much as half a kilo fresh sausages; that one ticket for the city transport costs as high as 8-10 eggs; that a kilo pineapple was equal to two kilos apples; that one egg was as half kilo of potatoes, and so on, but for the moment this is hardly achievable in Bulgaria and must exist also some additional control over the prices (like, e.g., different taxes on sheep and cow white cheese — because the cow one is not very tasty and is much of everyday type, or for the common folks in these hard times —, or lower prices on bread, etc.), what hinders the market. Our market has its specifics and the normal relationship, as it seems, must not differ much from that under the communist socialism in which we have lived (because on the West people have long ago built their socialism, though very often don't call it so), but this is not this relationship which the Board dictates us. On the background of this expensiveness for our people (but otherwise abnormally low in relation to Europe prices) the homes are unrealistically expensive for the conditions that they propose, for one thing, because they are not enough, and for another thing, because they are the only real matter in which people can invest their money, and which can't be stolen from them.

     As it was expected, the Board must have given somewhere a "crack" — not in sense that it is impossible to perform it, or to maintain, because we have up to such extent devalued as a nation, that now everyone can buy and sell us — but meaning that its existence does not lead to something very good for us! By one real inflation in Bulgaria of 50-60% in an year (or by 5% monthly) a bank interest of 5-6% yearly (not monthly) is as funny and ridiculous, as March temperatures in December, to give an example. The Board must have stopped the inflation of prices, but it just tied the lev to the German mark, though the prices continue to rise, and they will continue until they reach the prices from the times of "Bai Tosho" by the old basis of one totalitarian lev (tlv) equal to one US$ (98 tot. cents = 1 US$, if we want to be more precise).

     By the contemporary basis of 1,800 democratic levs (dlv) equal now to 1 US$, was necessary to expect that, for example: the bread has become 900 dlv for a kilo (the white bread after the last corrections of prices under "Bai Tosho", in order not to explicitly rise in its price, has remained again 40 cents, but has become 800 grams, what gives half a dollar for a kilo); the cow white cheese has reached 4,600 dlv, and the sheep one — 6,500 dlv; the good meat (pork and veal) — 9,000 to 10,000 dlv, and the mutton — about 5,000 dlv, then the chicken should have become about 5,000 dlv*, and the decent minced meat should has risen to 7,000 dlv (and this tendency surely will show itself when the people cease to hoard white cheese and begin to buy more meat — somewhere about October, November, probably); the sunflower oil must have to stop at about 2,000 dlv per liter; the sugar too, but it is not excluded that it remains for a long time below 1,500 dlv, because we have good own production; the rice, surely, has risen (and even surpassed) its ceiling of 1 German mark; the eggs are moving to their normal price of 220 dlv.; the potatoes must be 20-30 cents or about 500 dlv; the onion will even this winter reach 1,000 dlv and will stop; and so with other goods.

     There, where we have our own production, the prices must be derived from the totalitarian prices, and where they are established from abroad — based on the international prices (for example: bananas — 1 US$, coffee — from 4 to 5 US$, tea, black pepper and other spices — 7-10 US$ pro kilo, etc.), where the minimum of both variants is taken. It is true that we speak here generally about foodstuffs but according to the well known by us rule for sportsman, that "the result of wrestling is determined by the food", it turns out that everything follows the prices of common foods. The important thing is that the Board tied our lev, but did not tie the prices, i.e. has not stopped the inflation, as our people expected**. To say nothing about our bad luck in this that, after being used for decades when saying hard currency to understand US dollars, we have decided to tie us to a currency which had begun alone to devaluate with frightful speed, as if we succeeded to pull down with us also the German mark, as have done with our country.

     Under market regulated economy everyone must buy as much as possible, in order to create working places for the other people around him, but the Bulgarian, the poor he becomes, the more he economizes his money, so that the poor (in their way) merchants just wonder what to do in order to make the people buy, because, however demagogically this sounds, but they are those, on whom in the moment our economy lies, and they wholly deserve to be erected to them some monument (on the place of that of the "former" Soviet Army, for example — and why not, when it is so ornamented and defamed, how happened with many others, let us call them, "cultic" buildings?). Instead of this the folks spit on them from every side, and so they are just compelled to do something (well, due to the care for their pockets, surely, but the "point" is exactly in this, in a well maintained society — that everybody looks after his own interests, but from this all benefit!). They, naturally, have understood that the Bulgarian either buys expensive, or does not buy at all (the damned anxiety neurosis and ignorance of main market mechanisms) and are now ready to sell him everything thrice more expensive, just to make him buy, but it comes the Board and freezes bank interests, and the people, instead of to rush to buy what only they can (because: what need is for them of the left totalitarian levs, when wherever they keep them they only lose?), they begin to quieten and decide anew that the cheap is expensive for them and wait until the prices jump again up, for to hurry then to buy again. In other words, The Board is Board, but we are Bulgarians!

     The sixth, now not obvious thing, which again speaks bad about the Board, is that it enslaves us not only in the moment, but for the future, alike the rule, that who is born in serf family alone becomes a serf! I mean that the major part of money the Board will invest in various banks, and by this low interest percentage is supposed that, sooner or later, people will wish to take loans, but this loans are not given, say, on showing of diplomas or after making fair promises, but against mortgage of property***. In the normal countries is supposed, maybe, that at least 10% of the mortgaged property remains in favour of the banks, but by our "green" capitalism in the epoch of initial accumulation of capitals, I am afraid, this percentage will reach 30%. But even these citizens who will not be ruined (and companies, surely, but I think about personal property of the wide majority of tiny firms which sell something in their cellars and various corners of the streets, and make mortgage not on a second or third home, but on their family one), signing long-term loans, in fact, enslave their children to pay the money with future work! This is entirely real perspective, because this second state in our state is, indeed, a big owner on the market and we, want this or not, are bound to take it in consideration. (The economists will maybe protest to this and say that this is not really so, for the Board does not buy anything alone, but this is just another mistake, because the West has not gone mad to give us money for nothing and again nothing, i.e. someone buys our property and banks and so on. Hiding the concrete persons under the form of some association does not eliminate the consequences of their activity, but we are used to see some escape goats or a concrete state, which owns us, and if we can not show such objects we think that everything is in order. O, sancta simplicitas!)

     The seventh and last minus of applying the Board in Bulgaria is our attachment to other markets, or more precisely to those of highly developed industrial countries, to the "Great Seven" (or ten, or twenty, if you like), what is the intimate desire of the stronger on this world, a thing for which were led World War One and especially Two and were given millions of victims — by the simple reason that the stronger countries could have not come then to mutual agreement how to divide the world! It turns out that the thing was very simple, and was necessary only for the great powers to grow a little wiser, in order to apply in dividing of the world the principle of joint-stock company, where instead of having the whole Bulgaria in its real borders for one country, for example, to take only some ideal parts of it (there only the peasants by us think that ideal parts of something is a bad thing, but in the city not a owner of apartment in multi-storey building dreams to make a claim on a real part of the lift for him personally, or to raise the slogan "For every citizen his own lift!"). Attaching us to the German mark we do not become province of Germany, in territorial sense, because it is not known (and even if it was known then it is not of our concern) what is the German percentage in our Board, but who has to receive his dividends surely knows this.

     And mark that the bad thing for us is not just in this that we change one market for another one, though even if it was only this there would have been again problems while we become accustomed to the new situation, like, for example, when must be performed transition from moving on the streets on the left side to moving on the right one, because the transitional period is the most perilous (as we all must have been convinced in this for the recent years). In the given example there are no reasons for preferences, except the inertia and the habits, where in our case the market of the former Socialist Bloc, especially of contemporary Russia, differs radically from that of the developed Western countries, first of all in commensurability of the things. We and Russia were, and now also are, commensurable, not only as Slavonic countries, but as relatively similarly lagging behind in our development status, where we were even in more privileged position of better supplied country (due to our nearness to the center of Europe, where to we strive), and also less in its size and, consecutively, easily manageable. Whereas for the West we were and remain (especially in the last democratic years, where instead of to rise in its eyes we rather compromised ourselves) on a position of "poor relatives" (poor — obviously, and relatives — well, we are not Rwanda, after all).

     This does not mean that there can't be some useful symbiosis between ourselves and the West, but that it will be obviously (at least for the author) of lesser use, than if it was performed with some other commensurable with us nations, like: Russia (in the above-explained sense), Turkey (as our stronger neighbour, and also ethnically close for a substantial part of our population), the Arab countries (for which we were and remain a good connecting link with Europe, or if you want trampoline for them, and they are, contrary to us, not at all poor), the Far East (as equally aiming to the Western civilization countries, on a relatively equal productivity level, though they exceed us in many aspects, and equally exotic from the point of view of, say, USA), the European countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovaks, Macedonia, and others. But we have preferred, as in the saying about the frog and the buffalo, to heave the foot, for the Western "smiths" to nail us also a horseshoe, because their "horseshoe" is more lustrous! Well, they "horseshoed" us, but this will all the time draw us to the bottom, or to the "cellar" of European house, if you like it so better. We, definitely, will now not become agricultural appendage of the "Euro Reich", because in this dynamical times the things change very fast and nowadays agriculture turns to be ecologically the purest and accessible for development everywhere (even in the cosmos, as is said, and surely much easier in North Europe or America) activity, but we can quietly become its chemical and, generally, industrial appendage, and biological factory for white slaves! I don't state that the slavery is such a bad thing, because it has existed for millenniums on Earth, but, still, in another historical period and ... it's a pity that we were caught so easy — without any fight, but there is nothing to be done — the democracy requires victims!

     And the single plus (for us) from the Board is that, when we can not govern ourselves alone, we have found our "master", as we like to say. So that, it may occur that every cloud has a silver lining, and we may be, for one thing, white slaves, but at he same time are now democrats. Congratulations!

     August, 1997

     P.S. For your information, Hungary has only in 2001 allowed investments in foreign currency and legalized the money market, and for that reason they have no Board, neither needed one.







I. Ascertaining of the enslaved condition

as subordinated and degrading condition of compulsion to do this, what other states dictate us, not what we could have wished as a free nation. It must be noted that nowadays the slavery is significantly evolved in comparison with the time of pharaohs, for example, and is expressed mainly in economic compulsion, but as far as the capitalism is power of capitals, then also the compulsion is proper to be only economic, or such that in the end enhances our economic dependence. Despite the fact that this dependence is not always perceivable it existed and is something like the remote control in electronics, yet this does not make it weaker, just more concealed and, therefore, more treacherous! But let us list the most important features of this enslavement:

     1. The external economic enslavement

is expressed chiefly via the foreign debt of the country, which must be now somewhere about 1,500 US$ per capita (when it goes about several times the exact calculations can only disorient us). It has not grown absolutely more than on 35% in foreign currency in the democratic years, but taking into account that in the last totalitarian years one minimal monthly salary (MMS) was roughly 200 US$ (not only according to the official rate, but also in relation to its purchasing power, or measured with some consumer basket), and the average salary was about 350-400 US$ (and a working person could definitely buy himself, for example, a whole ton of milk with his monthly salary, if only he wanted), and under all of the last Governments MMS has varied about 25-30 US$, and the average — between 60 and 80, then this shows lessening of about seven times of our ability of paying out our foreign debt by the transition to democracy (i.e. before it was about 1,000 US$ per capita or roughly 3 averaged working salaries, and now it is nearly 2 yearly salaries).

     2. The internal economic enslavement

is expressed in possession of property in our country by foreign people and organizations. The so called inflow of capitals by us, naturally, is expression of enhanced economic dependence, but here it does not go about small sums or percentages of our national wealth so that to discuss the point, and when you give everything valuable what you have in order just to survive, this is pure enslavement. In the first half of 20th century the well developed industrial countries have led devastating wars for to divide between themselves the influence over the lagging behind countries; they were then quite "silly" for to reach agreement as gentlemen and have resorted to the ultima ratio (or the last means), though they have preferred that the others "pulled the chestnuts out of the fire". Now the Great Seven (or how many they are there) have simply decided to apply to the dividing of the world the principle of joint-stock company and have built various international financial institutions, where they can invest their free and not used in the moment capitals, and with their use to buy "ideal parts" of many, left much behind themselves, countries. Even if we also have some advantages of their help they have much more advantages (political, and from here also economic, and the peacekeeping forces of United Nations cost much money), but this does not change the fact that we are bought, and, hence, enslaved. All foreign capitals in Bulgaria mean export of capitals from us across the border, not only influx (initially).

     3. The choice of incommensurable with us master

is the next characteristic of this enslavement. Here it goes about changing of Russophilic trends in Bulgaria with Russophobic, what could have been questionable thing if we were Eskimos, for example, but as far as we are Slavs it is logical to choose for us Slavonic "center of rotation" (or "bigger brother" if you want). When we wished so much to run away from the "gravitation" of the Russians, then why have we not adhered to the Czechs (which were leading country in Europe before World War Two and now are again manifesting themselves as such, and, besides, they are also Slavs and Cyril and Methodius in their time have gone from our lands and come exactly in theirs); or, if the ethnical side is not so important, then to the Turks or the Arabs, because they also, like us, want to enter in Europe, only that they are much wealthy than we are, but in recompense for this we live in Europe, so that we have common interests (and in addition to this by us approximately 20% are ethnical Turks and roughly as much are Gypsies and such orientation would have been quite natural)?

     Anyway, it is clear that such small country like Bulgaria can't be entirely independent from the others and must turn around some greater power, but it is very important that there existed some commensurability with the master, in order, figuratively speaking, to can sit down with him at one table, and in the time of Russian "domination" of our country only by us from all socialist countries were not placed Russian army troops, and the whole Russian population considered us as "utmost their" people. As in one team of horses the most discontented are the stronger and faster horses (because they are who do the major work), and most of all gain the smaller and weaker horses, so also from the socialist "horse team" we only gained! At the same time now, however politely behaved toward us, the Americans, Germans, French, and so on, their relations to us can be only such of a patron to patronized person, and these are relations of cultured slave owners to their slaves, or, if you like it better so, of caring master to his cattle — they will feed us, and water us, and entertain us with various contemporary media, and will give us all their old things (still working but obsolescent for them), because it is a pity and not Christian to throw something useful away to the garbage (where to give it to some pauper is another thing — in this way one can at least earn some indulgence for the afterlife), and will give us present-day technologies for to make it possible to develop our chemical industry and other harmful branches, and will help us even in the nuclear energy (because when something happened by us the wind asks nobody whereto to blow), and will also beat their breasts and trumpet that they do this only out of sincere love to democracy. Never, though, will they accept us as brothers (and be it as bigger brother to the younger one — why not, when it was really so?). Albeit more backward in regard of living standard than United States, for example, Russia is, still, great empire, which is respected by this very US, but for us now this isn't so and we prefer (in our foolishness, for there is no other explanation) to be slaves, instead of to sit at one table with the Russians (what does not necessarily mean that we must "gulp their broth", because we can alone mix our own concoction).

     4. The selective emigration

of most capable and pushy part of our youth in the developed Western countries, the so called "brain drain", is the next point in our examination. While in totalitarian times there were much talks about this but it was not mass phenomenon, nowadays there is not much noise but roughly half a million Bulgarians (out of less than 8 mln), mainly young, are permanently (more than 10 months in an year) out of Bulgaria. Gathering of the elite or "cream" of a nation is guarantied method for placing it in dependence on others, and the fact that the "cream" only gains by this does not mean that the country does not lose! All programs for help in the science and education in our country on the part of the West are directed to attracting of young and talented Bulgarians to their countries, what, under the situation that our living standard now is 30 to 50 times lower than by them, means that at least 3/4 of them will afterwards emigrate in the developed countries, and those who return, if they are still in reproductive age (and if they are older than 35 then the West, as a rule, does not accept them, neither for study, nor for emigration), leave there their offspring. In a sense this means that we are becoming, so to say, factory for genetic material for the developed countries, what is even worse than the enichars in times of Ottoman Rule (young boys taken to be trained for soldiers), because then were taken only very young boys (for them to be easy to forget pretty soon their parents and serve faithfully the new masters, a thing, which by the exceedingly high mortality rate in that times, was accepted as natural disaster), while now emigrate already brought up and of full age citizens, in the interval of 18 to 25 years, when their parents can not thing about more children, and the state has, in one or another degree, taken care for them and has all reasons to require some repayment of the investment.

     5. The tragically low living standard

is the next moment that in maximally direct way supports the increase of economic enslavement. However bad we have lived earlier we have never reached such, worse than "African", level of living standard, and our minimal salary has not fallen below 80-100 US$ in month, while now we have reached even to the curiosities of less than 20 dollars. It is clear that when it goes about survival we are ready to kiss hand (or whatever they give us), only to secure our everyday bread, but exactly by such low standard of life comes the most dangerous and long lasting slavery. More than this, when the state deducts taxes from people with tragically low incomes, then it can't find anything (or finds almost nothing) for the traditional state sectors like: education, healthcare, army, forces for keeping of internal order, strategic sectors, sciences, unprofitable but needed industry, even agriculture (because who has some arable land he does not work it, or sows only for himself, and who has no land he has nothing to cultivate). The poor person can be bought by everybody and exactly in this way the Board has bought us, where the irony of the situation is in this, that we even have begged it on our knees.

     6. The adoration of everything foreign

(also called xenomania), is by itself expression of obvious discontent of the individual from the environment in which he is placed, but this is also another sign of enslavement, because there is no slave who is contented with his situation and will not be from the "others". As a small state we have often tried to accept something from abroad, but, having in mind that we have given the world Slavonic alphabet, to fall so low not to want to buy, were it clothing, we it even toothpaste, if it is labeled in Bulgarian, and to fill our language with a heap of foreign words, just because they are foreign (not because they are better than our Bulgarian ones, and, you may bet, not because we are much cultured, when very often write them with Bulgarian letters), leads to gradual assimilation! And by this I don't at all think that the major contribution of Cyril and Methodius was in the devising of the alphabet (because this is just some symbolic, combination of Greek and Latin letters, a thing which even hinders communications in present days), but in the preservation of Bulgarian spirituality; neither am I speaking against foreign languages, just against the spiritual enslavement of our country. It may be silly to be proud with everything ours only because it is ours, but this is at least natural, where to be ashamed of everything ours (again by the same reason) means reconciliation with the slavery.

II. Causes for the enslavement of Bulgaria by the developed countries

     It must be obvious that the enslavement (without any reasons for this) became possible only through the fault of our transition to democracy! First of all, out of reasons of general character, is clear that, as by the people, so also by the states, are possible two ultimate conditions in regard of the freedom — one is the whole independence of the others (or anarchy), and the other is total dependence of the stronger (or dictatorship). But this implies the evident conclusion that under the utmost freedom of personality (respectively, of state) reveals himself only the stronger one (in one or other aspect), where under the dictatorship the more stronger suffer at the expenses of the weaker ones, what may not be quite correct (right recht, etc.), but, in recompense, is justified (different, left, i.e. what remains besides the right — such is the etymology of these words and it is good to remind it, because in Bulgarian it is not like in the other languages — for us the right side is called "djasna", and the right things are "pravi" or "pravilni", i.e. the roots are different)! But the weak people (or states) have also their right of existence (because the diversity is the most precious thing in our world, which makes it interesting). So that it was clear (and this was proved) that from the former Socialist Bloc Bulgaria, above all, has gained, while now we, generally, lose, due to the fierce competition with the other countries.

     But let us look at the reasons more profound and divide them in: internal and external, and also in objective and subjective, as it was done for many centuries. The external causes are these, which are outside of our country, and, naturally, we can consider as external objective reasons this, what is out of the abilities of people, i.e. some natural disasters like spontaneous conflagrations (as in Australia, for example), or earthquakes (as in Japan, for example), or landslides and floods (as in China), or stories like in Chernobyl, or such droughts where for 3-4 years in succession does not fall a drop of water (like in some regions of Africa), and similar things. It is clear that nothing of the kind has befallen our heads (except some industrial accidents, due to incompetence of the management and grown old equipment, but even they have not exceeded ten human victims). We live, really, in a blessed by God corner, which, however, have succeeded for the initial democratic years ruin to such an extent, that maybe now even God could not succeed to help us more! The next causes are external subjective, i.e. some foreign enemy, some country has declared war to us, or at least has intended to do this — but then it must have been mad, for in such case it should have been obliged also to feed us!

     What regards the internal objective causes, then these could have been some civil wars (as in our western neighbours, for example), but even this has not happened in Bulgaria (thank God!), maybe because we are peaceful people and by us still existed one good (although defeatist) saying that "the bent head is not cut by the sword". Be it as it may, but the national question, about which was much noise in its time, has passed away peacefully and quietly, and this, that some people have panicked — well, there is, generally, nothing good in the panic —, and quite many Bulgarian citizens have left our country — well, but in the recent years much more Bulgarians have done the same. There remained only the internal subjective causes, i.e. that some evil dictator or gone crazy monarch has remained for so long on the throne that he was not to be moved from it "even with a cannonball" — yes, but no, because for the last democratic years we have changed whatnot governments, have tried also with caretaker ones, and without governments at all, but the damned governmental cart still does not move properly! We have not changed before his term only the President (well, we tried it in the beginning of 1997, yet he did not want to leave the post), but this is because we have given him such "feeble" powers, that he can only rename some street or other.

     And, for to finish with the causes, let us give one more argument — the comparison with the others ex-communist countries, as our brothers in destiny. If we look around us in Europe we will see that in the given moment we live as if worse even than the Russians, who, roughly 30 times more than us, must be also very difficult to be governed, but it is not exactly so. And about the other European countries like Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, and so on, there is no need to speak, but well, let us leave them — they at least are nearer to the "navel" of Europe (to Vienna). So or otherwise, but for the moment we are on the second place in poverty after Albania (in what there is some reason, for they are before us in alphabetical order, right?). As it happens in practice, the free democratic development of Bulgaria is mainly harmful for us and will be such until does not emerge some stronger (dictatorial) structure, that will unite the weaker strata of population and support them. But mark: not structures in which leading role play wealthy and developed Western countries but vice versa! While we try blindly to enter in Europe we will continue to stay at the end, and when we enter then will only confirm our outsider position**.

III. The way out is possible

only through actions in the opposite direction, i.e. via strengthening of the dictatorial principle in governing of the country. It is worth to remind you that the truth (already since the times of Ancient Greece) is somewhere in the middle, and to speak about pure dictatorship or democracy is at least naive and childish. Neither our totalitarian ruling, especially after the 60ies of this century, was genuine dictatorship, nor our contemporary situation is pure democracy, so that the question is not in the name — it usually is one-sided — but in the core of the things, and the very existence of Presidential institution is already expression of dictatorial elements. Maximally pure democracy has existed in Ancient Greece and for this reason it has not lasted very long and was changed with dictatorship (called then tyranny), so that the changing was performed in the time; generally speaking, when one can not find the middle point in a given aspect, then he willy-nilly, finds it, but swaying to the ends, so that, averaged in the time, arises illusion of the middle point! The contemporary democracies, since a pair of centuries in England, and now all around the world, reach this compromise via combining of incompatible things, i.e. of dictatorship with monarchy or with Presidency (where the President is an easily changeable Monarch). And let us stress that the democracy is ruling of people (with all their human shortcomings), but chosen between the whole nation, i.e. just the pool (and you know that this means also a puddle) is enlarged. And let us also not forget that the democracy in ancient Athens was introduced precisely by the Tyrant (such was the title of rulers in those days) Pisistratus, what means that it is advantageous for the rulers, too!

     In other words, if in the moment in Bulgaria is more advantageous to strengthen the dictatorship, than there is nothing bad in this, because the talks about democracy have started from the stronger Western countries for to weaken us and make us easy prey for them and they have already done this, so that if we can counteract somehow to this tendency, it is to be done through its contrary one. Depending on the strength of this impact, which is, generally, in direct proportion with the speed of changes and in inverse one with the quietness in the country, are possible the following variants:

     1. Gradual "bringing to reason" of the system population-politicians

     Let us first clarify that it is accurate to look at the people and their politicians as a system (something like the egg and hen), where each of both parts shows influence on the other, because, as says one Latin proverb: silly people — weak state! This method is the slowest and it can continue for centuries (and it continues, because there is not a state on the West where its politicians were this, what they are bound to be, and in which have not happened, from time to time, various muddles, or in which the democracy has not been fiercely criticized by its eminent personalities). Some success in this regard is seen even in our country, where approximately 1/4 of the population does not vote, but this is the normal situation in other countries, and as far as we are not from the "normal" ones then everything normal is not very normal for us, and in order to become such is necessary for this percentage to reach the half*** of all voters! Slowly and gradually our people see that the democracy is something like football match, for example, and if you like it then you can watch it, but if you are sure that it will be the same boredom like the last time then it is not worth trying to attend to it.

     Little by little the politicians also in Bulgaria begin to differ mainly by the ties and colour of the shirts (as on the West) and not by something radical in their platforms, but the bad thing by us is that there show up primarily the drawbacks of democratic system (first of all that many people hardly can take reasonable solution). Putting it otherwise, the democracy is maximally ineffective form of ruling and the meaning of its application is mainly in providing spectacles or shows for the people, not in this to really perform some governing (where in each Ministry, besides the politicians, exist also persons who do the needed work), but when the survival of a nation with 13 centuries of history is at risk is necessary to leave the shows and do the work, for to be possible for all rulers to draw the state's chariot in one direction (preferably the right one), not whereto each one desires. So that, instead of to try to bring the people to ballot boxes, it is better (and exactly that is the reason why this is not done, because it is more correct so!?) to leave the people not to vote when they see no sense in this, for the politician is like every actor, he can not play on a empty scene! In other word: if we want to support Bulgarian democracy we must be against it, and this is not a demagogy but the natural course of evolution of the things, and that is the reason for the existence of opposition — in the counteracting of the ruling parties. Only that here we are speaking about contradiction to the whole ruling system****, when exactly it is that "skids"!

     2. Strengthening of the Presidential institution

     This is a matter of legal settings and presents stronger social impact in the right direction, but, as if for the moment, nobody in Bulgaria gives a thought to similar decision, and with each flowing year it becomes more important. The division of powers and the requirement for not more than two Presidential mandates is quite sufficient in order to secure us from the other extremity, out of which we run, as is said, like "devil from incense". It is not so important how the President is being chosen, will he have blue blood (or dress in blue shirt, for example — what is allusion to our blue UDF, Union of Democratic Forces), the important thing is that he personified the dictatorial principle in government, that he looked like patriarch of father of the nation (well, it might also be like mother, if she happened to be women), that he was allowed to dissolve the Talking Shop, I beg your pardon, the Parliament, and appoint new elections when he shows a desire, as also to set tasks for it and deadlines for executing, that he has right of veto on each decision of the State Assembly (Bulgarian Parliament) when sees it necessary (and not just once but many times), that he was consolidating personality with big experience of life, not in youthful age (he is not, in the end, neither sportsmen, no wunderkind, no Christ, to be in his age), and so on. The powers of our President are such, that he is more symbolical figure than the Queen of England in the past century, only that then existed by them also House of Lords, who were neither without rights, nor incompetent, and who watched that the "plebs" have done no harm about which later all would regret. In short: the democracy is a good thing, but without centralization there is no go!

     3. Military coup

     This is the roughest impact in this direction, but when the democracy does not take necessary measures (the former point) and the population turns to be very weak (the first point), then the only remaining way for strengthening of the dictatorial principle in democracy happens to be the very dictatorship. This would have been not very surprising in our conditions, because our people are used to extreme forms of action (like shocking therapy, for example), but it is wrong to think that each dictator is a wicked evildoer, like the serpent from the fairy tales, because such person will not be in position to rule for a long time. Most often the dictators are fanatics of a given idea, which is supported by a significant part of the nation and if the historical moment requires brute force instead of empty debates, and if the masses are pretty intemperate for to search a compromise solution, then they support in their souls each dictator! The cruelty of dictatorships comes out usually of the very population, not of the dictator, and in addition to this, condemning the dictatorship, we must not forget that the reason of big cruelty is in this to prevent people from necessity of bigger cruelties! Each power has to be respected for its strength, otherwise there is no meaning in its existence, so that it is logical when one does not respect it to suffer from this, more so because the dictatorship comes after the condition when the democracy has proved to be incapable to cope with the situation (and it has happened exactly so till now in the human history). In relation with this I would have even said that the main advantage of the democracy is in this, that only it can convince the masses that there is something good in the dictatorship, likewise as the main advantage of the dictatorship is in this, that it succeeds to make people believe that there is something good in the democracy! For the born approximately before 1960, who are able to compare both variants, the above statement must be conscious (but, maybe, not expressed in words).

     And let us one more time repeat, that who can not find the middle point in some aspect, then he again finds it, but in result of many fluctuations and averaged in the time, because, as states one Shopp's (around our capital Sofia) wisdom: "What is needed, it requires itself"! The difference is only in the social price of the transition (or the peacefulness in the country).

In conclusion

If we come back to the initial idea about the economic enslavement of Bulgaria by the wealthy Western countries without any reasons for this, except the democratic delirium of our folks, and if we want to stick to the reasonable middle point, is necessary to remark that the slavery has also its good features, especially if the masters are civilized people or simply good hosts, because they will care for us, look that we were satiated and did not rebel, and in this world the stronger always keeps the weaker subordinated, and that this is one natural process, something like the ailing or growing old, no matter whether we like it or not. ... Only that we will not be free, and in such cases is accustomed that one fights and overcomes — the illnesses, and the stronger masters — because the freedom is so sweet a thing (as people have understood long before that moment when Don Quixote from La Mancha has indicated it to them)! Otherwise our assimilation has already begun: via emigration, via ethnical increasing of "swarthy Bulgarians" (i.e. Gypsies, because the educated is rarely born and more difficultly brought up), via mixed marriages with Western people, so that the Bulgarians in Bulgaria progressively decrease in number.

     Naturally, any prognoses for longer period ahead are perilous, because nobody knows how long the existing tendencies will remain unchanged, but if we rely only on the first way out of the situation it is entirely possible that after about 10 to 20 years the citizens of Bulgaria will stop somewhere around five millions, out of which ethnical Bulgarians will be roughly two millions, and also about two millions Bulgarians in nationality will live outside the borders (where for half a century more they will come from time to time as guests to us). It is true that the humans on the globe have become so many nowadays that any reduction in their number will have only beneficial effect in global for the planet scope, but, still, the question is: why exactly we should do this when we are so few? And is it necessary, when our state has existed for so many centuries, and we have sustained so many foreign invasions, to surrender us so easy and exactly now, when there are no other reasonable causes for this, except that the wealthy western counties have changed the policy of the "stick" to that of the "carrot" (according the well known saying)? And, anyway, instead of only to speak about democracy (which is just a matter of legal settings and which existed by us for seven years), isn't it better to restore our stable state, which we had during the totalitarianism?***** Otherwise we will remain slaves, no matter that our distanced economic chains are not to be seen, because slave is who fulfills everything that his master tells him to do (and not who, just for example, has less lions — which are our symbols, they are present in out state coat of arms — on the lapel), and other countries will "collect our offspring", when it reaches maturity!

     October 1997









1. I thank to UDF so much,

That pushed they us just in the mud,

because, if in general each change is dangerous, then the most dangerous is the hasty one, and if there existed exceptions of this rule, then these are such cases where the transitional period is very painful but after it we expect happy "paradisiacal" live (like, for example, when we have toothache and the aching toot must be taken away). Only that by us neither the process of transition proved to be shorter than some reasonable transition, nor the "paradisiacal" live has already come, when our average level is still roughly 7-8 times lower than what we had in the times of our totalitarian leader "Bai Tosho", and if there is a question on which all political powers have consensus then this is the thesis that under the totalitarianism was bad (in fact, if we give credence to UDF that there is nothing worse than the communism, then it comes out that the democracy is the utterly worst thing, at least for Bulgaria — from what follows that "the devil is not so black as they paint him", or that one should not believe to what UDF says, or, eventually, both things). Besides, about to the question of living in the paradise may be argued, be it because the notion "paradise" is not less utopian than the communism, be it because, if the democracy was the best thing on the world for all times and countries, it is not clear why we should have waited whole 25 centuries for to it come to us from Ancient Greece, when we are their immediate neighbours.

     However it is, though, our people patiently endure shock after shock: be it in prices; be it of loose moral; be it of unpunished crime; be it of paid education of healthcare; be it on the question about possibility for personal enrichment on the background of poverty-stricken population; be it that selling us to wealthy Western countries we will have greater gain than if we associate with nations of similar with our affluence in economic aspect and/or with alike languages; be it because it is better, as our writer Ivan Vasov has put it, "to go wander in countries foreign"; be it the most heavy shock — of meaningless life, because the personal enrichment has never been something especially worthy for the generations, except for some eminent UDF ideologists; and so on. And it happened so that, after we have long ago "reached the bottom", we continue to dig deeper and deeper, "dumbfounded" by the myth about democratic paradise and having lost every orientation! But one does not know what is better for him until it does not happen even worse, for what I, with all my heart, thank UDF!

2. To UDF my adulations,

That made us fools before all nations,

because if earlier all countries of the former Socialist Bloc were with more or less similar standard and hardly someone could have supposed that, at least in economic regard (i.e. judging by the devaluation of our lev) we will turn out to be approximately 1,200 (one thousand and two hundred) times worse, and not the Germans, or Americans, or Frenchman, etc., but the Czechs, who are also Slavs as us and the brothers Cyril and Methodius starting from our lands have gone directly to theirs, and they were forced first to solve some national differences, but they have "divorced" so civilized, that even the Western democracies have taken their hats off to them, while in Bulgaria (thanks to the UDF, of course) the term socialist (and if you like read it like "communist") still sounds obscene, though people all over the world more than 20 years now (at last) have understood that bad are not the communists, but the conditions which have brought them to power, i.e. the capitalism, and have engaged themselves (much earlier) to reform it, because, wish we this or not, but the "ghost" of communism has gone around the entire world and for long time the socialism is reality on the West, only they don't call it so.

     If the question was only in the moral aspect, i.e. what meaning put UDF-ists in the notion communist or socialist — OK, this is only human (saying that their human malice makes its way out) and maybe they are not to be blamed, for they don't know what are speaking and doing, but they simply have decided that when it is difficult to converge the communism to contemporary capitalism, then they can just return us back in the time! And they succeeded! No normal person, when he decides to raise a new home, does pull down the old one not having at least a plan for the new, and having not provided himself with "temporary home", where we destroyed everything: governing of the country, trade unions, army, forces for maintaining of internal order, education system, healthcare, church, our relations with other countries, morality of the folks, and what else not, and continue to live "in tents".

     Our democratic revolution, since our people fell in "delirium democraticus", under the influence of prominent dissidents (i.e. people who have not sat themselves well, judging by the Latin origin of this world) and pop singers (maybe because the scenes for singers and for politicians are similar, were just the "show" good and brought it heaps of money), was performed according the plan of rural feudal revolts of Middle Ages — it was necessary to pull the king down, but who will take his place, we will think later. It was important to create chaos, and the order will come alone by itself; it was necessary to muddle the water, for to catch the tiny fishes (and the bigger, too). But if there were not our UDF the world would have never seen to what extent unorganized we are, nor our people could have perceived how bad a thing can the democracy be, and for all this I most enthusiastically thank them!

3. And UDF reached funny goal,

It sold for nothing us at all,

because, if there was necessary sometime to fix the rate of our lev (for it turned out that the free market is a good thing, just not for our lev), then it was hardly necessary to do this exactly when we have become so poor that there was nowhere more, and has begun never heard of before in human history thing: when our humble currency defeated the US dollar and it fell down whole two times, after the moment when, as a result of massive UDF demonstrations in January 1997 for national ruination, called, exactly for this reason (?), meetings for "national salvation", it has reached absolutely unreal prices — inasmuch as each currency is a kind of "mint" (what the English speaking readers know quite well via their two meanings of this word) and its price depends first of all on the confidence in it, and what confidence can one have to a country where live people who can not sleep quiet if, either not set fire to some public building or other, or at least not smash a pair of windows on it (for there were left no more monuments for "repainting")?

     So that, if, therefore, we should have sold ourselves at all, then it was hardly necessary to wait until our democratic lev has shrunken, even not to cents (one hundredth of a normal monetary unit), but to have become as "millims" (one thousandth, or one milli-German-mark — but in Bulgarian "milinki" are a kind of small buns baked in a bunch), and only then to call the "auction", because the Money Board is just selling out of Bulgaria to wealthy Western countries, joined in international financial institutions but on the principle of joint-stock company — i.e. where the profit is divided according to the invested money, and it doesn't matter which exactly part of Bulgaria is already possession of USA, which of Germany, which of Canada, and so on (in the same way as when one pays rent for a flat in a multi-storey building, or buys it, he is not interested which exactly part of the elevator is his own and can he fit in it). Something more, this was such a deal for which the currency was not paid in full, it was only promised to be paid if there will be necessity of this, because this Board, by God, has no need for our money (neither is it a charity organization) and now it (i.e. the Western capitals which stay behind it) simply changes them, buying where finds some cheaper company, house, piece of land, et cetera.

     As a result of this we are in the moment better only than Albania, but this is not clear how long will last, because since the Board has fixed our poverty on a less than one US dollar as minimal daily payment we have not big chances to "shine" with something good (now we are not more in condition to "beat" the dollar, for example, due to the fact that this is not allowed to us, else we could have done it long ago, by these low prices — compared with the international — of many basic foodstuff and other products) and it happened so that at the moment we are moving from poverty to misery, what we call democracy! It is very easy to say that the communists have taken abroad all the money and ruined Bulgaria, and "Bai Tosho" has made our debts, but if one tries to scratch a little his head it is possible to "scratch out" the thought that our external debt under the totalitarianism amounted, in fact, to approximately three average for the country salaries (about 1,000 US$ per capita, by nearly 350 US$ average salary, because then one lev was equal to one US dollar — to 98 US cents, if we want to be more precise — and this was true, if we compare it with the prices on bread, milk, meat, transport, housing, etc, or with some consumer basket, how it is done), and now it has reached 25 (twenty five) average salaries (about 2,000 US$ by average salary of 70-80 US$), or it has grown roughly eight times for less than eight democratic years!

     Not one of the many tiny private companies (where work less than 10 workers and it has less than, say, hundred thousand dollars actives) were built with democratic money and not with "totalitarian" (the other bigger companies, with the exception of left here and there state ones, are now foreign ownership). Neither the socialists wanted that we turned our backs to the single Slavonic great power (because if Russia was not a great power, and this according to the West, the latter had never have changed the policy of the "whip" with that of the "carrot", as the English put it). But then, if there were not the UDF, our people could have never come to the thought that we can become so poor as we are now (I have in mind Bulgarian possession, not such that is in Bulgaria but is not ours), and grasp how bad it is when "you have not a cow but want to drink milk", and are left with the only possibility to "stay and look" (according to one our proverb), so that I thankfully genuflect before the UDF!

4. So after UDF has won,

Morality by us has gone,

because there are two things which make out of a group of people inhabiting one and the same territory a nation and these are uniting in two aspects: in the space, i.e. the commonality of interests between all of them, independently of the differences on whatever parameters, the feeling that one lives not only for himself and for his personal benefits, the feeling about the other one close to him, on whom he can rely to do some work for him, not only to deceive him being a big swindler, the consciousness of national unison (not of ownership, for example), the wish to make our country a better place to live in, not just to look at the foreign possessions (goods, social structures, habits, etc.), for they will always remain foreign, in general, the wish to do something good in the relations between people, not bad one, not to spit on the others and contempt persons thinking otherwise (or just thinking about the others); and also uniting in the time, i.e. the consciousness that the human is just a fiber in the canvas of history, that life has existed before him and will exist after him, no matter whether we will call this rebirth, afterlife, bright future, or with other names, but this will be our own future and we must learn how to live in it and for it, it must give purpose to many "meaningless", from the point of view of the current moment, deeds and join the generations, not oppose them and divide, in short — must create one dynamical structure, standing on the already reached, not denying it entirely (for the reason that, in his narrow-mindedness, he can not understand its meaning)!

     Without such unity can't exist a nation but only some gang, herd, or flock, where each one looks just how to "fill his gizzard" or to cheat his neighbour, while the development of personality is guarantied better when it is in the interest of society, not on the contrary. And this can't be reached without some ideals, i.e. without something nice but unattainable, because if an ideal can be realized then this means that it is not really ideal, it ceases to be more ideal! Such are the ideals of equality (when the very God has made us different then we can not be equal, else we could have been no humans but robots or clonings, what, however, does not mean that we should not create equal opportunities for expression), of freedom (the absolute freedom is not only a fiction, but it is contradiction in the definition, because it hinders the others around us, so that the freedom is just one permanently changing point of equilibrium between our wishes and those of the others), of brotherhood (it is not only impossible, but also wide away from the best, because the closer are the links between given persons, the deeper are the contradiction between them), and so on. But without ideals one can not live, because, as far as he is not God, he must have before himself goals, in order to know where to move. And at the same time the UDF has just taken our human ideals of thousand of years ago, substituting them with some, not invented, but imported from the West, notion about democracy, which neither is, nor can someday become an ideal, by the simple reason that it is reality — in a sense that in Bulgaria we have democracy since at least 1991, and this by the acknowledgement of the very West, for this is a matter of legal settings!

     If we want to be accurate, then we have had some kind of democracy even under the totalitarianism, but not in the contemporary meaning of this notion, although, as far as everything in the world is a matter of finding of equilibrium in every moment, we may argue a long time about the point, was it the best one for our country — we can argue, but not prove, at least because we have not had the so called "control group", i.e. there were not two Bulgarias — one really democratic, and one "totalitarianly-democratic" —, for to were able to decide where people have lived better! But we can still see (well, if we can do this, of course), that under our democracy, at least for the moment, we live worse, and this not because some natural disaster has befallen us, or some other country has declared us war, or a civil war has broken (as it happened in other post-totalitarian countries), or some incapable dictator has sat for a long time on the throne (the truth is even such that not a Government has led till the end its mandate), or then, in the end, we have come to the democracy after devastating wars and national catastrophes (as it was when we have started to move to the socialism), not after prolonged period of the so called "stagnation" (i.e. peaceful and happy development) and with quite normal foreign debt of three monthly salaries per capita.

     This, that some people in Bulgaria don't like our democracy and say that it is not yet "real" democracy, is like the crying of a small child, when his (or her) mother spanks him for some bad behaviour and he yammers that then she is not more his mother, not because she is not such but because she in not good to him, according to his understanding, and, hence, she can't be his mother for a mother is always good. But who has said that the one thing is necessary related with the other? So, and to our question: if we do not like our democracy, then this is because we can not yet find the suitable for us democratic form of governing, due to the fact that the imposed to us by the West is not good for our country as a whole (and in addition to this it is not appropriate also for the individual). In any case: democracy we already have, but stating of this fact is not profitable for UDF, because if this is so, then this Union is not at all necessary in our political life. All parties in Bulgaria aspire for some democratic form of governing (even if in their names the root "demo" is not explicitly present), and this, what we now do not have more, are ideals and living goals, amalgamating us in a single unit, because we have forgotten the fable about Khan Kubrat and the bundle of sticks, have forgotten the slogan written above our National Assembly ("In the unity is the power"), have forgotten everything except how to beat our breasts and cry aloud that we are democrats!

     And something more: if we take for granted that the socialism, and the fascism, and the communism, and the capitalism of past century (or the end of this 20th, if it comes about Bulgaria), and the present-day capitalism (because it, anyway, has drawn its conclusions, from the great economic crisis having begun in 1929, and from the World Wars One and Two, and from the existence of the world Socialist System and its victory on the stage of peaceful coexistence, despite of its disintegration as outlived its time but having bettered the capitalism, for if it were not so the wealthy Western countries would have never lent us a hand, or would have not changed the policy of embargo and cold war, or the "whip" about which we have spoken) are all different forms of capitalism, then it was obviously very unwise to move from the pole of centralized state economy at once to the other pole — that of the fragmented and small private property — only to become convinced that the power is in the joining of capitals, or that it is impossible to have capitalism without capitals, and when they are not enough (for it is not necessary to be economist in order to know that we are small, poor, and, due to its position at the crossroads of different paths, often plundered country) then the solution is only in diminishing of the number of owners! We as if have understood this (let us hope so), but after we have sold ourselves off to the foreign capital and have ruined everything what was possible to ruin, including the morality of the nation, but then: how else we could have learned this, if there was not the UDF to make us do so many foolish things in one go, for what I with my whole conviction give my thanks to it!

     Let remain and survive in people's memory the name and deeds (if not as good example, then at least for edification) of UDF, JDF (Joined Democratic Forces), BDF (Bulgarian Democratic Forces, maybe?), FDF (Friendly Democratic Forces, I suppose?), and what else succeeds them! Let every evil be for good, as our folks say and (help God) we become wiser at last, because when God will punish somebody He first takes away his reason! In the end, it is well known from ancient times that there is nothing new under the Sun and the world has always moved forward because of the collision of good and evil, and then (if we wish to be just) the evil is equally necessary for our future movement to the good, so that let us give our thanks to UDF for this, that it teaches us what is bad and what we must not do, if we wish to be good!

     Because the good people are not our followers, but just those who think first about the others and then about themselves; those who are glad when the others are glad, not when they alone benefit in detriment of the others around them; those who know that life is unjust and exactly for this reason it has to be done just; who know that right is not the stronger (he, in fact, is not at all right, he is just strong) but the weaker, and even the stronger (when he is strong) must work for the weaker, not vice versa, and that our world is sufficiently complicated for to allow to each one to look only at himself without taking the others in consideration (then he simply does not think about his future). It does not matter whether one comes to these truths by the way of belief or by the way of judgement — the important thing is for the person to be good! Otherwise we not only lose ourselves as nation (though with 13 century of history), but in addition to this must again return to the socialism, yet this time as slaves of the wealthy countries! Because, want we this or not, but the future belongs to the socialism, and the democracy is only an instrument for reaching of this goal!

The world can not ahead proceed

Ignoring doing of good deeds,

So that the UDF, its belly,

Will burst in pangs of bitter malice.**

     January 1998






     Exactly two centuries ago in England was published one brochure of Thomas Malthus which was significant chiefly for his cardinal conclusions about the difference between geometrical progression, with which the humans propagate, and the arithmetic progression, with which the production of foodstuffs grows, and by this situation up to the current moment all people on the globe should have been dead for long time like a swarm of locusts having eaten to the roots all grass or green bough on their territory. Like almost every assertion, based on extrapolation of some temporary dependence but without taking into account the possible changing of the tendency (or the trend, as it is modern to say now in Bulgaria, because this is English word and, hence, seems more fitting to be used), this also turned to be erroneous, because, as one old Christian proverb says, "man proposes though God disposes", and it has happened so that "God" has allowed also in the sphere of production of food and other essential goods the geometric progression to begin to function, as also has "taught" the humans how to make condoms and other contraceptive means, which are to break the geometric progression in the population growth, but, somehow or other, we have still not died like locusts (yet it is not to be denied that we have very successfully tried to do this in other, more contemporary, way — with the help of nuclear weapons, for example — and this danger is not entirely eliminated).

     Yeah, but this is formal interpretation of the warning of prof. Malthus, and if it has turn wrong then this does not mean that his fundamental ideas were erroneous, and these ideas are that there have become just too many people on Earth and they have begun to hinder one another pretty actively, because their "hunting territories", if we use this zoological term, intersect. The new moment, on which we shall dwell here, is that people can hinder one another even when their hunting territories are very rich and reasonably fixed (what is yet far from being achieved on a global scale), so that they again come to some insurmountable obstacle, and this time it is the informational ceiling of human intellect, reaching of which brings the people "out of the rails" of their set from centuries behavior, because the main moment, which has baffled the expiring 20th century, was, to put it in one word, the multiplication!

     It has begun in the beginning of century with the conveyor of Ford, has continued with the automated and robotic systems in manufacturing, with the penetration of industrial methods in agriculture, has allowed creation not only of powerful and super-powerful weapons, but of weapons for mass destruction (or for "holocaust", in order to convince the readers that the author also knows some "modern" words), has expressed itself in applying of industrial methods in education and sciences, what has transformed the latter from creative activity in real productive force, so that now in almost every area we speak about technologies, was created a whole arsenal of substituents or "ersatz" products, be it of food, be it of clothes, or for entertainment, because they are susceptible to automated production, was destroyed nearly entirely the creative element in various traditionally creative activities like arts, sciences sports, (as also sex, if you want), and the single place, maybe, where the multiplication has not yet entered, is the reproduction of population, but as far as for a long time now they are talking about cloning, and the successes of genetic engineering are really impressive, there is nothing surprising if the near decades these things get out from the pages of science fiction literature and enter in our life.

     All this has destroyed basic time relationships between the effort for producing of something and the ready product, between the action and the result, and the humans, as far as they are not gods, have become confused and decided to kill "a bit" each other, hopping that in this way the things will better themselves — similarly to the model of "healing" used for many centuries via bloodletting, what nowadays may seem to us ridiculous and unscientific, but this is the bitter truth (and, maybe, in the same way will look to the future people our "attempts" to solve our problems applying brute force and mass destruction, if, "help us God", the mankind will continue to exist in the future). While in the deep antiquity in each tribe there was special person responsible for preserving of the fire, and if it extinguished they have often killed that keeper, then much later, with the discovery of flint, the things were significantly improved, but even before a century the making of fire has still taken important place in the life of people, where now one simple lighter, that may be used for making of fire thousands times, costs (and is valued) as one egg of hen, i.e. as the strain of the hen to lay the egg (if we do not bother with the "effort" of the cock to engender it, of course). Similar changes have taken place in the area of transport and communications, have emerged the mass information means or media, which have also confused many human habits, and the capabilities of the so called thinking being have increased so much, that this poor being, which, in fact, is not thinking but just able to think, as long ago have remarked some more clever human exemplars (but does this only after he has exhausted all unreasonable methods for reaching of the goal, according to the author), was not simply confused, but right away "dumbfounded" during this ending century.

     But enough on this question, and this introduction was necessary for us in order to be able to predict the main problems of the next century that already "knocks on our doors". These problems, according to the author, are two, namely: artificial or extrauterine birth, and control over the population growth. The first one is dangerous with this, that it will break one important tie of mankind with the nature, will diminish the emotional contact of the mother with the child, and will alleviate up to such extent the life of more delicate half of the people, that they will again become confused and will begin to think what else they are to do now (when are not do this, what was destined to them since the life on Earth has emerged) and in consequence of this all sorts of revolutionary cataclysms will arise. But as far as this problem is contained in significant extent in this of the birth control the author chooses to predict that the main problem in the next 21st century will be the question of restricting the human population on the globe! We will try to have a good look at it, but not through extrapolation of the tendencies, what is, as we in Bulgaria say, like to "make ones account without the innkeeper", but from the point of view of some reasonable population, because the main misconception in the disputes with Malthusians was, can the globe feed all this future avalanche of people, where the question must sound as: is it necessary for the globe to feed so many people and will this lead to increasing of integral human happiness, what, exactly, has to be the single goal of mankind?

     And so, let us begin. According to approximate and, maybe, controversial calculations the population on Earth in the II-I millennium BC was about 50 mln people, and to the beginning of our era has reached about 100 millions. This is one quite decent and sufficient number of people for a civilized society, what gives the first way for computation — based on human history. Later this number until roughly the year 1800 has still not exceeded one milliard, where in the current century we, definitely, have overdone the things when have jumped over 5 mlrd (plus or minus ten years here don't matter). But this was still possible to endure if people have lived nowadays so apart as in Ancient Rome, for example, but at the end of our century comes one more "scourge" for the mankind — the world computer nets, which add the last touch to the means for mass communication, allowing quite accessible personal mass information. And here, really, the globe turns to be pretty densely populated, because the important thing is not how many people live in one place, but how they can communicate in the process of their work or entertainment, where in this aspect is useful to remind you the biblical fable about the Tower of Babel (though we in Bulgaria, and also in Russia, write and read the town as "Vavilon" — due to our Slavonic alphabet), which reduces to this, that overly united mankind is not "in accord with God", i.e. it is not acceptable for the people, because violates the balance with the environment, shortly put. The new accent here is not only in the power of mankind (and its unreasonableness, which unavoidably accompanies the unlimited power), but in the psycho-physiological characteristics of human individual.

     Now we will motivate in another way the approximate optimal population on Earth in the limits of that around the new era using the well accepted decimal system of counting. We will begin with this, that one maintains usually up to three circles or ranges of contacts with the others around, namely: a) of first range, these which include persons of the order of 10 in the first degree or only a ten of persons — very close relatives and acquaintances, which everyone knows (or at least thinks that knows) best of all, can predict their behavior, and is emotionally tied with them; b) of second range or 10 in the second degree, i.e. a hundred of persons — relatives and acquaintances, which one knows by name and physiognomy, works or lives close to them, and, if not else, greets when meets them, but is not rightly to say that knows them well and does not experience any special feelings for them — this is just the environment in which one lives and tries to express oneself and make career; c) of third range or 10 in the third degree, what means a thousand of persons — people, about whom one has heard something, or has seen them, but not only that he/she does not know how many children the particular person has (and has he or she such at all), is he (or she) married, and so on, but very often does not know, either the name, or the physiognomy, or does not relate one with the other — here enter all publicly known "stars", of whom the given person is interested (were they footballers, pop singers, politicians, or from the highlife), as also other casual acquaintances; d) of fourth range or 10,000 are now too many people, for to be accessible to an averagely taken intellect, and, usually, with so many acquaintances can boast only one-two percents of the population, so that it is not worth to take them into consideration. Speaking about ranges, and using the decimal logarithmic scale, we can not be very accurate, so that the given number can be multiplied by 2, 3, or even 5, what means that if somebody has acquaintances of second range, say, 350 persons, then they are not yet of third range. We can call this human phenomenon "rule of the small numbers", where is obvious that, the more deeper are our contacts, the more limited is the number of people, with which we maintain such contacts.

     The next moment is to define the approximate number of areas of human knowledge and interests, in which we maintain contacts, but in such manner that they are well balanced, i.e. that they have approximately equal number of people, who can communicate in the given area. The nomenclatures of human professions, as also the indexes of most of the libraries are of the order of several thousands, and these are all areas of human knowledge. In some specialized libraries, or in given scientific institutions, may happen that one of these areas is detailed in tens more areas, but such narrow specialization does not change our sectioning because these subareas are usually very narrow and unbalanced as to the scope and number of persons who work in them. Similarly exist also very broad areas — for example of football fans, which on the globe are, probably, more than milliard people, but this is not an area in which people communicate in order to compete with one another (such could have been the area of very footballers of national or world range, the participants in which are, naturally, some hundreds, or at least as much are those, with whom one good footballer can compare himself). In other words, we are interesting in such areas, where the people, directly speaking, hinder one another, because this is their "field of game" and in it they compete with the others :hunters", fight with them, express themselves, or make career. Saying "communicate" we do not mean that people speak about the weather, or about sports, or about horses, as the English like to do, or about women, as men like to do (or about men, as for their part do the women), or about politics and politicians (because, the more complicated is some area, the more people think that they are the most experienced and know how to better there the things), but communication with purpose to personally express themselves there.

     So that let us accept for easier calculations (because when some information is fuzzy and inaccurate the best thing to do is to simplify our calculations), that the areas of human knowledge are thousand, as the number of people who compete in them (not interfering too much with each other) are also thousand. In this way we take the ceiling for contacts of second range, as also one increased nomenclature of basic professions. So we get a sufficient population size or order of one million people. Taking now into account that we presuppose (though till now have not explicitly stated this) that these are areas in which people create, not just perform necessary for the society activities (like production of goods, services, healthcare, education, maintaining of internal order, an so on), and assuming that with creative activities in society are engaged, usually, from 3 to 5% of the people, but, on the other hand, with the strengthening of productive forces and improving of technologies on the current stage, their number may be expected to grow, then let us assume that the creative workers in the future society will reach ten percents (or 1/10 of the population). This means that we must multiply the got million people by ten and so it turns out that the optimal number of people becomes 10 millions. But as far as our figures are with precision of an order, and can reach until the next decimal order, it comes out that the optimal population on Earth must be from 10 to 100 millions, or, if we take some middle point, then these are 50 millions people.

     Only such society could exist without big disturbances and disorders in the future, because when one satisfies his (or her) basic needs for food, shelter, and continuation of the gender, what remains to him is only the concern about expressing of his personality, and, eventually, improvement of the individual (what, however, is a thing that is not available for everyone, and the majority of people, after finding for themselves, as is said, their place under the Sun, more often than not substitute the strive for reaching of new qualitative development with bigger quantitative affluence of things and pleasures). And as far as with the real entering of mass personal communications in life the whole world is becoming one state, where takes place the competing fight between people for expressing of their personality, then this number of 50 mln applies to the whole planet! In this manner we get another, third, way for proving of our optimal number, because 50 mln is the number of population of one middle-scale country (like France, for example), and where the countries are bigger people rarely communicate outside their state or province, while smaller countries (like our, for example), are usually satellites of some of the bigger ones, and in this case the competitive struggle happens in the arena (or a part of it) of its "older brother".

     In the above calculations we have deliberately overlooked one important moment — the linguistic barrier, which is the next lesson from the fable about the Tower of Babel, because the language is used mainly to isolate or unite some ethnical or territorially limited group of people, and, hence, it must confuse our calculations. But this is not so for two reasons. The first one is that the international personal communications just break down the state's borders, at least in regard of the areas of knowledge, and we are witnesses how in almost every science is now massively used the English language, and there is not a single international scientific, cultural, or sporting event of more significant range where English is not, if not the only one, at least one of the official languages. This applies also to each profession, in the industry, in the transport and trade, then in the area of entertainments, such like music, sports, discotheques, games, tourism, and so on. Of course there are still francophones, "teutophones", and others (and they will exist) but on the level of everyday communications, where is no fight for expression of personality. It can quietly be accepted usage not of one single language but of 5-10 more acknowledged world languages, but, not only that for this purpose exist translators, the good computerized translation, at least in the areas of various sciences, not in fiction literature, is not more myth but a question of pair of decades. The second reason why the language barrier does not change our calculations is the fact that the linguistic dividing just overlaps with our dividing in areas of knowledge, because there are no problems if, say, the doctors for heart surgery, or aviators, or footballers, etc., were from different language or ethnical groups, yet this does not divide the arena for their fight for expression — the world "state". Besides, we have made our calculations based on 10% creative workers from the population, and the left 90% quietly can divide themselves even in 1000 language groups by roughly 1000 persons in each of them and still remain in the limits of acquaintances of second range, where their common number will again not exceed the prognosticated 10 millions of population.

     There remains only to propose some natural way for reaching of such drastic diminishing of human population and this is certain limitation of birth. Some statistics show that in order to have effective coefficient of reproduction of population equal to one, i.e. for to remain in the next generation again the same amount of people, is necessary that on 100 marriages were born 265 children, where are taken into consideration not only birth rates and death rates, but also the possibility for conception in the family. We set ourselves the question: what must be the effective coefficient of reproduction if in each family (a thing that is not at all easy to be reached, for the population growth in the Third World is still very high) were on the average by two children? This is a task of school course and is solved applying the simple rule of three, i.e.: to 2.65 corresponds 1.0 , then to 2.0 — how much will correspond? The answer is 0.755, what means that after one generation we will have population size of 75% of the current one, or diminishing of 25 percents. The continuation of one generation in Ancient Rome was about 20 years, but with the aging of population and prolongation of the period of education this time grows, so that now the average length is about 28 years, but for our calculations suffices if we accept that one generation is 25 years, because this gives by one percent diminishing of the annual population growth, what, really looking, is nothing dangerous and is quite normal situation in many developed countries for numerous years, and this by itself, in natural way, not because they speak there much about lessening of population (or some measures are taken, if it was spoken about this), but even in spite of this that every state finds such tendency for something bad and takes measures for encouraging of birth in such cases. The whole "trick" is that this must become a mass phenomenon in the world!

     As far as it is practically impossible that we will do something in a world scale before the earthly population becomes 10 milliards people (or after some 10-20 years) the expressed here means that from 10 mlrd we must go down to 50 mln, or one decrease of 200 times of the population, or to 0.005 of 10 mlrd (what is five pеr mil). So that now the question sounds as: 0.755 to what degree gives 0.005, and the answer is — about 19, what can easily be proved using also a common calculator and multiplying this number by itself until it diminishes to five thousandth (but this can be done much faster typing 0.755 and pressing only the key for multiplication and then this for equality, what imitates rising in square, so that even on the third time, i.e. on 2 to the 3rd degree, or 8, we will have lessening to 10%, in the forth time, i.e. to 16th degree — to 1%, and later we will jump over our goal). By duration of quarter of century for a generation this will give less than five centuries time for reaching of the necessary population, or, as long as our calculations have been approximated, then in the worst case till the end of the next millennium, but never faster than at least two centuries, because the faster processes are the most dangerous. This is shown in the following table:

     On one hand on this table should not be looked very seriously, because it is some extrapolation, but on the other hand — it is important, because this is not continuation of an existing tendency (for it has not yet begun), and it rather shows what must be the direction in changing of the population, if we do not wish to grasp at the so called ultima ratio (or the last resort, in Latin), i.e. at the military solving of the most important problem on Earth. By this, obviously, we should invent also some new term, because the genocide or holocaust have never till now given decrease of to at least 10% of a given population (however "black" may sound similar statement), and here it goes about 5 per mil. But if it is so, from this follows only that our imagination is very weak, for during the whole outgoing century the mankind is simply suffocating on account of the impossibility for personal expression by this heavy population and boom of information, and by this high unemployment level, for the reason that by the enormously increased capacities of new technologies nobody needs so many workers (or at least there are not needed qualified such, but only people who can press the buttons and turn the handles, yet one wants that the work was pleasant for one), and more and more people look at their profession nowadays only as means to earn their living, not as way to get satisfaction of the process or the result, how it should have been, but this just moves the stress for self-expression from the productive sphere to that of the leisure and entertainment. Only there the situation is the same — exceeding of information ceiling for acquaintances of second range, as a result of what one again can not express oneself. Earlier (more or less up to 18th century) people have found pleasure even in this to make fire in the fireplace, to gather together to sing and dance, to make themselves some new dish or drink, to dress in some unique attire, to kill an animal, even to go to war, where must win the braver and stronger. Now everything becomes increasingly standard and impersonal, more and more technological and emotionless, ever more ready (and present in the shops) even before one has set itself the goal to make it, and this does not bring the necessary satisfaction!

Numb. of gener.0124816181920
After (years)02550100200400450475500
Coeff. of decreas.10.7550.5700.3250.1050.0110.0060.0040.003
Popul. (mln)10,0007,5005,7003,2501,560111634836


     The important moment, however, is to recognize that if the mankind will not make the reasonable decision of this question, then this does not mean that it will not be solved in some other way! After we have defeated the epidemics of plague, cholera, etc., have arisen the devastating wars, where died not only those who want to fight, for to show that they are stronger, but more often peaceful population that wants only to live; have emerged the cancer and the AIDS, as means to decrease the average lifespan and population number of more and more aging population. Like locusts multiply most actively when there is enough food, but shortly after this it turns out that the food has finished and they begin to die, so also people have immoderately increased their population in the last pair of centuries, what has generated new problems with the meaningless life (when there is not moderate competition and possibilities for personal expression or career), with the imperfection of whatever form of social government, with the drug addiction, which has grown tens and hundreds times compared with the situation in the middle ages (because opium was sown on the East since deep antiquity, but there was not such demand on it), with the homosexuality, which, still, turns out, maybe, to be the best reasonable solution on the background of universal unreasonableness (?), with the mass (again) pollution of the environment, not with "ecologically pure dirtiness", as it was for millenniums, but with "ecologically dirty cleanliness", as it happened in this century, and so on, and so on.

     So that, if we do not behave reasonable, the nature (or God, if you like it better so) will find some way for establishing of the equilibrium on Earth, like, for example: mass infertility, by which will be born nice and intelligent children, who, when they grow of age, will exercise sex more scientifically than their predecessors of the beginning of new era, but will need no contraceptives because will be able to become pregnant only once out of thousands times, maybe; or will be changed the proportion of newly born boys to girls form 18 to 17, as it is now, to, say, 21 to 4, what will mean that the boys will be five times more than the girls; or the birth rate will be quite in order but in each next generation the children will have by one more finger on their hands than their parents, and when the fingers become more than a dozen this will cause serious difficulties with the pressing of knobs and will hinder the general affluence; or the drug addicted will become somewhere about 70% of the population and will declare all the others as abnormally developed and subjects to compulsory addiction; or the percentage of suiciders in the near future will reach 1/3 of the population and this in reproductive age; or similar to these variants. In any case some way will be found, which will generate possibility for limiting of the competing individuals to the number of appropriate for the humans level of contacts of second range, or to several hundreds of persons, because nobody wants to live in a situation when for to express oneself in our world one must study for half a century, in order to shrink the area of competition as far as possible, and even after this to have only one chance out of tens of thousands, not to draw out the big win, but to find at all a decent place under the sun.

     This is just a necessity. And what is necessary it sooner or later happens, or as has put it our Shopp (around the capital Sofia): "What is needed, it requires itself alone", no matter how it will be reached! In view of this, despite the unreasonable acts of mankind as a whole, there are all chances to suppose that after a pair of centuries the population on Earth will reach again one milliard people, and after this will continue to decrease further, until falls also below hundred millions. Let us hope that this will happen in a reasonable way.

     June 1998





     The millennial human history has proved many times that when people have not enough knowledge about some phenomenon they begin to invent all sorts of delusions, beliefs, or myths, for to complete with them the motivation for their actions. Some of them are useful because they provide easy explanation of complex facts, or also harmless, or bring some satisfaction and momentary happiness, like for example: the fairy tales about evil witches and wizards, which make children to be obedient; the myth about Santa Clause, who brings them presents; crossing oneself or knocking on wood, for to drive the devil away; the belief in afterlife, where will be recompensed all injustices on this world; the righteous God, who does everything out of love to us, although this seems doubtful; the notion that the Earth is center of the Universe and even the Sun rotates around it (more so because each one sees this with his own eyes); and others.

     But there exist also such myths which are definitely harmful for the humans, at least by prolonged use, and their harm is revealed fast and causes turbulent reaction, as, for example: the fables about the blue blood of aristocrats, by which they differ from the common people; or bloodletting as healing method used for sufficiently long time so that to undermine people's faith in the abilities of medicine; or the narcotic intoxication as way for reaching of happiness; or the chaos as the best regulator in nature and society; and so on. With the time many of harmless myths became dangerous, or are rejected by the people with accumulation of more knowledge.

     Similar is the case with the democratic myths, which, little by little, begin to be recognized and to confuse us, and many people now ask themselves the question: is the democracy really a good thing, when one thing is what is hammered in our heads by politicians and media, and quite another one what happens in practice. For this reason it seems correct to reveal some of these delusions in order to reach to their core, because the knowledge is not at all obliged to contradict to the belief (as many people naively think), in the similar way as a child, after becoming 5-6 years old, stops to believe in the tales about Santa Clause, but this does not hinder him (or her) to listen to them with joy; or how under the totalitarianism all liked to use, in the right place or not, the phrase about the "deserves of Party and Government", although they were surely convinced that if somebody has lifted the barbells higher then this has happened not because the Central Committee has strained together with him; or also all like the coloured eggs and Easter cakes, but this does not necessary mean that they believe in the immaculate conception of Virgin Mary or in the resurrection of Christ (all the more because there are no exact data proving his existence); or to add also that one will not stop playing lottery after he finds out that with the bigger sums he plays the more sure he will lose the half of his money (or even more than two thirds of them — it depends on the regulations of totalizator); and other examples. In other words, the wish to defend the democracy forces us to throw light on the myths about it, not the desire to humiliate it (though by perfunctory reading one can get such notion), or rather the conviction that earlier revealing of some misconceptions could make us look more favorable at them, while their belated realization may lead to more stormy reactions.

     One part of these myths are "necessarily inherent" (as the economists say of some kind of expenses) to the very real democracy and in this case they are widely spread also on the West, while some others are born on local ground and show their intoxicating effect only on Bulgarians and some other nations from the former Socialist Bloc, but no one of them is entirely innocuous for the common person for to be neglected. Without pretensions on particular exactitude and completeness of presentation we will choose the beloved by Christians number of twelve. So that, let us begin.

     1. The democracy is ruling of the people

     Maybe the widespread mass delusion, even on the West, is that the democracy is ruling of the people, but it is just ruling of the politicians, or of persons chosen by the people. If it were ruling of the population we should have had situation similar with that by the choice of court assessors in United States, for example, who are chosen amidst the common people, and by this is looked that they were not acquaintances or related in whatever way with the given lawsuit, in order to be maximally impartial. This means that if in Bulgaria the voters with tertiary education are, say, 15%, then as many percents must be they also in the National Assembly (our Parliament); if the part of voters in the interval of 18 to 40 years are, for example, 30%, as much must be also the Members of Parliament in that age limits; if 20% of the electors by us are of Gypsy origin, then the same must be the percentage also in the highest democratic institution; and so on. In other words, the Parliament must be representative sample of all the voters, but such thing neither existed somewhere, no somebody thinks to implement it!

     But even if we reject such extremities then there are no problems to ask the people about nearly everything via some kind of phone cards (like those for phones, or for ATM machines for taking money from an account), where everybody wishing to express his /her meaning must be in position to do this within a month by simple choosing of one out of 5-6 alternatives. This is easy to be done and would have been a real ruling of the population — about the question of prices on bread and milk, for example, and about the legalization of prostitution, and about the fight with criminality, and pro (or contra) the Money Board in Bulgaria, and about what only not. Yeah, but, again, nobody even thinks to do this, because such questions must be thought profoundly, not like by a gathering in the pub.

     2. The democratic choice is the right method

     If we give some thought to the method of choosing we will come to the conclusion that it characterizes with this that: people who do not understand (i.e. they don't know the subject area of government and management, as it's said now) choose persons who they do not know (i.e. they have no personal or professional contacts with them), and by this they do not require whatever documents for their professional qualification and length of service (i.e. there is no higher, or even secondary, specialized education for politicians, there are even no age restrictions, as some relative guaranty for live experience)!

     Something more, this method is not applied anywhere else, where are chosen persons capable to do a given work, like for example: by appointing at some post in a given company, in the sphere of education, healthcare, army and police, and so on. Not out of theoretical considerations, but out of practical experience is clear that the persons chosen by such incompetent way will not be able to perform the necessary work, but in spite of this the method in question does the work, as the millennial human history shows it! There are only two variants when persons chosen in this way can do the work for which they were chosen, and they are: a) they alone do not do the work (or at least its most difficult part) but some of their assistants; and b) everybody other alternative candidate could have done the same work (as they also do it, when their turn comes). Such trivial and uninteresting solution, which is always present and makes the procedure of choice meaningless, is called in mathematics "zero solution" — it is a solution, but is not at all necessary to be the best one. The democratic choice, of course, has also its advantages — psychological, and a possibility for easy change of the rulers — but this is not a correct method of choice of suitable persons, no matter that this myth is widespread in the Western democracies.

     3. It is chosen the best party or politician

     This is the next widely spread on the West myth, despite the fact that there are no reasons for such conviction but rather on the contrary — the democracy is based on the presumption of impossibility for existing of best party or politician, because if such party has existed, then after its choice every other choice becomes absolutely redundant or formal (as it, really, was under the totalitarianism)! Even if it is possible to choose a good leader or party in the moment, then, as it is well known, every power corrupts the person (due to the worsening of his feedback with the society, which is necessary for correction of his behaviour), so that his change, or his moving in opposition, is obligatory for his preservation as normal, i.e. averaged individual with adequate reactions. Besides, by the democratic choice in the Parliament are represented, together with those of the "good" party or coalition, also those of the "bad" parties that build the opposition, but both MPs receive equal salaries and bear equal responsibility in the governing (or at least it must be so), and in the same time there is no other choice where the losers are rewarded on a par with the winners. This is done in interest of the discussions (in which the truth is born) and for this reason the opposition is necessary by the democracy, but there is no point to consider that one party is better than the other — just they all perform different functions, but are equally important!

     4. This is a good form of governing

     Another widespread myth is the statement that the democracy is a good form of governing, while in reality it is good predominantly by performing of some change in governing, not in the very governing! The multiplicity of views, although they lead to finding of the truth in various questions, most frequently confuse and slow the taking of necessary decisions, what is expressed in this, that the democracy is quite inefficient form of governing. When is necessary to act it is in such extent bad, in which it is good when it is necessary to discuss and tackle the question; the taking of decisions in presence of opposition and their bringing to fulfillment is much slower and more difficult than in conditions of autocracy. This must be well known and obvious, but it isn't so, for which reason the people often want from the democracy things that it is not in condition to offer them, due to its nature.

     For better illustration of the dynamics of functioning of democracy is useful to apply the simile of this movement of the parties in the time with the common children seesaws of the kind of a beam fixed in the middle on some a bit elevated place, where on both ends stay both wings of the Parliament, and if there exists a center, then it stays in the middle and puts pressure to one and then to the other side. This party, which at the moment is on top, has risen there not because it is the best, but because the other one is worse or has "fallen in the mud", so that the ruling party has to be just grateful to the opposition for rising it to that high level! This is very important to remember and understand, as by the politicians also by the population, for the overused boasting can bring nothing else except self-obliviousness, while the goal of democratic government is this oscillation never to cease.

     5. Under the democracy exists freedom of the media

     The existence of free media under democracy is the next bluff for the population, because the majority of them are financed by the big business and in this case they work according to the imposed to them strategy, which is reduced chiefly to maximal gain (what not at all means maximal information and impartiality, although in some cases such exceptions can happen), and the left ones serve the ruling institutions, were it because of their official duties, were it out of :sympathy" to the strong of the day. Following the example of the West now also by us in each decent organization exist the so called public relations services, and the media are, in fact, such services but at a national level. We can argue for a long time on the question of their objectivity in presenting of the information, but the truth is that their existence is necessary in order to bring to the masses some complicated political decisions in such way that they will not provoke stormy reactions in the people, what means that concealment, silence, or whatever other milder form of lie you choose, are allowed and recommended for them!

     The classic simile in the case is with the good physician who does not tell the patient all truth, if this can worsen his health condition. So or otherwise, but the media are not free, and can not be such at least for economic reasons, and, moreover, they are just obliged to fulfill many propagandistic functions (to a great extent similar to the situation under the totalitarianism!). Like we this or not, is another question, but for the moment this is the best solution, which is used all around the world, where some degree of objectivity is obtained on the basis of partiality of different media, which, providing for different layers of population, offer them what the audience wants to find in them — this is not necessarily the truth, but at least a pleasant way to it. The solution, naturally, is trivial (but for that reason hardly achievable) and it is in this, that the people show that they can listen to the truth, not to the political manipulations of this or other party.

     6. Democracy means market economy

     This myth is as if more spread by us than on the West, but this is explained with the fact, that in the Western democracies people have not had the possibility to live under some planned economy and because of this they don't know that it can also be bad, and see only the drawbacks of market one by them. But anyway, this is a big delusion, at least because some form of market has existed even since the times of Babylon and, hence, has nothing to do with the democracy as political form of ruling! But even the statement that the market is better than the planned production is sheer delusion, because it can be advantageous only for those, who can show influence on it, i.e. for the big producers or buyers, while for the "small fry" it is entirely unjust form of exchange of goods.

     If we look at the small buyer, for whom the market is, generally speaking, something good, then this is basically an illusion, because under a good planning can be had on the market the same products and for the same prices (as it also happens in reality on the West, because at least two thirds of the goods in a given branch of industry are work of the big producers, who can not do without advance planning and without some agreements between them, and the smaller producers are just orienting by the bigger). It can even be said that, whatever thing one has bought, if he will later check well the prices, he will find that he was doubtlessly cheated, because could have bought the same thing cheaper, if has searched longer, or could have found something better for the same money, so that in all cases he can regret his purchase.

     As to the smaller producers, then they have long ago marked that the market is inclined extremely unfriendly to them (a thing that by us will be only now realized), because when they decide to produce something what is not offered in abundance on the market, and while they collect the necessary money and organize the production and bring the thing to the market, then there is already teeming with that product, for the reason that, quire naturally, the big business has outstripped them (due to the abilities for better planning by highly qualified persons) and offers it cheaper (for the large-scale production has its unavoidable advantages). Not that there are not exceptions of this rule, but they are of the order of a pair of percents by well-saturated market economy, to which we aim. To avoid this the producers unite in some cooperatives, in order to become larger and have some influence over the market, or else work for bigger intermediaries, that establish in advance fixed prices for buying of their production, so that is turns out that the market for them ceases to exist. This is extremely clear, and the myth about the advantages of market economy is propagated by the big business, because the later always becomes winner in this unequal fight. In the particular case of currency market we, after long debates, have accepted that, at least for the moment, it is not a good thing and have introduced Currency Board, which is a kind of centralized regulating of the prices with preservation only of some semblance of a market.

     7. The capable always succeeds

     This myth, similarly, is supported by the stronger in society, and under the capitalism — by the wealthy, because here the power is in the capitals (what is clear for the English speaking by the different meanings of this very word). It is refuted elementary by the method of assumption to the contrary, namely: if we take for true that the able always succeeds (to multiply his money, for this is the classical understanding of success under the capitalism) then the wealthy one will soon find out about this capable person and will hire him to work for him and multiply his money, but as far as they are much more by the wealthier than by the just able one, then if will happen that the succeeded will be exactly the wealthier, not the able one, what contradicts to our assumption. There will be no contradiction if we go out from the statement that succeeds the wealthy one (or the feudal ruler — under the feudalism, or the nomenclature — in a totalitarian state, etc.), what corresponds entirely with the truth. Besides, this myth again has nothing to do with the democracy as form of political ruling.

     8. Paying for the things is expression of the freedom of citizens

     This myth is in a great degree masked and is not expressed exactly in this way, but is implied this meaning, stating that under the democracy one can pay for to receive, for example, a better education (where this was impossible earlier by us), or better health care (which earlier by us received only high party cadres), or some other advantages, what is indication for the freedom of personality. This, of course, is expression not of freedom but of dependence, where in the world of capitals the only dependence is this of the money, but this delusion is popularized on the West, because it is useful for the wealthy layers of population, and, for example, in England, the private schools are called "public", while they are not at all for the wide public but for that (limited) number of parent, who can afford to pay such money for their children, and the so called Open University (now also in Bulgaria) is not at all open for everybody who has the needed knowledge to enter into it, but only against payment!

     The bad thing by us, however, is that, because of our, frankly speaking, high misery, these things do not stay as a matter of taste or of choice (say, to buy oneself ice-cream on the street, or to drink a beer) but become vital problems. In our naivety we think that for payment one may get something better, while in the same time even in one very wealthy country like United States hardly more than ten percents of the students (or their parents) pay really for their education, no matter that it is entirely to be paid! The things are regulated with the use of various sponsors during the education — be it of private funds, be it of big companies, be it the War Ministry, or state scholarships — where after the end of educational degree the specialists must work for some years for that company with which they have signed the contract, i.e. the well known from our totalitarian past system of distributing to places. These, who alone pay for themselves, i.e. buy their education, are predominantly in the area of management, what is quite logical, for if some parent has a good business then he can take care to give a good diploma to his children, even if they are lazy enough to learn. The freedom in the Western countries in this respect means freedom in the moment of giving the service — as health care so also educational — and this is the really important moment, not compulsory payment without well devised system for its compensation (as it is nowadays in Bulgaria). And again, this has nothing to do with the political democratic system, but with the social measures in the society.

     9. Democracy and socialism are incompatible

     This myth is generated on local grounds (or in some other ex-communist country), because, as we have stated this many times, the democratic organization of political power has nothing to do with the social settings in the society, and there, where it has something to do, this is in sense of strengthening of the social programs of each self-respecting party in the countries with Western democracy. Even if we make a brief survey of some classical democracies we can establish that in the half of the countries at least one of the first three most popular parties contains explicitly in its name the word "socialism" (or work, labour, social, etc.), and in the other half this is presupposed via defending of massive social programs, not for other reasons, but because in highly developed countries this becomes easy to be implemented and is the best way to attract more voters! So that the truth about Western democracies is such, that they not only do not exclude socialism, but presume it in some degree (though they don't use this name because the former Socialist Bloc has frightened them using this word), and there are no reasons to stay apart of the world tendencies only because our socialism was not wholly democratic.

     10. The democracy is good for the state

     It must be obvious that the democratic form of ruling is good first of all for its possibility for individual development and personal expression of its citizens, not from the point of view of the security in the state! One can find many examples of this, beginning in Ancient Greece, and also during the twentieth century, when some danger for the given country has arisen, always was established some strong centralized and militarized governing, which, even if it has preserved certain appearance of democracy, was not exactly this, or at least was not more democratic than the well known to us democratic centralism, which exactly for this purpose was invented in its time, because the wealthy Western countries have not yet changed the policy of "stick" with that of the "carrot", as the English say. The democracy by its nature is disuniting force, on the contrary to the dictatorship, what is pretty clear to the politicians, and that is why always is secured some legal form for entering of martial law in case of necessity. In Bulgaria the transition to democracy has begun only then, when all possible dangers for the countries of the former Socialist Bloc were lifted, i.e. then, when the totalitarian governing has became inadequate to the international conditions.

     11. The people alone have overthrown the dictatorship

     This myth has arisen also on local ground and its refutation is reduced to the so called contradictio in adjecto, or contradiction in the definition, because if the dictatorship is really strong centralized force, which does not allow any intervention from below, then it could not have been so easily and bloodless overturned from below! What means that, either the totalitarian ruling in the last years has not been real dictatorship (what practically corresponds to the truth), or it has been overturned from below for the reason that it alone "has wanted" to be changed (what is even more true, for the not unknown "Gorby" has conducted for whole five years the "artillery preparation", so to say, for this purpose, through his glasnost and perestroika, which, as you see, are written exactly so in English like in Russian). The truth is such, that the totalitarianism was overthrown because at the reduced international danger, which always has been mobilizing factor for the existence of totalitarian state and commonwealth, and under the increased property conditions in the countries of former Socialist Bloc, was created opportunity for internal tensions and struggles among the nomenclature, which has begun to search new possibilities for individual expression and enrichment (a question which has been discussed already in ancient times by Platon), as well also for recognition in the Western world.

     This, that the things have not happened fully by the communist script, must not lead us to confusion, that the former nomenclature has lost remarkably much in the result of this transition; those, who have lost most of all, naturally, are the common people as a whole, because for them was left to blow at the fire and "burn their eyebrows", while the spark was lighted by the very nomenclature. But if somebody especially insists to imagine, that the meetings and tents have been the real reason for overthrowing of the totalitarianism, then nobody hinders him (or her) in this, although the right way to look at the things is that the nomenclature has objected only pro forma, for to give more pleasure to the masses of population (in the manner of some young girl, which does not yield to the persuasions of a certain man, whom she, anyway, likes), and also because of the understanding of the necessity for some counteraction, in order not to happen so (how exactly happened) that, as is said, "instead of to paint the brows to gouge out the eyes".

     12. The transition to democracy is a good thing

     This myth, up to some extent, is only a quibble, but the truth is that the transitional period is, as a rule, worse than any of the final states, where in this sense our situation today is still worse than it was under our ruler "Bai Tosho", and it is not at all clear will we be able to stabilize in the near future at the new level. When the transition occurs unreasonably (and the situation by us was exactly such), it runs chaotic and on a bigger social price. The situation would have been entirely different if before introducing of the market prices we have found some way for providing of the population with basic foodstuffs; or before we have begun to give the land back to its owners we have decided how to keep the old level of production of agriculture; or before introducing of private practitioners in the healthcare we have resolved the question with preserving of health in similar way to that how it is solved in West-European countries; or before legalization of paid education we have fixed the question with the payment of expenses for it; or before the restitution we have distributed some part of national property to every citizen; or before the crash of our lev we have taken some serious measures for its fixing; and so on — in short: if before to demolish our old home we have tried to build the new one (or at least some part of it), or, as the English say, have not put "the cart before the horse". But how could have we done this when the democratic intoxication has muddled our brains? This condition still continues and the listed till here myths are still spread among the population, turning the "inebriation of certain nation" (as our writer Ivan Vasov has put it) in chronic alcoholism or, if you will to sound more scientific, in delirium democraticus.

     And, generally said, it is long ago time to understand that the democracy is not panacea for the society, and as form of ruling it is not at all ideal, but it is lively and can be incessantly bettered by the population, what namely makes it adaptive and stable for a long period of time. Only the setting of democracy via laws means still nothing, and what character it will have depends on our politicians, or, in the end, on our people. The democracy is not solution of our problems but only an environment for their solving! If we continue to be consoled with myths about it we will get to nowhere, when de facto it turns out that our living standard is still significantly lower than in the last totalitarian years. And this having in mind that we have absolutely no excuses for our current-day condition because: neither some foreign enemy has attacked us, nor God has sent on us some plague or disaster, as they say, nor also we have fallen in some civil war, like this has happened with some of the others ex-communist countries, nor some politician (or party) has so firmly clutched at his desk that even with a cannon ball he was not to be moved aside, but rather on the contrary! And also not that we have not enough examples of other countries where this transition proceeds easier and more painless. There exist, unquestionably, certain objective economic reasons, as also some national specifics of our "Balkan" democracy, but the less myths we use, and the more common sense ant patriotism we show, the better the things must go. Or at least this is how they look to the author.

     August 1998



     The main stone in the economy of capitalism and socialism is the question of ownership, and exactly for this reason there are many speculations with it from a long time. And at the same time the things are pretty clear on the basis of the practice of those two social orders. Let us first make clear that here we are not speaking about personal property, like: home, car, furniture, etc., which are used, directly or not, for satisfying of personal and of the family needs, neither about the degree of luxury which one can afford oneself, like, for example, someone may have even three homes (in different locations, or outside the town), but in spite of this he alone uses them, while some other person may rent his own room in order to make ends meet, but in both cases this is personal property. Another kind of property is this, which is used for some business, i.e. the person (or some company, municipality, or the state) owns certain company, where work other people (hired workers). In this case the property is used for obtaining of surplus value, or with its help is done exploitation of subjected to the company workers, and for that reason we find it naturally to call it

     1. Exploitative property.

     Such dividing of property exists for millenniums in the world, so that till now we are saying nothing new. But if someone, still, is shocked by this name, then he can call it managerial, or business, or big one, etc., though these names are not so exact and in some cases some confusion may arise. It is true that the word exploitation does not sound very nice, for it means literally "pulling out of the soul" (taking out of the "plua", or everything), but in one impartial review is not good to be too shy, because in the world of business, anyway, does not reign philanthropy but cruel and merciless rivalry, so that we will use this term here, not necessary giving it contemptuous (communist) meaning.

     And so, we will speak here about exploitative property, which under the totalitarianism was only state-owned, so that this social order is just included in the capitalism, i.e. the communism was one state-monopoly capitalism, with all its pros and contras! Under the communism nobody had rights to own property with which help he, personally, could exploit the others, but this has not eliminated the exploitation of the workers, for the simple reason that it is just necessary (in the world of capitals), or that it can not exist cohesive society without mutual exploitation in it, a thing, that has begun with the emergence of labour division and first professions in deep antiquity. Under the capitalism, as well as under the communism, the exploitation in the sphere of production exists, only that under the communism it was used by some small number of chosen people, the nomenclature, which was allowed to occupy the leading posts, while the common people were not allowed to do this. Well, under the capitalism everybody can, but this does not mean that everybody really does this, because in the developed countries the percentage of wealthy, or those who own exploitative property, varies usually between 3 to 5%, i.e. practically as much as our nomenclature was. Generally speaking, the percentage of elite in each society, from primitive communal and to the present day, has always moved in these limits, what means that the major part of people does not own this, with what it earns "its bread"! But then: in what is the difference between the communism and the capitalism? Practically in nothing, or it is a matter of nuances.

     But there is no difference if we speak about personal and exploitative property, though if we fill our heads with notions like "private" or "state's", the things become messed. And let us not think that these 3% are overdone, because even farmers, who (as if) own the means of production (the land, chiefly), in the developed countries are approximately 5-8% (and in USA — only 4%), and by this not all of them work on their own land. It might have been theirs sometime, say, before a century, when the capitalism was still "green" (and exactly this has forced the invention of such social orders like fascism and communism!), but in a developed society this is an exception. Even a taxi driver, who can quietly own the car with which earns his money, simply does non enter in consideration if he is so tiny owner, what is seen well now in Bulgaria. Only free lancers — part of jurists, private teachers, physicians, and others —, as well as large-scale capitalists, take out their "bread" with their own "shovel", where for the big majority of people, i.e. at least 95%, this is not valid, and so they are hired workers, which we all in Bulgaria were (with the exemption of some high party cadres) before.

     Well, after we have cleared for us that nowadays everything is capitalism and that the masses of population, anyway, can not have exploitative property (if not for other reason, than at least because it is necessary to exploit some people — else it will happen something like the "Bulgarian variant" of transition, where for 1999, if we are not mistaken, were roughly 360 thousand single-owned companies and the workers in them were about 750 thousand people, i.e. by two for a company?!), then it is logical to plead that it is better if there were no property at all (except the state-owned), right? And such was the viewpoint of communists, and this, by God, sounds reasonable, because if something is an exception then we can quietly not take it in consideration and eliminate it. Only that ... . Well, there are many exceptions in the world, which, nevertheless, are very important and necessary, and here we will allow ourselves to give as example only — I beg the readers to be excused — the sex, where it is well known that masculine individual is "ready for battle" more or less in just one percent of the time (say, 15 minutes in twenty-four hours, where there are 1440 minutes). Must we then remove also this one percent in the name of harmony in the society? That's what was the communism — an utopia, because we have looked with prejudice at the things. Only that (again "only that"!) now also is looked with prejudice, while we now think that everyone must become exploiter (or merchant)! So that, if we want to have some justified understanding in this issue, let us look impartially at the

     2. Pluses and minuses of private property,

or, as we have accepted to call it, exploitative property. The pluses, of course, are freedom of action, operativeness, market orientation of production. The single owner of a company can act much more faster than the state and, in many case, this is beneficial to all the people. By the way, such was the idea of Gorbachev's perestroika — to reform the social order, but not to destroy it. Because the state has also its advantages, and we just can't do without state army or police. However strange it may look, but exactly this idea of perestroika was clear to the Americans somewhere in the 70ies, and they have succeeded to modernize in some extent their centralized structures. We, surely, have modernized nothing but have entirely demolished many things. And why have we done this? Well, ... because it was easier so! There also the children, even the small babies, feel the greatest pleasure when destroy (some construction of blocks, for example), not when they build something, because they still can't make alone something good, but to crash they always can (and this ancient understanding of the things must have been the reason for emerging of Russian, but also common Slavonic, ... word "skuchnij", what means dull, but looks exactly like Russian "skuchenij", what is cumulated in a heap; similar ideas, though, may be found on the West in the word "diversion" which is both, entertainment and sabotage).

     Well, such are the things with the perestroika and changing of the social order, but let us return to our analysis. The most important plus of private property is, in fact, the possibility for competition, only that here we deliberately have used the term "private", because it presupposes its antipode "state's", where the competition is not effective, for it is a kind of "hara-kiri" of the system. When we speak about exploitative property then the competition here is unavoidably present, so that there is no need to stress on it. (But one should not remain also with the impression that under the centralized property each form of competition is excluded, because it can easily exist state's and municipal property, it can be accepted some level of state ownership, there can be various contests and methods for accumulation of scores for establishing of the most profiting enterprise in a given branch of industry, not excluding the small and medium-sized such, and so on.)

     The main minus, in its turn, of exploitative property is its exclusiveness, i.e. this, that practically all members of a given society are not exploiters (managers etc.), and when so then this creates most unjustified relations in the society, about which we can not miss to be interested because, generally speaking, one can not care about one's own interest if does not care about the interest of the others, i.e. about the resonance of his actions over the others (and even less can think about the others if he does not think about himself)! So that the question is in this, to adapt in such way the exploitative property, that it will not introduce new injustices in life, which alone is unjust enough. Well, let us unravel a bit this tangle. What is so unjust in the property inequality (because it is also good, as far as offers conditions for competitions and purpose in life for those, who have not exploitative property, and they are the overwhelming majority of the population)? Well, according to the author, although this has to be clear to everyone who has thought about the matter, the most bad thing of property inequality is this, that it is not personally deserved!

     Because people have well developed feeling for injustice, and, how it is proper, with accounting for the randomness or the chance, or the happy star. Almost nobody on the West complains especially against the fact that the big "fishes" eat the smaller ones, or that wins the stronger, or more capable, or more learned, and so on. Well, people, surely, grumble a bit, but this is not antagonistic phenomenon, like they have protested against the aristocracy, or the slavery (or the nomenclature), or against the fascism — social settings which do not allow to the masses to go at the other side of the barrier. The capitalism is good when it is well socialized and when the masses have, but in reality, chances to be such how they want, according to the given them by God. The bad thing comes when one is born wealthy and another poor, and the poor ones have no chances at all to become rich. In the developed countries everybody wants to become rich, but when this happens to be his single goal such life becomes much too boring and uninteresting, where when one struggles to show what has been put in him then life is interesting and the inequality does not oppress so much the people, how it is the case in such terrifyingly poor country like Bulgaria.

     So that let us not deviate from the question of poverty (which, as is well known, is not a sin but a beastly thing), but also not to think that in the world of capital succeeds (in a sense to become rich) the more able one, because when he works for the wealthier or the exploiter then again the wealthier will become more wealthy. This, what prevents the capitalism from being liked also by the poorer, is its injustice. And on what it stands? Well ... on the heredity, of course! It the wealth happened to fall from above, or was personally won, but on equal chances, then everyone will be contented with such "racing". But let us also not jump to the other pole, because the environment in which one is brought up from an early age, unquestionably, has its importance, and if everybody lives by completely equal conditions then the stimulus for the masses disappears, how exactly it has happened under the totalitarianism. So that we are not against inheriting at all, but against inheriting of exploitative property! Otherwise it turns out that all are equal, but some are more equal than the others, as was spoken earlier, but also nowadays nobody has rejected the necessity for equal conditions for all, be it before the law, be it according to the sex or race, and so on. If not all can be exploiters then there is no need also for giving to some of us privileged start from the moment of their birth, but if someone, on a relatively equal conditions, succeeds to become exploiter only in the time of his or her life, then this may turn out to be useful for all, isn't it so? Well, after these judgements we are ready to explain our proposition about

     3. The future of capitalism,

from the point of view of exploitative property, or our view at the future large-scale property. As far as business activity, anyway, is separated from personal or family budget, then there are no problems for registering of them all, as also for inheriting of big sums. More than this, the inheritance tax, which is deserved by nothing according to the meaning of inheritor (maybe the state has led quicker the deceased to the tomb, for to require payment in this case?), by big amounts often reaches up to 1/3 of the inherited capital, so that the state in any event takes enough. We just propose notably drastic increasing of inheritance tax when some limit is exceeded, which we will call exploitative minimum (EM), but this will not be some unavoidable punishment for the wealthy persons, because everyone will be in position while he (or she) is living to transfer what he wants to his direct inheritors (what also justifies the inheritance tax, by the way — i.e. if one does not give credence even to his own people, that let him pay for this!), and by this, if the inherited capitals, shares, parts, or property do not exceed one EM, then everything is inherited according to the existing in the country laws. And what means "drastic"? Well, such that, say, when reaching of 10 EM the given person will receive only 2 EM, or when reaching of 100 EM — 3 EM, and so on, by exponent.

     Let us now establish this minimum, because someone may think that one will not inherit even his home. Well, one may think so if it was about personal property, but we are speaking about big sums, with the use of which is possible to do large-scale business, what means that the small enterprises must be inherited wholly (even by one heir), and also the middle-scale companies, too, if they are owned by several persons, or if there are several inheritors (what is the usual situation). Our proposition is quite simple: 1 EM = 1000 MMS (minimal monthly salaries), what can be realized in each country, for the minimal working salary is for a long time centrally established indicator. And this level may be used only initially, and otherwise can be a question (as also MMS is such) of the competency of Parliament, where it will be established, say, so, that was applied to not more than 10% of the population and in any case will include the price of an average apartment, car, et cetera (for example for Bulgaria, by 100 levs MMS this will give 100,000 lv; while for countries like USA, where 1 MMS is around 1,200 US$, we will have 1,2 mln US$).

     It will hardly make a problem to legalize a special kind of property with lifetime force, which, in this case, is not subject of inheriting, but is returned back to the company. This may sound pretty strange (why some firm will sell actions, which one literally loses with his demise?), but this may turn to be suitable for capitals that have to belong to some varying group of people, for example: inherited estate, which must always remain in a given gender, or property of the municipals and other communities, and other variants, where such shares can be also distributed free according to the regulations of the company, or can increase the parts of the left proprietors (if returned to the company). This can in some measure cause harm to the state, avoiding the inheritance tax, but, insofar as the state, anyway, wins from the application of our proposition, then let it show also some benevolence.

     In order to avoid the monopoly of the state, on account of this drastically increased inheritance tax, can be accepted the condition that for the state remain not more than 1/3 of the assets of such companies (because this is a kind of nationalization), and the left part (if it remains something) is transferred to the local municipality, or given to some other organization, or distributed by some lottery. In the end, the important thing is that everybody was interested to become rich while living, but also that everybody has equal chances to "grow fat" a bit on the account of big companies, when some of their owners dies. This will not lessen the competition and will touch only the really large enterprises, about which the state, in one or other form, is obliged to care, or to perform some control over them. This will not be socialism, in the communist understanding of the things, but rather some people's capitalism. But will this not weaken the bigger companies? Well, hardly, because in the life of a company there are three principal stages: of creating and pushing it forward, of developing and enlarging of its productivity, and of transformation and decline of it. Some nations have even the saying that the companies live three generations, where the first creates it, the second expands it, and the third spends it. Our proposition does not affects the first generation, which is the most important, it eliminates the third generation, what is good, and the functions of second generation can quietly be performed also by the state and, in general, by big number of persons (the big property, anyway, is not governed personally by its owner), so that this must not affect the large, or leading for every developed country, business. In this way we have come now to the

     4. Conclusion,

where we will emphasize that, however new this ideas are looking, they are not coming on an empty place, because the capitalism evolves and modernizes. The current-day capitalism on the West is not this, what it was a century back, and its socializing, or pursuit of greater social justice, is inevitable. This, quite obviously, corresponds with the wishes of the masses (if only someone decides to ask them), but half of the exploitative elite also would accept this proposition, because it does not affect directly personal life of the wealthy person, and his or her successors — well, they surely do not deserve so much wealth, for the reason that this, what comes at the ready, is not especially valued. When one company becomes old people look at it like at some elderly person fallen into infancy, who all just wait to be called by God, and if it will be the "dear God" then why not the state or Municipal Councils? The young and pushy small and middle-scale companies don't lose, the masses win from the more proper capitalism, the state too, and the large business also does not lose, so that this positively will be achieved some day. The big taxes (not only absolutely, but in percents, too), when the earnings are big, are not a novelty in many Western countries, just the people have not yet grasped that it can be so that both, the business continues, and the state becomes richer. The slogan of our UDF (Union of Democratic Forces) about "poor state but wealthy citizens", as we have seen on our bitter experience, can be realized only ... in its first part, and the existence of wealthy citizens in poor state is not possible. The socialist idea is neither new, nor erroneous. Erroneous was its realization, but this is valid also for the capitalism of the middle of 20th century, so that let us hope, that we will come to the right idea also about the question of property and exploitation.

     August 2001



The judicial system, that has come to us from old Roman times, is one of the biggest misunderstandings in the social sphere, but this impresses almost nobody, because, as the people say, it is no good to kick against the prick, or ask for trouble. Well, it is so, of course, but if we don't "kick" at all the loop only tightens around our neck, so that in this paper the author intends to throw some "kicks" against the system as a whole, with its inherent flaws, and after this to make two formal propositions: for unified establishing of the damages and for personal modification of the punishments.

     1. Well conceived, but poorly implemented

     It is clear that the idea for establishing of punishment in advance, for a given typical situation, and not to decide about this in each concrete case has its reason, but ... . But the thing is that the judicial system very often does not perform its primary purpose: to protect the society against criminal acts, ensuring impartial punishment of the wrongdoers. People break the law and litigate, not because they don't know the laws — they may not know the letter of the law, yet they know its spirit — but because they hope to remain unpunished, were it when they could not be caught, were it when they win the lawsuit (though being not right), and there are not rare the cases when they apply their own justice, because don't believe in the official one. And the justice itself can never be really impartial, when is done by persons who, obviously, are both biased and can easily be corrupted. And the judges — they as if judge, for this is what their name says, but in reality are only a kind of ushers (or "conductors", according with the meaning of this word in English). The judge does not judge according to his (or her) meaning, or understanding of the situation, but according to the laws, and the best what he can do, for to express his view of the situation, is to adjust the law to the situation, not vice versa, what means that, in this case, he is definitely biased! So that the unbiased judge is not a judge, and the biased one is not a good judge.

     This is one vicious circle in which we move for twenty centuries and the way out is: either in applying of automated computerized systems and /or taking of administrative decisions, at least at the first levels (what nowadays is not more an utopia); or in the massive applying of representatives of the people — Court Assessors (CA) in the lawsuits, while the role of the judges is reduced to functions of ushers or conductors or of professional consultants of the CAs. Yet in this case the CAs should not just stay there "dumb as fishes" all the time, but have to be able to ask questions, to require information and expertises and, generally, to do the work of the judge. Well, as far as it is not proper for a heap of people to ask and order, then it must be allowed for their chairman (de facto, the judge, but who must not have right to vote) to coordinate the things, and to has legal education, but all responsible decisions must be taken collectively by the CAs with usual voting. And not in this, I beg to be excused, perverse way in which this is performed in the moment (at least on the West, for the author is not a jurist), where is required unanimous decision by all of the jurors, because we in Bulgaria know pretty well what is this unanimous decision, applied nearly half a century in our "people's democratic" structures. The voting has to be performed via traditional voting, with "yes", "no", and abstained, and decision has to be taken with simple or qualified (2/3) majority.

     And — something that is more than obvious, but is not applied till now in whatever country — these Court Assessors should not be chosen nation-wide by the people and proposed by the political powers according to some, clearly distorted, views for best arbitrators, but to be a representative sample of the population, what has to say that they are to be chosen in some arbitrary way, which can guarantee proportionate representation of all layers of the nation (not of the parties) in the justice. These people must be much more than the present day CA by us, and to serve for a very short time — a month, maybe — what will ensure wider participation of people in the system of justice (not only in the reading of judicial chronicle in newspapers). If everyone will have at least once in his (or her) life the right to be CA then the laws will be, most probably, better obeyed. Each higher instance must have more CA, and the highest must be chosen from some Court Assessorial Assembly (AA for short), allowing also nation-wide voting (using some phone-cards, Internet, etc.). And it is absolutely clear that there is no reason for them to be even number, more so 12 (as it is on the West), and each part of the suit has to have rights to reject somebody — what is the luck of the accused (for the given level), such will be his (or her) arbiters. It is logically to accept their number to be, from the lowest levels up: 3, 5, 7, and 9, where in especially serious cases the AA may consist of 99 persons, only for the voting. And let us not indulge now in talks that law-knowledge, for example, must be one of the learning subjects in the schools (surely more important in the life of each citizen than, say, the works of some of our poets or writers). Only that such changes can not enter the judicial system until they settle well in the basis of our democratic system, which continue to be party one, or partial, biased, and does not express the wishes of the population, but about these question the author has spoken largely in other materials.

     Let us take now the lawyers — they defend, above all, their own fees, and not the truth, because for money can be proven what not. The law suites, since Roman times, have been predominantly place for personal expression of the lawyers, not place for proving of the truth, and everybody knows that the suit is won, most often, by the better lawyer, what says that wins not the truth, but the competence (to distort the truth, or to "pull the blanket to oneself"). Legally competent persons, if and as far as they are necessary in one lawsuit, can be used, though not as persons who speak instead of a given part (except when the concrete person is in some extent hindered to do this), but as judicial advisors, consultants, or experts, in the same way as there are used specialists in other areas. When one has completed one's compulsory education and has learned to read and write, can move freely in the society, cross the streets or drive a car, employ oneself for a given job, and perform others dangerous, to a certain extent, activities, where every other one can cheat or deceive him (or her, and especially in democratic conditions, i.e. in a situation of greater personal freedoms), then every such person must be able to defend himself in person, or to accuse alone somebody, when needed. He, surely, will not be professional, but he will at least be genuine and less deceitful than the lawyers, i.e. by such person to find the truth will be easier, than in the current situation. And when the real arbiters, or CAs, are also not jurists (with the exception of their chairman) then this will not be considered as something uncommon. In the end, the laws are complicated, and become even more complicated, because the jurists want this, not because this is so necessary, for the reason that the feeling for justice or guilt is practically inborn in the humans and suffices literally a ten of "God's commandments", for him to know how to behave in the society. Add to this also the law-knowledge, about which we have just spoken, add the possible simplification of the things (about which we shall speak later), the various computerized guides, the judicial person (the chairmen of the jurors, for whom is proper to have right of veto when something against the law is proposed and voted), and it turns out that the professionalism is simply artificially forced, in order to allow the jurists to protect their "bread" or living! It is not that we don't understand them, and that, if the people have not wanted to litigate, there would have been at least twice less lawsuits, bur until the very population will not decide to press a little this privileged stratum, the things will not improve. How the judges are not real judges, so also the lawyers do not defend the truth, and the place both, of the ones and of the others, must be only auxiliary, subordinate.

     But if the lawyers will not work for their fees, how they will work then, will somebody ask. Well, in the same manner how work about 90% of the employees, i.e. for a fixed payment. All lawyers can be appointed centralized via some arbitrary choice (taking into consideration their specialization); it might be also that somebody chooses some of them, but not because pays him more. Ponder a little, please, about the things: the question isn't so flat, as whether should be paid for a given activity (when each activity costs something) or not to be paid for it, but whether must be paid in the moment of using of the service, when the interest of the doer distorts the character of the work (like, for example, the physicians want to be more ailing persons and operations, in order for them to get more money; the lawyers want to be more suits for the same reason). If before a century such thought might have been an utopia nowadays, when exist social insurance, nationwide education, employment law advisors, and other things, there are no principal problems for the existence also of law insurance, are they? So that everything is a question of will — will, but shown by the very people.

     And one more thing: due to the ever existing wish of people to simplify everything, in the judicial system are accepted some obvious absurds, like this, that the Court is infallible (if a higher instance does not change some decision, but every worker in a given system is bound to defend it, so that this rarely happens), or that the decision must be always binary, i.e. guilty or not guilty, or that the laws must be obeyed literally, in spite of the fact that the people, if there is someone to ask them in the case, would have said something different, and similar things. It is clear that the higher instances, especially AA, or nationwide voting, have to be in position to interpret the laws as they deem fit, and even not to apply them in some cases (without changing them). It is clear also that by a normal (not unanimous) voting there will be persons who vote both, "for" and "against", as well will abstain, so that there might be also level of certainty by taking of the decision, which must at least be announced publicly. Every Court can make an error and this is even very common practice! In fact also an entire nation can make errors, and it isn't that this has not happened or does not happen often, but the accent here is not on the infallibility, it is on the concrete view of the population in the given moment and for the given place, which standpoint may be changed later.

     It has to be clear that it is not possible to write a program that will take exact decisions in an enormously big (not to say infinite) number of variants of behaviour, without existence of some intellect taking decisions on the spot, while the judicial system tries to make exactly this impossible thing, and because of this the errors are commensurate with the situation when such program is not present (i.e. if we judged as in the ancient times — not according to laws, but according to the conscience of the judge)*. If the best decision, as a rule, is the compromise one, then let the jurisprudence, too, become one good compromise between impartiality and humanity, and not to be lowed on us like something given by God. The very jurists, obviously, are contented with their role of gods, and they alone will never resign from this position, but if common people will judge, if they change often (so that everybody will wait his or her turn) and have no grounds for pretenses and career making, the things, probably, will be better.

     The only rational grain in the jurisprudence, come to think about, is the system of Prosecution, i.e. of defense of the interests of the state, behind which stay those of the people. But there also are drawbacks in it because when the Prosecution initiates a suit it feels obliged to convict the offender as severe as possible, and the questions of elementary humanity remain in background. In this regard can be proposed also in this legal body to have three or five persons from CAs, or of some alternative group, but arbitrary chosen and non-professionals, who have to "hold the ball", in order not to come to harsh cases. Let us remind again that we are not against the professionalism of the jurists, but against their leading role and the possibility for mercenary extraction of benefits, maintaining also that each part must defend itself alone, and only when this is difficult to be implemented or impossible, just then to be allowed it to be substituted by an jurist. Such special cases can be, for example: physical or mental defects of the person; he or she can not appear because is dead or seriously ill; if the suit is initiated by the Prosecution but the victim or his /her relatives do not want to take part in person in the Court as accusers; defendant in a given case is the state (and we can't require in such cases at the dock to be called, say, the President); and so on, but when the physical person can be defined, even in suits from or against companies, they should be represented by the person who according to the law represents them (the President of the company), not by specially appointed lawyer (who is not a part of the lawsuit), he /she may take part in the suit, but behind the scenes and when the defendant or the claimant gives him the floor. Well, let us conclude with this the common shortcomings of the judicial system and go to one concrete question elaborated by the author.

     2. Unification of the assessment of damages and guilt

     The laws must be simplified as much as possible, because they also obey the Parkinson's law, stating that each work grows so much for to fill the time fixed for it, or to use the time of those who perform it. More precisely, here it goes about this, that each system strives to become more complex, hoping that in this way it will become better, but from a given point on it becomes only more complicated, and later on it begins to function even worse, exactly because of its complexity. Maybe at the dawn of ancient legislation the laws have done the work, at least because they were much less in their number as are now, or the judges were with much higher morality than of those today. It might as well be so, though we don't believe much in this, most probable for the author seems the thesis that the legislation was yet another utopia with which the society has fooled itself and continues to do this also today. Well, the humanity can not live without utopias, and it is also true that the point is not so much in the severity of the punishment as in its inevitability, which depends not on the laws but on the bodies for coercion and various systems for monitoring (of everything that can be monitored) and for manipulating of the population (in its own interest), so that let us at least propose some way for unification and simplifying of the assessment for guilt, which in the civil law is reduced mainly to material damages.

     What we have in mind is that the measuring unit, which is the national currency, is the most uncertain of all, because in the business is not set on one asset only, there is money market, there are precious metals, there is unmovable property, and other things. Besides, no business has such ambitions as the judicial system, to exist not only for centuries but for millenniums. It is quite natural that there can't exist exact measurement when the "yardstick" changes, and it changes not only by high inflation, it changes also by stable social development, where under the normal 4-5% interest rate and /or inflation for 20 years, or less than one generation (which is now up to 27 years), all prices double. This, obviously, creates work for the jurists, but we think that this artificially created work can and must be eliminated.

     So that, with what are we to measure if not with money units? Well, with something that does not change, i.e. that changes with the time, but which can be used for measuring of the living standard, so that when we express everything else with this thing, then the prices will remain constant! If in Ancient Rome such decision could not have been possible, then at least for a century in every more or less developed country (and even in such like Bulgaria) exists the notion minimal monthly salary (MMS), to which are tied all social payments. (Well, they are tied in the "normal" countries, where by us they can not be properly "tied", because, at least in sense of social insurance is accepted that one MMS equals two MMS**, but let us expect that this is our another "error of the growth" and, sooner or later, the things in Bulgaria will normalize.) Only that we propose to use not MMS, but the minimal yearly salary (MS for short), respectively averaged after elapsing of the year, because most of the damages will be commensurable with the yearly salary, and for smaller damages may be used at most up to two decimal digits. For the situation in the moment 1 MMS = 100 lv, or 1 MS = 1,200 lv, where it is clear that for damages less than 12 lv nobody will sue, and most of the cases are for damages of order of hundreds and thousands, even tens of thousands levs (i.e. from several to several tens of MS), but may be also bigger sums, in suits between companies or especially wealthy persons.

     From here follows that the most natural and simply decision is for all laws to be reedited (this is done quite easy, when there exist computerized data bases, as the things stay also by us), where all fines are expressed in MS and parts of it to the second digit after the point. Later on is possible for every one of the laws to be revised and corrected, as it often happens. But in the fullness of the matter the things are more complicated, because we require only this to be the unique measuring unit, for the moment at least in the civil law, where it goes primarily about damages, not about human lives, which can not be restored again. This means that if somewhere is written "... and so many years of prison" then this, too, has to be expressed in MS. The simplest assumption, at a first edition, is 1 MS = 1/2 years of prison (in fact, the direction in the beginning is reverse, i.e. 1 year prison = 2.0 MS), and in a new examination the things may be corrected. It can be introduced also some ranging of prisons (say, such where 1 MS is counted for 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, or 0.7 years). By this, however, always when there goes about compensation of damages which can be recompensed, it must be allowed to the convicted to do this (where, eventually, is come to confiscation of allowed by the law personal property), and only when this is not possible only then he /she has to be imprisoned, because the prison not only will not return the sum to the harmed part, but will also add new expenses for the state. So that also for this reason is justified that the major (and single) measuring unit is MS, and not years of imprisonment.

     But this means that also the very repayment will be done exactly in MS, not in levs, i.e. it, surely, will be done in levs, but they will be momentarily converted to MS (with precision to the third digit after the point) according to the moment of paying of the sum, so that every necessity of calculating of interests or returning of the suit again to the Court as a result of changes in the living standard (say, high inflation) is avoided. This approach can be applied in full to all kinds of payments in the country, or at least to the suits for child support. The only thing, which is required in this situation from a given state, is for it to maintain correctly the MMS, a thing which it is obliged to do in any case, if it cares for its image before the world. More than this, so formulated the laws can be with one, really, global for all countries sphere of validity, because the legislatures in all countries, anyway, aim at their equalizing, especially in the frames of United Europe, and this will be the best basis for uniting of countries with different standards of life. It might have been objected that it is better to use one average salary (income), but this is relative notion, with which can be speculated, while the minimal is announced publicly and is not subject of questionable calculation.

     A bit more complicated, but not unconquerable, is the question with the criminal law, where the sentences are reduced mainly to years of imprisonment, by the simple reason that one human life is invaluable and can not be restored (similarly also light, medium, and heavy bodily injuries). Well, it is so but ... is it, really, so? Because when we say "priceless" we don't mean that it has no price at all but that it is too big, or likewise "invaluable" means that it is difficult to calculate its value. Yet in many cases we are bound to have some price for this priceless thing called life; we must have a price not because this will return the life but simply because there must be also quantitative estimation. If we do not dig to deep in the moral aspects of the matter, because under the capitalism everything, also the working force, is object of buying and selling and, hence, has some price, we can safely assume that this is not whole compensation, but measure for the punishment of the guilty, or partial reimbursement for the injured or his /her heirs. Even only to be able to have unified measure this will be suitable and useful, and here we presuppose that this is some reparation (and you have heard that with a delay of half of a century the Germans pay today retributions to the left alive victims of nazism). The unified measure is the first condition for simplification and unification of the things, more so in a sufficiently complicated system, as this of the jurisprudence.

     So well, let us think that we have succeeded to convince the reader how necessary is such unified measure, which is clear that has to be expressed via MS, but on what basis must be done this? Here, again, could have been proposed to use the average (yearly) salary or income for the country, but our goal is to propose not some utopia but something real and, naturally, is exceedingly unrealistic to accept that an average culprit (a murderer, for example) can repay the value of the human life (or part of it, if it was only bodily injury) for the time left to the victim /injured till the average life expectancy (say, 80 years), by average income of approximately 2.5 MS, if he (or she) has the same average income and has also to sustain his own life. In this case we must either return to the gone away centuries, when for destroyed life was taken life, and for partial injuries, for example, to cut the culprit a hand, or a leg, or whatever (what will not, even partially, reimburse the victim), or must change the "yardstick". We again think that the right measure is also: by one MS for the left to the victim years till the average life span (initially we accept 80), but not less than 1/10 of this time (i.e. 8 years).

     In other words, it is clear that it is not correct to have different measures for different victims, because before the justice all have to be equal, and that this measure must be the minimal, not the average, income. But this turns out to be justified also for other reasons. If the average human being earns his average income, he does this not during his entire life (80 years), but somewhere about 30-35 years, what is roughly 2.5 times less than his entire life span, so that the measure: for one year — one MS, is quite suitable. In this situation, as far as neither the compensation is full, nor is supposed it to be accessible to the "average culprit", nor also is educative for him to escape only with money fine, is necessary for the major part of the punishment to be converted to prison, requiring payment of only (if the culprit is in condition to do this) one to two MS (this will be made more precise in the next point) to the victim, with addition also of the costs of proceedings. It is clear that when is decided that the person presents danger for the society he may (and must) be retained in special correctional institutions, during the investigation and so on, but these are details for each concrete case; the medical institutions, anyway, are not observed as prison, though they have similar effect for the culprit; our unified measure does not eliminate the necessity of isolation of the culprit, but it is measured through MS, and isolation can be applied not only because of guilt, also when is ascertained danger for the society.

     Let us see then, with some examples, what we have got. For example, murder of 30 years old citizen. Then the punishment has to be 50 MS, calculated as prison this makes 25 years, but if the guilty can repay something, with confiscation of his property, this period will be lessened, besides, the initially established years do not correspond to the really spent in the prison years (for various reasons), so that this gives about 15 years real prison. This is quite much according to the current views, but it is not that this does not happen in some countries, and here we come to the question of personal modification of the sentence, with what we will engage ourselves in the next point. But if the victim is 75 years old, for example, then the punishment will be 8 MS, or some recompense for the heirs plus 2-3 years of prison. You see that such strong dependence of the age is something new in the legislature, but there is quite much logic in this, and the bigger part of the victims are predominantly below or about the middle age, what outlines about 20 years of prison; besides, the age, although not explicitly, is taken in consideration by establishing of the sentence (using this "from ... to ..." in the laws); and in addition to this, if it goes about murder with robbery, then the stolen goods are required to be returned (and if they are inherited then are taken back), so that this also adds a MS or two to the sentence, what shows that our idea is quite acceptable.

     Let us take now an average bodily injury, severe — 50% of the value of the left life — this will give half of the sentence in the previous case (according with the age). Or rape — evaluated by the law for about 10% (i.e. without severe physical injury), but the victim is 20 years old and this will give 1/10 of 60 MS or 6 MS, where the victim has all chances to receive a decent remuneration, as also the culprit to stay for 1-2 years in prison. Or road traffic accident — the calculations can be similar, but with some coefficient of guilt, which can be in the limits of 1 to 4%, for example, because is accepted that this is not premeditated murder, but it is not right to escape without any punishment; similarly in case of self-defense, and also for other alike deeds.

     Now is seen already that we propose some set of coefficients, by which is multiplied the punishment, so that to preserve the universal approach for establishing of the guilt, based on the age of the victim. These coefficients can be the following: a) level of injuries — from 0.01 to 1.0 by death; less than one percent we don't think is appropriate, but for each of the categories of cases mentioned in the laws are defined their own limits; b) guilt of the perpetrator — similarly from 0.01 to 1.0 for premeditated act (in particular murder); c) cruelty — from 0.5 to 1.5, where the one is for not shown cruelty, and 0.5 is for some humanity, according to the commonly accepted understanding (i.e. there exists, or must exist difference between murder with sleeping pills, or firearms but on the spot, or after torture and beating); d) conviction of the jury — from 0.5 to 1.0, where if it is less than 0.5 is established the coefficient of the reverse statement (for example, not guilty); such coefficient is high time to be introduced, because the binary assessment can give (and gives) very big difference, and at least 1/4 of the cases are based on circumstantial evidences where, quite obviously, can't exist complete conviction; e) modifier of CAs — coefficient in the limits of 2/3 to 4/3, i.e. allowing two-fold changing of the punishment, but centered around the one, with which the jury in the higher instances (if and when this is allowed by the law) can force its own view, diminishing or increasing the provided penalty according to its (i.e. their) own conscience; and maybe some other more.

     This will reduce the qualification of the deeds to filling up of tables, but in this way the things will be made easier and more convenient for applying by everyone (including computerized systems, what is a matter of near future, at least on the lowest law instance), where using of computer tables will allow for all estimations to be done momentarily. By one proper voting of many CAs with various meanings (according with what was said in the previous point) the finding of the exact percent will be done automatically by the computer, or can be conducted voting for establishing of the necessary percent via binary division of the allowed interval of the coefficient in question. In this way both, will be considered the influence of various specific for the concrete case parameters, and also the laws will be possible to be written universally; the existing till now "from — to" is very rough and in many cases erroneous; in addition to this it is important — for various statistics and analyzes — to know the estimations for each of the parameters, not only the "fallen from the blue" end decision of the jury. Together with this the unified assessment of damages or guilt allows also quite natural proportional dividing of the punishment, when there are  several accused /culprits, for which purpose is necessary, after establishing of the common amount of MS, to vote also for the part of the guilt for each of the accused. This will decrease the personal punishment when there are several accomplices, but if the damages and compensations are correctly calculated this is justified, and, in addition, will stimulate the offenders to reveal other persons who have taken part in the violation of the law, but are not yet known to the justice (i.e. also the "soaking" of other persons will be correctly done).

     Generally saying, our approach is not at all new, where similar methods are applied for long time in various scientific activities, by making of diverse programs and planning of many activities, though it is new in the system of jurisprudence! And it is new because the officers of this system set more on the emphasizing of their high position than on the transparency of their actions, on the divine mystery instead on the gnawing doubt, and so on. In many countries they even still wear wigs, in order to stress their "inhuman" nature, but we feel obliged to explain that the English "wig" comes from the well known ... fig, or rather from one single leaf of it (although it may be also wine leaf), because already since the time of Adam and Eve the people have masked their shameful places of the body with leaves of a fig tree, or, at least, have thought that have beautified themselves in this way (I may add that the ... figure, too, carries the same idea). Well, the author thinks that only the just processing of lawsuits can beautify an officer of this system, everything else is only, as the Russians say, figliarstvo (in order to use the same root), or buffoonery, tricks and frauds.

     3. Personal modification of the punishment according with the means of the guilty

     If in the previous point were some calculations then they were only simple arithmetic, which, anyway, is done, or was done when the laws were created. Here, though, we will present something that affects the mathematics learned in the higher school grades (9th - 11th), but what, still, is not higher mathematics, and it is forced to us by the very life, because even if someone thinks that the Court is an abstract structure and does not consist of people but of "vicars of God", it is quite clear that the accused or defendant is a common person, but at the same time the different defendants have different resources, so that one and the same penalty is not one and the same regarding the different persons. In other words, we want to propose some personal filter, which must modify the damages or the compensation S (in MS), to some personal punishment N (also in MS, but from there reduced also to years of imprisonment), at least on the basis of some personal factor, namely: his (or her) living standard expressed through his income. As far as, however, under the capitalism everything is expressed in money then this single factor is practically universal.

     Our idea again is simple but powerful and applicable for whatever diapason of punishments and for whatever income of the accused. It reduces mainly to this that extremely big punishments, which can neither be paid out nor served in prison, must simply be diminished, in order to become bearable. In our legislature there is not this paradox that someone may be sentenced to 273 years imprisonment, for example, but there is other wrong position —that he is prosecuted only for the biggest offense. Where we think that there must be made difference between the assessment of the guilt and the personal punishment (the very paying of the money and/or serving in prison). The assessment S must be according to the explained in the previous point, and the personal punishment N, must be according to the means of the guilty. As universal measure for his financial abilities we accept his average yearly income (PI for short), calculated on basis of the last five years, accepting (i.e. legalizing this), that everyone is in condition to pay out up to one PI, but not more than two PI, in more special cases, or by wish of one of the parts, and everything left is changed with years of imprisonment. In this way we get quite natural transition between the two till now used measuring units (money and prison), where many money are automatically converted to years of prison, but the very notion "many" depends on the guilty!

     It remains the most important thing — to explain how exactly will happen this modification of the punishment. Well, it is clear that it must be such that to decrease the big punishments, or to flatten the curve of penalties in direction of bigger values, but in what way? Now, the most natural way is to use some exponent, because this curve is massively met in nature, by our sensitive organs (it is reacted in "times" of change, not in percents), and is widely used in various technical and scientific situations. Because far from all readers (more so jurists) are familiar with similar mathematical questions, let us stress that this is the smoothest mathematical curve (it has unlimited number of derivatives and all they are the same!), so that is has not "fallen from the blue" but is invented (in the exact mathematical sense) for the reason that the practice requires it. Though there are no obstacles to be applied also the vulgar method for checking of its smoothness — when one moves a finger on it then it curves but has no "bulges".

     Good, we have come to the exponent, yet we will use not exactly it but its inverse function, called logarithm, about which all have at least heard, and especially the decimal one, as more natural for the people (where that one, which is called "natural", isn't quite natural for the common people). Our goal is so to flatten the curve of punishments, that by value of 10,000 MS to remain only 1,000 MS, i.e. to diminish it 10 times there, but the one (1 MS) to be left on its place! Here we enter in more and more complicated matter, but we shall make efforts to explain it simple, although even if it remains not much clear there is nothing dangerous in this, because it goes only about some motivation, and it is not at all necessary for it to be included in the legal documents — it is just given a formula which has to be applied. So, and if we come now to logarithmic scale, then the logarithm of exponent becomes straight line, so that we have to draw a line through the point (0;0), because log101 = lg1 = 0 (the logarithm of one is always zero, no matter what is the base of the logarithm, which here is 10), and the point (4;1), because lg10,000 = 4, and lg10 = 1, and we want exactly 10 times decreasing in this point. Then this line will have angular coefficient of slope 1/4 and therefore its equation, if we return to the normal scale, will be   . If we now remove the logarithm we must apply antilogarithm, or to raise 10 (the base) to the power of each of both parts, what gives  , but  , where on this number y we must divide, in order to have the desired effect. So that by damages S, for the punishment N on the changed curve we will have  , what for S = 1 [MS] will give, really, lg1, what is 0, and then 10 to the zero power, what is 1, and S divided to 1 is again the same. But if we take S=10,000, then lg10,000 = 4, multiplied by 1/4 gives 1, 10 to the first power is 10, so that S will be divided by 10 and this will give 1,000; respectively for S=1,000 we will receive (after calculations) 177.828, what will be the modified punishment corresponding to damages of 1,000 MS; for S=100, will have N = 31.623; and for 10 MS — will have N = 5.623 MS.

     Only that the curve will be such if the flattening preserves to point 1 MA, but we said that we want this to be not the minimal salary though the personal yearly income, i.e. PI, which we will mark as D. So in this case this, what we must do, is to change so the logarithm, that it to become 0 by S = D (i.e. for S = D the argument of the logarithm to be 1), and respectively to give 10 by S=10,000*D, and this means that we shall in the argument of logarithm take S/D (but the first S, by which we multiply remains the same, because we continue to measure the damages). So we obtain the formula for punishment   . Before to give one table with some of the values of the curve N let us turn your attention to one not much desirable effect in this case: when for big S the curve will be flattened and diminish, then for small values of S it will increase, so that for damages of order of 1/100 of MS (or 12 levs at the moment) the punishment has to be about 30 times bigger. This follows not only from the reasonings in logarithmic scale, where we have straight line, but also from the character of exponent (and logarithm) which monotonously increase (or decrease). But there is nothing dangerous in these because there is one trivial solution: we apply our filter only for values above the personal income D, and for smaller values the punishment is exactly equal to the computed damages. The transition between sloping straight line and its curving by exponent happens by S = D, and exactly this was our goal — to correct only unbearably big punishments of the accused. The state of the affairs in table form is shown on Tabl.1.

N[MS]for S→, D0.010.100.501.


     As is seen in this table the formula can be applied in infinite diapason, including for guilt of companies, where the income of company for an year can be hundreds and thousands of MS, and here also is accepted that subject of payment are punishments to 1, and not more than 2, but mark, now not MS, but PI of the person or company, what is entirely logical! The remained punishment is subject to serving in prison by the mentioned coefficient: half an year prison for one MS. This means that the entire punishment for wealthy persons /companies is bigger than for poorer ones, but this is correct, because by better way of life one has less reasons to commit offenses, and in addition to this if we are before 1 PI the punishment exactly equals the damages, only that will we be before or above 1 PI depends on the means of the guilty.

     Let us now take in focus two lines — those for PI equal to 1 MS and for 10 MS. For 1 MS: if the guilt is for 5 MS we get punishment of 3.34 MS, where one is paid and the left 2.34 MS give 1.17 years of prison; by 10 MS is paid again 1 MS and the remained 4.62 MS give 2.31 years prison; by 50 MS (received, for example, for a "standard" murder of 30 years old victim) we have 18.8 MS punishment, from which after paying of 1 MS remain about 9 years prison (which is not properly to be lessened more than this — for good behaviour, or by subtracting the weekends, or after the later amnesty, etc.); and by 100 MS (a cruel murder of young person can quietly give so much) the corrected personally punishment will be 31.62 MS, where in the prison is served about 15 years; and so on. While for PI (or D) = 10 MS we have: all damages up to 10 MS are paid (full retribution); by 50 MS we have corrected punishment of 33.44 MS, but paying 10 (or maybe even 20 MS, if this is financial offense) then in the prison will be served 12 (respectively about 7) years; and by 100 MS the punishment now becomes 56.23 MS and paying out 10 MS for the prison remain about 23 years.

     In addition to this the correction will be different if we have several accomplices, because then their guilt will be less and will be paid out or served more fully. For example if the cited murder giving 50 MS is divided between two guilty culprits, say, with 60 and 40 percents, then we move to damages of 30 and 20 MS, which (this is not given in the table) will give punishments, by one, this time average income of 2.5 MS, respectively 16.1 and 11.9 MS, so that it turns that the first will serve 6.8, and the second 4.7 years in prison; at the same time, if he were one person with the same average income, then for 50 MS we get corrected punishment of 23.64 MS, and if he pays again 2.5 MS (but only once, and when there are two persons it becomes twice more), then for him remain to serve 10.57 years imprisonment, what is more than for each of the both previous persons, but less than their sum. In the next table (Tabl.2.) is given in more details the proportion money [MS] and prison [years], depending on S and D.

N m/p for S→, D0.010.100.501.


     By the way, the proposed formula can be written also in another form, using non-integer powers, something in what each good school student in the last (or but one) year can convince himself.


but this changes with nothing the things, because the non-integer powers are, anyway, calculated via logarithms. This form seems a bit simpler in regard of the writing, but is pretty mysterious if we try to perceive its meaning, and because of this we explained the primary form. Something more, instead of decimal logarithms we can use also natural ones (with base of the Neper number e), but then we have to raise the same e in power, not the ten, in what we can convince ourselves if we start in the above formula from right to left and substitute before the third "=" 10 lg with e ln . But, at the end, these are equivalent formulas (like, say, win and gain) so that let us not diverge more.

     Another moment is the question with confiscation of the property that can be taken from the accused, if he (she) has such. This is done before the personal correction of punishment, so that if via his property he can diminish the common amount of damages S this will reflect on his sentence. Maybe it must be specified also the establishing of his PI — this must be done based on the families (commonly living persons), because not everybody earns alone his income. But if the person is separate family, and has no permanent income, then it has to be taken to be 2/3 of MS (where this must be also the minimum acceptable value at all), because such is the tendency on the West for various social payments. If, on the other hand, there is no available data (say, he was imprisoned, or abroad and can not show documents for income, etc.) then has to be accepted that his income was 1 MS. We have also not specified when the money must be paid (in MS) — whether before or after entering in prison, if this should happen. We think this must happen up to 5 years, but in view of various reasons it is not suitable to subtract from them the years in prison (this does not matter for suits against companies, but also for physical persons is not special problem, it the convict can find the money — were is via withdrawal from an account, selling of property, collecting of rent when he is not living in the home, borrowing money, etc.), so that they run from the moment of ending of the suit. During this time the person can be free (and then to spare from his salary) or imprisoned, but if after elapsing of this time he has still not paid the money, then he must serve also this sum.

     That is one of the ways for bettering of the work of Courts, for achieving of real assessment of damages (or quite close to the real one, in case of inflicting of physical damages and death), bur also for justified punishment, in accordance with financial abilities of the person, and in addition also for one easy unification of the jurisprudence in the entire world. There are ways, if there is desire for bettering of the situation.

     October 2001





(or "Egg Economy")

     In the interest of truth, the idea of this material is not of the author but is borrowed by Mark Twain, from his book "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court", but well — that's the purpose of classicists, to learn from them. Though, on the other hand, the things are creatively applied, and, besides, to Mister Samuel Clemens, most probably, someone from the ancient people has suggested something, because the egg is a thing at which people since deep antiquity have wondered, and for that reason its name in most of Hindu-European languages is just ... an exclamation, like for example in German it is das Ei (read 'ay' like in "mine"), in French it is oeuf (i.e. "oh", what is similar to the Latin ovo, what is near to Russian ogo, what means "ah"), the English "egg" has to be something like "eh" or "yeah", in Russian it is "yaytzo" (what you would have written, I suppose, as "iaitzo", but in many European languages it will be "jajtzo"), what is some "ay /yay" (obvious exclamation), in Bulgarian is nearly the same ("yaytze"), and so on (where in Sanskrit it was aksha, what is again "ah"). Naturally, here it goes not about etymology, but about economic usage of the egg as a coin, yet from the exaltation about it to the idea for such usage, the way is not very long, so that, if the eggs have not become spoiled so fast, they would have been long ago used as units for exchange. But the idea is still actual (and will be such for a long time more), due to the fact that, despite the enormous power of contemporary technologies, the eggs are still not synthetically produced, and even if they were synthesized this would have hardly changed significantly the situation, because artificial diamonds exist long ago but the price of natural ones has not fallen.

     So that, let is imagine that there existed such money unit — one ovo, which is equal to the price of one egg. Then, expressing with it all products we will have one constant for each time, as also universal for all countries, price! However simple this idea can be, it is very convincing and for that reason we have created here one table with the basic foodstuff and other products, adding also the salaries in different periods of our newest history, as also for one Western country (Austria), which will be used for comparison. On the basis of this table (in two parts, for it does not fit in the page) we can draw interesting conclusions, so that let us begin (the order is not important).


 Bulgaria 1988Bulg. 06.1999%/'88Bulg. 06.2000%/'88
egg(lv)0.13egg(lv)0.08 egg(lv)0.12 
us$(lv)0.98us$(lv)1.80 us$(lv)2.10 
egg(us$)0.133egg(us$)0.044 egg(us$)0.057 
Types of productslevseggslevseggseggslevseggseggs
chicken egg (1 pc)
fresh milk (l)0.302.30.506.31710.806.7189
white cow cheese (kg)2.6020.02.0025.0252.5020.84
white sheep cheese (kg)3.6027.73.0037.5353.6030.08
cheese good (kg)5.0038.54.0050.0304.5037.5-3
minced meat (kg)5.6043.13.4042.5-13.0025.0-42
meat with bones (kg)5.6043.14.0050.0164.0033.3-23
meat fillet/tenderloin(kg)7.0053.86.0075.0396.0050.0-7
sausage fresh (kg)4.0030.82.8035.0143.2026.7-13
sausage dry (kg)7.0053.85.0062.5165.0041.7-23
sausage dry special (kg)12.0092.310.00125.03511.0091.7-1
sugar (kg)
flour (kg)0.604.60.506.3350.605.08
bread good (kg)0.483.70.658.11200.705.858
sunflower oil (l)1.6012.31.5018.8521.5012.52
butter (125g)0.725.50.708.8580.756.313
margarine (250g)0.503.80.556.9790.605.030
chocolate usual.(100g)0.806.20.607.5220.806.78
biscuits usual.(300g)0.403.10.506.31030.504.235
tomatoes season (kg)0.403.10.303.8220.403.38
potatoes season (kg)0.604.60.506.3350.403.3-28
onions (kg)0.503.80.303.8-20.504.28
oranges season (kg)
bananas season (kg)1.8013.81.4017.5261.4011.7-16
coffee average (kg)18.00138.58.50106.3-238.5070.8-49
coffee on street (cup)0.403.10.202.5-190.252.1-32
newspaper (pc)
letter domestic0.,3630.181.5875
ticket state bus transp.
petrol aver. qual. (l)
cigarettes filt. Bulg.(pac)0.806.20.607.5220.605.0-19
wine usual (btl 0.7)1.4010.81.4017.5631.4011.78
beer stable (btl 0.5)0.604.60.455.6220.605.08
conc. spirits Bulg. (0.7)4.2032.32.8035.082.8023.3-28
minimal monthly salary160.001,230.861.00762.5-3875.00625.0-49
average monthly salary350.002,692.3190.002,375.0-12220.001,833.3-32




 Bulg.06.2001%/'88Austria 1993Bg.'06Bulg.06.2008
egg(lv)0.14 egg(a.s.)1.75 egg(lv)0.20
us$(lv)2.30 us$(a.s.)11.50 us$(lv)1.30
egg(us$)0.061 egg(us$)0.1520.08egg(us$)0.154
Types of productslevseggseggsshillingseggseggslevseggs
chicken egg (1 pc)
fresh milk (l)0.805.714811.
white cow cheese (kg)2.7019.3-4notnot20.04.8024.0
white sheep cheese (kg)4.8034.32475.042.935.07.0035.0
cheese good (kg)5.0035.7-7100.
minced meat (kg)3.2022.9-4750.028.635.05.5027.5
meat with bones (kg)6.0042.9-150.028.640.08.0040.0
meat fillet/tenderloin(kg)7.0050.0-770.
sausage fresh (kg)3.0021.4-3036.020.625.05.0025.0
sausage dry (kg)6.0042.9-2080.045.750.010.0050.0
sausage dry special (kg)12.0085.7-7110.062.990.018.0090.0
sugar (kg)1.007.1-714.
flour (kg)0.654.6112.
bread good (kg)0.755.44520.
sunflower oil (l)1.7012.1-113.07.410.03.2016.0
butter (125g)0.755.4-311.
margarine (250g)0.604.3115.
chocolate usual.(100g)0.906.445.
biscuits usual.(300g)0.503.61610.
tomatoes season (kg)0.503.6165.
potatoes season (kg)0.453.2-302.
onions (kg)0.503.6-
oranges season (kg)1.007.1-
bananas season (kg)1.6011.4-1711.06.312.01.608.0
coffee average (kg)8.5060.7-5660.034.370.012.0060.0
coffee on street (cup)0.251.8-428.
newspaper (pc)0.503.68295.
letter domestic0.221.69215.
ticket state bus transp.0.402.951920.
petrol aver. qual. (l)1.4010.03010.
cigarettes filt. Bulg.(pac)0.604.3-3035.
wine usual (btl 0.7)1.7012.11315.08.610.02.4012.0
beer stable (btl 0.5)0.604.3-
conc. spirits Bulg. (0.7)3.2022.9-2955.031.430.06.0030.0
minimal monthly salary85.00607.1-5111,2006,400.0800.0220.001,100.0
average monthly salary250.001,785.7-3425,00014,285.72,000.0460.002,300.0


  • The first thing that can be seen is the significant rising in prices of subsidized earlier products, which in this manner are well outlined. These are not only milk, milk products, and bread, but transport and communications, where the percentages of increase to the base of 1988 are placed between 400 and 700, and even more. (These are percents for the changes, i.e.: (cur_year - 88_year) / 88_year * 100, all in eggs.) The table is not very precise, so that in it are not present many communal expenses (central heating, electricity, water, etc.), but there the prices are now also drastically increased, because for one two-room flat (about 60 sq.m. — and the curious thing is that you call this one-bedroom flat, you do not count the common or sitting room thinking it is always included, but we count every room) the central heating earlier was somewhere around 15 lv per month (i.e. 120 eggs), and now it costs roughly 80 lv (i.e. about 570 eggs, by the prices of 2001 of 14 cents), and everything suggests that they will rise even more, taking into account that one bus ticket was earlier half of an egg, now it is three eggs, and in Austria it is 10-12 eggs! Like we this or not, is another thing, but how the transport, so also the electricity, central heating, phone, etc., must rise in prices from two to four times, for us to become an acceptable for Europe state. When earlier the "Party and Government" said that to every citizen are accounted approximately thousand levs per year as social consumption funds we (including the author) have thought that these are just "soap bubbles" and that these money use the nomenclature cadres in their holiday homes. Yeah, but it turned out that the things were not exactly such, and nowadays we become more and more convinced in this when the time passes.
  • Together with this insufferable for the population rising in prices of basic for sustaining of life products and services, it turns out that a number of excise goods have significantly decreased in price, so that a pack of decent domestic cigarettes, which were earlier about 6 ovo, is now 4, and on the West it is about 20! Or if instead of pack of cigarettes one could earlier buy, say, 2.5 liters milk, then now he can buy about 700 ml, what gives a proportion of 3.5 times. But the proportion of cigarettes to milk, which was earlier 2.7 times (i.e. 6.2/2.3, in eggs), was not at all anomalous, because, according to the column for Austria, it is 20/6.3 = 3.2 times, and surely around this varies this proportion in England, in USA, in Germany, and in other countries. This means that now (in 2001) the excises in Bulgaria are very low and they must rise two - three times, in order to try to get us nearer to the countries with normal economies. Or take also the proportion of 100 ml raki or vodka to a half liter of decent beer — before the democracy it was around one, now it is 0.6 (and here we are not speaking about tin cans, which are sold mainly on the West, because by us they are nearly one lev and for them the proportion will become 0.4), and on the West it is also about one (it can be compared also the proportion of one bottle raki to one bottle beer, and it was before 32/4.6 in ovo, where the same is the proportion in Austria, too). What means that there are many indicators, according to which we were before like the normal West countries, while now we do not stay so.
  • It is interesting also that the prices on products, which are obvious import for Bulgaria — like bananas, oranges, chocolate, coffee, and others — are now a little (in year 2001 about 70%) fallen according to the totalitarian situation, but nevertheless they still remain about two times more expensive (in ovo), than on the West, what says that, despite the Board, our currency is not exactly the same like the Western one. Similar is the situation also with the petrol, but there the prices, before and now, are more or less the same (in eggs), only that they are a bit (at about 30%) higher than on the West. Coffee on the street (in cup), however, which was earlier roughly 3 ovo, is now about 2, and on the West it is between 4 and 5 ovo, what is to be explained with our misery, of course, because otherwise nobody would have drunk coffee on the street (for your information, a cup of coffee, espresso, is made using 5-6 g of coffee, what, if calculated by retail prices, plus 10 g of sugar, comes to about 5-6 our cents, i.e. less that half an ovo, but it is sold now on the street for 25 cents, while it must be about 60-70 cents).
  • Well, there are various exceptions and anomalies, like for example the white cheese, from which people eat mainly the cow one, which on the West is not at all sold (for nobody would have bought it), and due to this the prices on milk by us are still abnormally high, i.e. they are nearly the same as on the West, but must be about 30% cheaper, so that when our people begin again to eat mainly sheep white cheese, then the things will normalize. Similar is the situation also with the fats (sunflower oil and butter, primarily), on which there is increased demand, that rises their prices (on the oil even higher than on the West). Peculiar is the situation with the meat, because it must be also cheaper than on the West, but it is a bit more expensive, and before (I suppose it was not subsidized earlier) it was also a bit more expensive. At the same moment, however, the minced meat now turns to be cheaper than on the West, and than in totalitarian times, what is easily explained with the fact that we give the prices on packaged minced "meat", that, really, must be taken in quotes; anyway, it is normal that the minced meat is about as expensive as meat with bones, for it has not bones, but is also not from the best places of the animal (but this does not mean that it has to consist only of tripe, gristles, and fat). Anomalous is the relationship of various kinds of meat (we give here some average price between pork and veal), where now, because of the mad cow disease people on the West increase the consumption of birds and fish, while in Bulgaria — of pork, which meat, as on the West, so also on the East, is considered for second quality meat.

  • But if we now cast a look at the salaries, then it comes something "bloody and muddy" (as we in Bulgaria say), because in 1988 the minimal salary was 1,200 eggs, and the average about 2,700, while now (in 2001, after the instituting of Currency Board, which as if should have bettered the situation by us) the minimal is 600 ovo, or twice worse, and the average is 1,800 eggs (if one can believe this what is given as average, as far as in all normal countries, and also in Bulgaria earlier, the average salary is approximately 2 - 2.5 times the minimal, and by us now it turns to be more than 3 times), where at the same time the figures for Austria (to say nothing about USA) are, respectively, 6,400 and about 14,000 ovo, i.e. in the minimum we are at least ten times worse, and in the average only about 8 times (most probably due to our imprecise calculations, otherwise it must be again ten times), than in Europe, for which we continue to "sharpen our teeth" but it is hardly probable that our "parachute will open" soon! If some of you have doubts about the potency of ovo, then you can compare things in US dollars, where the minimal salary in USA is about 1,200 US$, but in a month (and the scholarships of students and the pensions are between 700-800 US$), while in the same time in Bulgaria in the middle of 2001 it was only 40 US$, what gives entirely discouraging comparison, and for that purpose people on the West do not compare real prices in some standard currency (say, in US$), but use the so called purchasing power parity, computed with some money basket). Well, our proposition to use the ovo is just one maximally simplified purchasing parity (or basket).
  • Another moment, on which we want to dwell a little, is the situation in summer of 1999, when the things (at least in regard to the salaries) as if have looked normal, and we till now have avoided these numbers and glanced only at the year 2001. But this is not because our UDF (Union of Democratic Forces) has so much "entangled" the matters with the introducing of Currency Board that later everything worsened (well, it categorically has messed everything, for we have introduced the Board in the most unsuitable for us time and by very bad for us rate of the dollar, but the author speaks enough about this in other materials), but because in this column the calculations are made by price of the egg of 8 cents and it stayed at this level only a pair of months, somewhere about the time of truncation of the zeros of our lev (and there has even been a moment when it was 6 cents), while later it jumped up twice very fast. So that the prices for the summer of 1999 have still not settled themselves, where the right relationship is seen in the next two measurements in the middle of 2000 and 2001 years.
  • In addition to this we deliberately give the prices only for the time of summer, where in winter the situation worsens, as a rule with about 30 percents, i.e. all prices jump up at about 30%, but by unchanged salaries! This, surely, is entirely unjustified, because neither before in Bulgaria, nor on the West, the prices in winter change more than with about 10 percents (if we do not have in mind tomatoes, or bananas, for example, where, naturally, exist seasonal prices) and this is another manifestation of our "phenomenon" of market mentality, for the reason that the Bulgarian is just afraid, and as a result of this he hoards goods for the winter, as a result of what the prices grow up. This is a twice bigger perversion (I beg for a pardon from the readers for the expression), because the expenses of a family in the winter, quite clearly, grow with 40 to 50 percents, mainly due to the unbearable communal expenses (i.e. central heating), but also to the buying of warm clothes, winter shoes, more and powerful food, and so on, so that if he has less money for feeding then the food must become cheaper. Yeah, but not by us, because we are Bulgarians?! And, really, the pigs are killed chiefly in winter, so that exactly then they must be cheaper, and the harvest is gathered, so that many kinds of lasting food (beans, potatoes, onions, bread, sunflower oil, etc.) must become cheaper, and the chicken grow in poultry plants and are fed with forage, so that there should be no difference between summer and winter prices of the eggs, and similar things. Likewise it happens when some holiday comes and people rush to buy "chow" — in the normal countries the merchants lessen the prices (not because they are big humanists and think about the people, but because when the turnover is increased they can win enough also by lower prices), while by us exactly then the prices rise (not because our merchants are "worse" than the Western, but because only then they are in position to lead normal business, for the reason that the Bulgarian buys either expensive or nothing!). Little by little the things normalize, in the season of making of winter preserves and pickles the prices now don't jump so drastically up as, say, 4-5 years earlier, so that one can hope that after 5-10 years we will have not more winter and summer prices on the basic foodstuff.
  • Interesting seems also the question with the price of bread, compared with that of the flour, and also with the West, because earlier the bread was cheaper than the flour (compared per kilogram), now the prices by us are practically equal but the bread is a bit (on 10-20%) more expensive, and on the West the bread is normally twice more expensive than the flour. And mark, that the point here is not that one bread must be approximately one US$ (!), judging by the Western prices, because in our ovo, as you see, there are not such drastic differences at least in the price of flour (it is always somewhere around 5 eggs, and even by the totalitarianism was so, where on the West it is about 7 eggs), so that our phenomenon of cheap bread is not so easy to be explained with this, that we eat more bread and because of this sow more seeds. It is rightly to say that we eat more bread because it is cheaper than the sausages, for example, not because we prefer to eat bread instead of meat, because in Austria, as it is seen in the table, a kilo of fresh sausages equals only two kilo bread (20.6 to 11.4 ovo), while by us this proportion is four to five times. Hence, for one thing, meat by us is more expensive (maybe because we have not enough calves and pigs), and for another thing, the wheat turns to be cheaper (maybe because it is warmer by us than in Austria). But, still, our question is such: why the bread by us costs as kilo flour, and not twice more expensive? Well, the answer is similar to the difference of proportion of coffee in kilograms to a cup of coffee on the street (or beer in bottle to beer standing on the street)! In other words, the bread by us is only a little more expensive than the flour, just because we are too poor to allow ourselves to pay more, and also because of the absence of VAT on bread (but not on buns, pies or cakes, for example). So that it is clear that the bread must rise in price at about 30 percents in ovo (has only come the next increase of the salaries — for to was how it to recompense!).
  • And now let us look at the prognoses for, say, five years ahead, i.e. for the year 2006 (the column "Bg.'06")which is tied with our calculations mainly by this, that the egg must become 0.08 US$, and even better 10 cents*. Some things will rise, and another — fall, in ovo, of course. Look at this column more precisely because it pretends on some unchangeable prices, but in accordance with the conditions in Bulgaria. It is clear that we will strive to the West, but only if we can afford this, and, most probable, slowly and gradually, because we have, still, foreign masters (the Board, but also various pro-Atlantic structures and politicians) in our country, who will watch that we will have no big slumps anymore (but, well, whereto more than this?). Only that, mark this, this will happen in ovo, not in levs or dollars, so that even if our salaries, by the help of some magic wand (tsarist scepter, maybe?), jump up two times or more, there will be no "sweets" for our people! If one thing rises up in price another will fall down, but the egg will remain on its place, though, in a long run, it will try to grow until reaches the Western level, i.e. about 20 US cents (because there it will also rise a little with the time). Well, it will be some difference when we go abroad (but now who can afford this anymore? — in any case hardly more people than under "Bai Tosho"). And something more: this slow movement will be not just moderately slow, it will be some crawling, first to the level of totalitarian years, then to the level where we would have been, if we have been as before, then to the level of the West from the time when we have begun to want that by us it was also like in the West, thereafter, and this will certainly last for ever, to the level in this moment in which we will be in that time! At present we are, more or less, at the level of stagnation years, only that now on the bottom of one deep hole, and in those times on the crest of one small pool, if one may say so, because the former stagnation was the peak to which the misunderstood communism could have led us, and the current one is the bottom, to which can lead us the misunderstood capitalism! One reasonable estimation of the moment of reaching of our level of former years is at least 10 years more, but maybe also the whole 20, and for reaching of the Western level of standard (and this according to their sources) we will need somewhere about 35 to 50 years (from the moment of beginning the transition, but this on condition that the West will stand still, yet it has not shown such inclinations till now.

     Well, this is all, dear readers. The truth for us is not in the democracy, or in the free market, or in the private property, or in the "swimming over the Atlantic" (for nato in Latin means to swim over, and that is why such abbreviation was chosen also for the Atlantic Pact), but in one tiny and insignificant egg. So that, here is an advice from the author: keep at your home hens laying eggs and you will live good. If you have no place for them but have central heating then put one cage in the drawing room, on the table before the TV set (or even behind it, or above it) and feed yourself a pair of laying hens there (cock may be kept one for several neighbours from the entrance of your building). The egg is the purest protein, and we are protein creatures, so that we can not do without it. If, on the other hand, you have disconnected your central heating (as is said that nearly 30 thousand people in one only Sofia have done), well, then you at least will save money for eggs, because, by the prices in winter of 18 cents for an egg, and by on the average 90 levs for heating in month, this gives whole 500 eggs per month for central heating, or by 16.67 eggs daily, and exactly so many eggs (to reveal one secret to you) make one kilogram eggs per day! If you have so many money, that can freely allow yourself to break by 17 eggs each day, only in order to live comfortably in your home, then this means that you have no need of laying hens. People on the West have not such need. In Bulgaria before was also so, but with the coming of democracy ...

     So, with the coming of democracy, it is high time for us to understand that not the democracy leads to wealthy way of living, but the good standard of life leads unavoidably to democracy! It was so 25 centuries before in ancient Athens, it becomes so also since 18th century and to the present day all around the civilized world, it happened so in Bulgaria, too, when we rejected the totalitarianism. So that — less democracy but more eggs for the people!

     October 2001

     P.S. The columns for 2008 were added later, but we have attached them to table 1.B. for greater convenience. Here not only the dollar continues to be with abnormal rate, but it happened also dry year, and we have again become "dumbfounded" with our entering in the European Union, and have decided by old habit that everyone must "pull the blanket" to oneself and boycotted the price policy of the Board, in result of which is observed the next (unjustified) rising of prices, or another shocking therapy (for they, our people, behave only when shocks are applied to them). In any case, by eggs of middle (M) size of 0.20 lv and the dollar on the average by 1.30 lv we have now 1 ovo = 0.15 US$. But otherwise out tendencies, by calculations in ovo, remain, because, for example: the milk (on the average) is 1.40 lv /l or 7 ovo (where it was 5.7 in 2001, and 6 and a bit more on the West), the white cow cheese is about 4.80 lv. or 24 ovo (against 20 from the prognosis for 2006); the cheese is about 9.00 lv or 45 ovo, the bread by 1.30 lv for a kilo (not 800 g.) is now 6.5 ovo, the sunflower oil is exceedingly high by 16 ovo, the coffee is 60 ovo per kg, on the street is 2 ovo, the cigarettes on the average are 12 ovo, the raki /vodka (0.7 l) is 30 ovo (as you see we are catching up with the West); the beer is 4.5 ovo, et cetera. The minimal salary became 220 lv or 1,100 ovo, and the average —  460.00 lv or 2,300 ovo (what is again less than under the totalitarianism, and about 7 times less than in Europe). And other comparisons.






     There are so many things that can be said against the emancipation of women that one just does not know where to begin. Because it has started not in some Muslim country, or in Bangladesh, or Rwanda-Urundi, to give some examples, but in countries like America, England, France, et cetera. And also not a pair of centuries, or even more, before, when also according to the American constitution the women have had no rights to vote, but roughly before a century — and since that moment it goes as if from top to bottom (used as modification of "more or less", which in Bulgarian is built like "up or down"), if we do not take this tendency for historical necessity, to what we shall return at the end of the paper. And this means that once more time the people (more precisely, the women) are doing not this, what is necessary, but that, what can be done in the given moment.

     Only that some things that can be done (say, to stick one's finger in the nose, with an apology) is not always good to be done, right? And then, when this was necessary to be done, they have not done it — for a number of historical, but to a great extent justified for its time, reasons. This "liberte", you see, is a double-edged sword, on which the humankind from ancient times cuts itself (as we continue to cut ourselves on our democracy, but the author speaks amply on that matter on other places). So that

the done not in its proper time emancipation at least does not give much honour to the women,

if the notion of honour by them is understood in emancipated sense, not in the olden religiously-sexual meaning. And, in addition to the harming of their reputation, this is also quite silly, because they have won nothing with the emancipation, but have definitely lost many things! For example, they have lost the respect or veneration from the part of men about this, that they are the weaker gender, or the more beautiful half of humankind, as have lost also the privilege to sit at home and not to include themselves in the not very pleasant competitive work in the society, and similar things.

     And this about the "weaker" gender becomes more and more understood by many people, because, if one does not count the extreme burdenings, the women are more endurable than the men — on stresses, on insufficient feeding, on monotonous work (which becomes the bigger part of work in one high-technology environment), and as to the life span they beat the men at least with 5-6 years (and according to the statistical data for Bulgaria with whole seven years, or with 10%, because for 1999 the average life expectancy for men was 67.6 years, where for women —  74.6). Then this about the more beautiful half of mankind is not very actively popularized, but it is true, i.e. it is right that the men are more beautiful, looking in a wider period of time, not only between 15 and 25 years, roughly speaking. And this is intuitively perfectly clear to the women, because they are those who use at least five times more cosmetics than the men, and when something (or someone) is really beautiful, then this thing does not need any additional corrections (what proves your word "make up", which is, in fact, French, maquillage — to add something, to correct).

     And the possibility for one of the family to sit at home and take care about the children, prepare the food, and make what one only likes in his or her free time, is a thing which begins nowadays to become main desire for the people in the current-day dynamical and stressing competitive society. If a pair of centuries before this might have been dull and boring then now, with all the media, including the Internet, everybody just dreams to sit at home, but there are not many those people who can afford this, for one must earn ones living. But before the emancipation the women have sat at home, where now they can't anymore, or then don't want, to do this. And in the same time it is well known, at least on the West, that if one eats where one finds (in snack bars and taverns, or else buys ready-made food), alone washes his (or her) clothes, cleans his rooms, etc. (or pays to somebody to do this for him), than he spends practically as much money as for two persons. Even only by buying of food, if one has enough time to tour around the shops, one can economize at least 10%, and all this is money. Similarly with the housing, the difference between such for one person or for two is not big. Well, if the women have worked as before in the field, or have looked after the animals, then the things might have been different (but how many are those who work in the field nowadays?). But exactly then, when the women were really quite overloaded, exactly at that time they have not raised their voices, for there was no emancipation then, but now they just lose — because the latter is in effect.

     Though this about the families begins little by little to become old, because according to Bulgarian statistics the total coefficient of divorces is 0.20, what means that on five marriages there is only one divorce. But this is only for the moment, where the tendency is such that in very near future (say, after 20-30years) we will come to three marriages on one divorce, then to two, and to even less. Already in the moment in many countries and regions (in the big towns) such proportion exists, So that

the family comes down from historical stage,

as direct consequence of the emancipation! Because, really, the sexes are only two (and this is hidden in the very Russian word pol meaning gender, because, if one begins to think about this, there is also the word polovina but shortened to the same pol and meaning half), and if both sexes have equal votes then exactly in the half of the cases would have been impossible to achieve consensus, and without consent what is the reason of this artificially set in society limitation of freedom of the individual (be it man or woman)? Let us not doubt that the family institution (or marriage) was introduced by men (for in the antiquity, when it was justified, nobody has asked the women), but predominantly in the interest of women (for they are those who want to keep some man for themselves, where the men, as a rule, prefer to tour around from woman to woman like the bees visit different flower pistils). But then to what this reduces? Well, it reduces to this, that

the women simply cut the branch on which they are sitting.

     And in this case we must ask ourselves: but why are they doing this? Well, because of the euphoria of freedom, else there remains only the possibility that they have not much brains — choose the preferable for you variant. Because equal rights mean also equal obligations, isn't it so? For example, that the women, too, do military service, or work in mine shafts, or pay their bills in restaurants, or have to pay alimony in case of divorce, or receive pension on equal with the men age, and similar things. This, that the men have not yet emancipated themselves, does not mean that they will not do this in a near future! Like for example: that by divorce the children, when they are boys, were given to the father, and to the mother only the girls, what is entirely natural, at least after the age of three (but also earlier, because the mothers who breastfeed their children can nowadays be counted on fingers, and to lead his child to a kindergarten can also a father). Roman law has established that the children were given, as a rule, to the mother, but there was not emancipation at those times, and if it exists now then the law can be changed. And that the mother also must pay alimony and see her children (if they are boys — but such is the secret desire of each mother) once in two weeks for a pair of hours. Well, if that is what she wants, and if the father agrees to bring them up, then there is nothing bad in this, but what will she gain from this is not at all clear, because the women, at least up to the present moment, have not expressed such wishes.

     And in general, what is this emancipation? Well, this means, of course, freeing (from the yoke — although now not existing — of the husband), but usually this is understood in the sense of equality. But to speak about equality there, where "dear God" has created the biggest inequality between individuals, is at least silly! We can speak about equal rights of men and women, what is quite logical and normal thing. A pair of centuries before it might not have been normal for a woman to learn in a university, but this was because the universities were something like monasteries, and what will do a few women between hundreds of "monks" (not that the author can't imagine what they could do, but for those times this was something highly sinful)? Or also another now anachronism: according to the rules of Islam the women received twice less inheritance than the men, but then the women were bought and for that matter was natural that the men received more inheritance for to buy more brides, and why should be given more money to a woman when she, anyway, would not have dared, in those times, to buy herself (another) husband? So that, to cut the long story short: the woman must have equal rights with the man in the labour process. Well, and why not? What man will object that his wife goes to work, when she "craves" to do this? And why not in the sports, too? But this not only in chess and artistic gymnastics, also in wrestling, boxing, weight lifting, at cetera. Yeah, but together with the men, not in separate categories! For, when there will be equal rights, then let them be really equal, not only on words. And do you know what will happen then, when (and if) a real emancipation of women comes in effect? Well, it will happen so, that

the real rights will allow to prove the inequality of different sides!

     Because nothing else simply can be proved. Well, not always, for there are known examples of women rulers, shown themselves not worse than the men, though then nobody has spoken about emancipation. Even nowadays in the business and politics there is very good place for the women, for various reasons. The role of the manager, or the "magic of ruling", is not always clear, and for that reason exists rulers, and hidden rulers, or, hoping to make the things more transparent, let us speak about: tactical or operative ruling, on one hand, and strategical setting of the goals, on the other. The tactical ruling, as a rule (not denying the exceptions), is normally to expect to be work of men, while the strategy, very often, can be performed by women. This is so because also in the family, if we make such division of the functions, we will come to the conclusion that

the tactician is the man, while the woman is the born strategist!

     What concerns this question our people say that the man is the head but the woman is the neck, and this corresponds to the truth because the woman, most often, knows only to require, and the man must know how to do it (it is not her business, right?). So that in that sense it is entirely admissible for the women to occupy ruling posts, and this is done in a number of companies, where are many women managers. This does not necessary mean that her intellectual level must be higher than that of the other men whom she commands, but for the strategist the tactical ability is not necessary! It is especially praiseworthy the entering of women in the politics and public relations, because there the point is not so much in the higher intellectual level, as in the softness of ruling, as far as the firm hand, particularly in democratic ruling, has many disadvantages. At least, due to the traditional relations between the sexes, one (be this man or woman) will hardly refuse to comply with the wishes of a woman than of a man, if strong compulsion is not applied. Alike is the situation also in many scientific areas, where the wide inclusion of women is justified, again not because of some higher intellectual capacities, but for the reason that, in the era of technologies, more and more scientific activities become monotonous, lose their creative character, and as consequence of this become quite accessible for the women and even are performed better by them, because men are not much capable in doing routine things.

     So that the author does not at all state that the woman must not take part in the social life on par with the man. She can and she must!

But only in the social life, not in the family,

because, as we have said, the sexes are only two. Now, if they were 17 (or something of the kind), as it were according to Kurt Vonnegut on the planet Tralfamadore, then the emancipation would have positively been justified also in this form, in which it is spreading in the recent years.

     And there is another moment, which no emancipatess or emancistess (or, maybe, emancipatka or even emancipatiza in Bulgarian — but mark that the noun patka or patiza there means ... goose) will admit, but surely thinks so: the question is not at all in the equality or having of equal rights, but exactly on the contrary, i.e. in the inequality, only that as ruling of the women or neo-matriarchy! The author's opinion, a priori, is this, that at least 90% of all emancipated women don't want to be equal with the man, but that they ruled over the man, what now is not good. This is not good not because the author is a man, but because this will put, according to the English, "the cart before the horse", and it happens exactly so in many emancipated families, and soon after this the marriage is dissolved.

     In the human history has existed matriarchy but this was in deep antiquity, i.e. when the society was pretty primitive and/or the life was very hard. But what has the level of development to do here? Well, it has to do because of the strategical role of the woman in the family, and the creative one of the man. The woman (or the feminine individual, also between the animals) is who stays closer to the harsh reality, to the life, because she gives it, even, I beg to be excused by the young women, to the animal. She is the most conservative sex, for the simple reason that her biological function is to preserve life in the next generation. This is long ago known in the sciences and there is no need to dwell more about the matter. While the man (i.e. the masculine exemplar) is the creative individual, who must not only prolong the life but modify and enhance it with the use of genetic code, and also via the upbringing of generation. Even the sex of the child is established by the father, where the mother plays very passive role. These are naturally settled things and we can not (at least for the moment) run away from them.

     OK, good, but what follows from this that the man is the creator and the woman is the "preserving container"; what has this to do with the matri- or patri- -archy? Well, the point is that when the existence and survival of the generation is endangered, and from here of the whole gender or kind of species, is quite normal that the conservative sex takes the command, that it requires and gives orders; while in times when there is no such danger, but instead of this creative evolvement of gender in the posterity is necessary, then the man must take the command. Pure and simple, isn't it? That is why matriarchy has existed in underdeveloped primitive communities, but today, naturally, would have been anachronism. In current times the human race encounters no danger of extinction but on the contrary — of overpopulation.

     A propos, about the overpopulation. It turns out that there is another moment, emerged synchronously with the emancipation, and it is high time for the people to mark the relation between both things. What we mean is

the another boom of homosexuality,

be it among men or among women. Today the question is not about, let us call it, traditional Islamic or, generally, by hot climate, homosexuality, nor about compulsive such (in army conditions, or in boarding-schools), but about the modern tendency for homogeneous sex, which, if we give credence to some Western authors, has not yet reached the half of the population, but is moving toward that. And this is impossible not to be related with the emancipation, although not in a direct way! But why? Well, if a given man (in addition to being of the weak sex) cannot command at least his wife (because at his work this is not possible for the majority of men), i.e. if he isn't the boss even in his house, neither he has chances to look after the children when the divorce, which now becomes a rule, comes, then why should he at all conclude marriage? If the matter is in having sex, then why not to practice one, really, based on equal rights sex (because it is not at all necessary for the homosexuals to be specialized in masculine or feminine role, they can perform both of them), or even if he is not set under equal conditions and he is that who plays the role of woman, then why could he not be commanded (sexually, but in the usual meaning, too) by somebody of his own sex? And the same is true also from the point of view of the woman, with this only difference that she is not weak gender, but also in many cases would have preferred to stay under the command of individual like she herself, and not under entirely different one (which, according to the women is good only to ... piss on the toilet ring).

     So that is how the things stay with the non traditional, but with tendency to become such, sexual practice. And the sex quite easily will become such after a half to one century, for the reason that in this form of sexual relations at least the result, i.e. the posterity, is entirely separated from the pleasures or feelings, by the simple reason that there is no result at all! But there are feelings, and they are even stronger, because there is no other hidden goal, no care about the posterity (unless they decide to adopt a child for them), no strong differences between the partners. All in all, perfect harmony — only that this is against the nature. But whatever this may be we must be aware that we are moving in this direction, and will be moving until the emancipation walks in seven-league boots. Though, as our folks say, there is no bad without some good (or as the English put it, there is blessing in disguise), because the homosexual sex is the only effective method for restraining of birth rate.

     Well, if we look so at the things, as at a historical necessity, then maybe the emancipation will turn out to be positive phenomenon, or, rather, will be neither positive, nor negative, but unavoidable phenomenon, Then the birth rate will diminish, and the family will dissolve itself. And this is pretty real danger after a century, because till now the emancipation reduces chiefly to "exertions" on part of the women, to wishes to prove the unprovable, but it may become provable when (and if) the extrauterine conception becomes common practice (and one home incubator will cost, approximately, after coming in mass production, about one dish-washing machine). Because, see, the woman is not equal with the man not for some other reason but in view of her biological destination as birth box — or putting it more nicely: the woman is the mailbox of the man to his posterity —, and if this her function moves in background, as it happens after the climacteric age, or is before the sexual life, then there are no other limitations that may hinder her to become equal with the man in her makings! In other words:

nothing hinders the woman to become equal with the man, except this, that she is a woman,

and if she does not insist on the second thing there are no obstacles for the first one. The point is in this, on what the woman insists? If she insists on the maternity and the family then she must be against the emancipation, or at least against the massively accepted in the moment understanding of the question; but, on the other hand, if she wants to make career on a par with the man, then they are not the men who will interfere with this — only that she will not be then a woman, at least in the classical meaning of the word.

     It is, so to say, even so, that the woman is, in some sense, more suitable than the man for making of career, because, as shows the last word , i.e. the relation between the professional career and the stone quarry (and in Bulgarian both words are written exactly the same), it consists mainly in scattering of the others with elbows, like stones on a slope of the mountain, i.e. in bright antagonism to the others and dissatisfaction with them — something opposite to the collectivism. But the man, as a rule, is a "herding" sex, he is that who likes to gather in groups — be it to watch football, be it to go hunting, or to war, or in the club and the pub, and so on. While the woman is that who chiefly hates her rivals! Well, the things are not so idealized (neither is this something bad or good — this is just natural setting), but such simplification is useful for understanding of the general case, which is reduced to this, that: the man does evil deeds out of love, and the woman — good deeds out of hatred!

     And in our case she would have been the ideal careerist. Maybe not exactly ideal for to be really ideal, but, still, quite suitable for the sphere of production. While at the same time the man could be also very good host and father, if this has to be done, and with the advantage that if he happens to become free of work he can make something useful at home — either put new wallpaper in the apartment, or make a greenhouse in the garden (if he has the latter), or will begin to teach alone his children, or will make cheaper purchases than the wife, or something else. So that all depends on the goals and tasks. If the families disappear as social units, how the tribal communities have disappeared, and if each individual (be that man or woman) will be in position to bring up the allowed to him or her one child (for it is clear that some time this thing about the one child on a parent will become a law, in order to stop the population boom, which has begun primarily two centuries ago) in his or her home incubator, then there are no problems for the both sexes to have equal rights in the productive, and in every other (when there are not families) activity.

     Even in the moment are needed very little efforts in the legal procedure for establishing of optimal equal rights for the man and the woman — the mentioned dividing of the children by the parents, the question with their naming, about the inheriting (by this dividing), and some other small items. Under naming here we have in mind that the family name is still established by the father, but there is also second or middle name. And here the decision in extremely simple — when we have three names (as it is now almost everywhere, but if there are two names a third one can easily be added), then it is possible for the second to be mother one, and the third to be father one, where this can be the family name for the corresponding parent, but it may be decided also entirely free by this parent. Or else, if we insist that each parent has obligatory some own "property" — because at the children, at least when they are little, is looked exactly in this manner — then it is possible that all names are established by one of the parents (and he or she will, eventually, form the other name in accordance with the other parent) depending on the sex of the child, where it can be established also before the birth (or "hatching"), or even ordered under the artificial insemination. The questions are not difficult and they can be quickly solved, and if this has not yet happened then this is only because, at least on the West, people do not yet look seriously at the emancipation, because it is not very consecutive (how it could have been expected when it is feminine invention), and hope to preserve the families (at least for as long as it is possible). Besides, the men have not yet raised voices about real equality, because they hope that the women will "kick" for a spell and then come to reason that it is time to stop this, as far as, as is said, they will not jump higher than the head. This is the cause why the things are not yet settled, not unwillingness on part of the men to give to the women equal with them rights, because they are given to them long ago (at least for a pair of centuries).

     In any event, the problem is complicates and full with social disturbances and the author's advise is not to hurry much in this hasty time but to rely more on the proved for centuries forms of patriarchy and monogamous marriage. If we will introduce something new then let us thing seriously about it before, not in post factum.

     April 2002

     P.S. Maybe it is worth adding in the end that the things have evolved pretty fast and according to the population census for 2010 in Bulgaria from all newborn children a bit more than the half (55%) are such who earlier were called "unlawfully born" or illegitimate, and now are called "extramarital". It turns out that the men (for, who else?) have thought better and have begun to apply the simplest decision, because if there is no official marriage then there can't be a divorce and dividing of property. This suits the men, for lack of other alternative, they live together with a woman, pay as much as they can, and does not deny their paternity; more than this, in such case the very women are more endurable (is supposed), when nobody attaches them to some "macho", i.e. they are, de facto, free. The children this, surely, must not suit, but as far as they have no basis for comparison, and when the other children are in the same conditions like them (or their parents already live separately), then they do not disagree much. The women just reconcile with this, when they want to have children, but, I don't know, I think that if I were a woman, I would have been uncomfortable with this, I would have been ashamed to live so like the animals, and also to return some 4-5 thousand years back in human history; I would have tried to find some better solution (similar with the proposed in other materials variant of concluding of marriage for some preset period, with established in advance dividing of the children and attaching of each child to one of the parents, and with other details). The word is given to the women, for they are those who boycott the Roman law.



(About Bulgarian symbols and the spirit of Bulgarians)

     What we want to tell with

     our coat of arms?

     Because there were no lions on our lands for thousands of years, i.e. already before the establishing of Bulgaria, and in remote geological epochs there might have been also dinosaurs but this isn't important. Usually as national symbol on the West, though also on the East, i.e. in Russia, is chosen some eagle — with two heads, to make it more interesting, or as twice all-seeing (or, as the children say: for you to ask and me not to tell you) — but this is not only mighty (resp., cruel) animal, it is also a bird which flies high, hence, stays above all the others. Well, the lion is mighty animal, but it is ... hmm, you know that this is a Hebrew symbol! And even today in some temples in Baalbek can be found stone frescoes with images of lions, but they are from the times of early Christianity and in such case inherited from the Jewish religion. There, surely, in ancient times were deified what only not animals (the Chinese dragon, for example, or Arabian ibis, or the bull, becoming later golden calf, and others), and also all possible combination of parts of humans or animals (the six-armed gods of Buddhism, the Greek centaurs, the Greek-Arabian harpies, and many other Arabian, Indian, and different divine beings), so that why not to choose for oneself also a lion, which is proud and strong animal before which one must simply bow down? Yeah, it is so, but this, that the lion is symbol of one not numerous eastern nation — the Hebrew one — is hardly accidentally, because he, the lion, is quite calm (if he is fed and nobody pulls him by the tail), and from the family of cats, right? One such charming little lion-cat can be symbol of weak people, but who extremely want to be strong — like a lion. And as far as we are not numerous nation — approximately one pеr mil of the population on Earth — so we eagerly want to wave our flag (or waggle with the tail, when someone stronger than us makes us angry), so that isn't it this, what we want to tell the world?

     Because: proud animal, yes, but how much proud it is? What if it is unreasonably proud, ah? Because the unreasonable pride, for which the Russians have single word, "gordinya" (where the usual one is gordost), is one of the Christian sins, which is very subtle sin (if we use this now grown old variant of the error — "greshka" in Bulgarian, where the sin is greh /griah), exactly because the sin /error isn't explicitly antisocial at a first sight (even at a second one), isn't like to desire the bride of your neighbour, said as an example (what also can not be a sin but just a pleasure, if she wants the same, and her husband, respectively, lover, in addition to this does not disagree to change from time to time his sexual partner, so that at least on the background of diversity takes some rest from her). In relation with the unreasonable pride is good to remind the very fitting Russian proverb: "The narrower the forehead, the wider the self-esteem!". And there is simple explanation for this psychological phenomenon, namely, that one must motivate oneself somehow in the process of his activity, and this can be done in two ways: either through reasonable assessment of the situation, or via ... underestimating of all others and everything else. In other words: either realizing his insignificant position in the circulation of things in nature (what gives strength, not because his position is insignificant, but because knowledge and real estimation bring, by themselves, satisfaction and conviction), or refuting the right of others to live, as well as all reasonable arguments, except his personal (and unreasonable) desire.

     In short: the smaller one nation is, the more prouder it feels, in which way, in accordance with the above-said, it only emphasizes its insignificance! And we emphasize it, so to say, in two ways, because it was not enough for us to have one lion (which sufficed to our revolutionaries Vasil Levski and Christo Botev in the time of our Renaissance, yet not to out present-day rulers), but we have heaped up whole three lions in our coat of arms — something like Christian Holy Trinity: lion-father (on the left, supposedly), lion-son (on the right), and a lion-spirit (in the middle), fenced in something like a shield, but it must be rather some bubble or pail, because a spirit cannot just stay free and by itself, he will dissipate and dissolve himself in everything, and in our case will not be seen on the emblem. Well, and on the top, of course, stays the crown, not necessarily royal, because our tsar-king was at that time in Madrid, but, still, some heavy state's crown. So that, it was clear that we (being small state, etc.) were bound to be very proud and plant a lion on our state emblem, that one lion is too little for us now, but two things (flowers, for example) are put only for the dead, so that we come to the number three, and four and more lions would have caused international precedent, and in that case would have been wrongly. Well, that is how the great Bulgarian (read also Balkan) decisions are born.

     By the way, about the Bulgarians,

where this name, obviously, splits in bulg-, + -ari, only that -ar was popular suffix for building of plural in ... Tartar language (for example: agaagalar, what means master, boss; this word exists in Turkish, and, hence, is known in Bulgaria, and in Greek agape means beloved). But traces from that -ar exist in other languages, like German, for example, where -er is often used exactly for making of plural (KindKinder, WortWörter, etc.), and in Netherlandish, where the word "hill" is holm (how exactly it is in Bulgarian and Russian), and its plural was holmar (and you must not doubt about the meaning of the holm because they have there one very central "holm", which has grown to a town — Stockholm). And the mentioning here of Tartar language is nor occasional because the thesis about out Tartar origin is more and more making its way in scientific circles. Well, this has not to be understood in the sense that we are heirs (of the precursors) of Genghis Khan, but we (i.e. the old or proto- Bulgarians) have proceeded somewhere from the Pamir and Altai region, around the Himalayas and Hindu Kush, have picked up something by the Kirghizs, Bolhars, Tartars, Mongols, Afghans, and others, and even — what sounds unbelievable — the phrase "I love you", which in Bulgarian is "obicham te" (and is not Slavonic for in Russia it is entirely different) in Mongolian was "bich-ham-te"!

     And now let us return to the "bulg"-root, what must be pronounced not exactly so but with that vowel like in the English "bird" (let us mark it here as "å"), and this vowel is liked much by us (though not by Russians, or Ukrainians, etc., note this), but also on the East (Turkish, Arabic, etc.), and on the West (like in English, though also in German endings like Lehrer, what is read as 'lehrå'), and there it transforms to Latin "u" (what in Slavonic alphabet is written with the same letter like your "y"), and it, for its part, has come from Greek upsilon (υ), which sound is very "mysterious" and often is used there to modify the preceding letter, where they even don't have our (and Western) "u" but write it with omicron + upsilon (ου), calling us now "vulgaros" (and in the old Greek "bulgaros", but if we were at those times). This, as we call it "big er", which, though existing in Russian alphabet, is not at all read in this way (it is used as you use the apostrophe in the words; although they have their "mysterious" sound "eri" which is modification of this "å" to "i"), but in Turkish, using the Latin alphabet, it is usually written with "i". So that what means then this bålg- /bulg- (i.e. what is hidden behind it)?

     Well, probably the etymologists also do not have single view on the question, but looking as imitation this is some banging on a drum, rattling, or swelling /inflating, where we can cite some similarly sounding Bulgarian words, like: bulgur (groats, peeled wheat), and bulamach (trash, tasteless concoction), which are or Turkish origin, then Russian balagur (clown, fair screamer), or balagan (fair, noise), then German der or die Buhle (what now is given as beloved, but in olden times was used for imitation of copulation, hitting of a kind; to hit in Bulgarian, what is Eastern, is chukam, and this in jargon use is exactly your f#cking), and others. But here is also the ... ball, where bol- is a world root because the Russians say bolshoy (big), the Turks bol (much), the ball is German der Ball, but this is also the ball as dancing (where people rotate like balls), also our Balkan mountains (in the middle of Bulgaria, and from here giving the name of the whole peninsula, as something swollen or at least hard and straight like baton or baguette), then the French balcon-balcony, too, or German die Burg (castle), because at least for the West r-l often mutually mutate. On the other hand, the bag or inflated bubble does not disappear, because there is the Latin volva /vulva which has given all vulgar things, as something bred in abundance, what is exactly the Greek sounding of the name of Bulgarians. So that, like we this or not, but we are some fast breeding and vulgar tribe, or Balkan inhabitants, or ... ha, ha, empty bubbles or mere water (aqua nuda in Latin, by the way)! It is not that we don't know what we resemble, but we were speaking here about what we want to tell the world, right? Well, nothing good we are telling it, alas.

     Or then let us take

     our national flag.

     This, that it is tricolour is clear, but what mean this colours, because we like, doesn't we, that everything ours has, an even deep, meaning. Well, the white colour is pure and good, the green one this is the fresh newly grown grass (or that maybe we are ... "meadows unmowed", ah?), and the red — well, that's the point, that this colour must symbolize the shed blood in our battles for freedom, but in no case must have something in common with the communism and the fight against fascism, because we have renounced the communism, have directly scratched it out of our history, have torn that defamatory page and thrown it away. This surely is so, but here we, in author's opinion, were not enough consecutive in the total negation, have not acted entirely in the spirit of our UDF (Union of Democratic Forces). We should have at all taken away this red band from our flag and basta! But then, see, we have not done this for in that case we would have had "ducolor", what is simplification of our symbols and a kind of decadence, but also, having taken away the white colour, too, because it has another meaning, we would have remained with only the colour of meadow; or else, if we take away the "meadow", will remain only the white colour of mute surrender, what, of course, is true — our people have already grasped this — but it, somehow, is not suitable to declare in the open. And if they have asked the author in advance then he would have told them that it was necessary first to take away the green colour, together with the red one, and then, seeing us before one entirely white flag, we would have guessed that some other colours must be added.

     And what colours, would you ask? Well, certainly it is necessary to have at least one blue band, because this is the colour of the sky and the sea and the blue blood (and the UDF, of course, but let us not make difference between blue and gray — the colour of the "tsarist" party —, because from aesthetical, as also from political, point of view they stay in a good harmony), also the colour of the freedom, the democracy, united Europe, and so on, or, as it was sung earlier in one popular song: everything nice on this world is blue, even your precious eyes. And now, proceeding from the blue colour, it is more than obvious that the red one should not be present on our banner, for it may happen that we will again come near to the Russians, and this, God forbid, must never be done! Well, and what colours remain then? Of course green and yellow, there are no others. And exactly one light yellow, some such, a but like the colour of a young duck, but not to come close to the toilet colour khaki, for then the world may decide to think that we have pooped our pants — I beg your pardon. Besides, the yellow and green these are colours-twins, they are such also in phonetical aspect, because in Russian they say zholtiy for yellow, but this is the colour of the zoloto-gold (not "zholoto"), and the green one is zolotoy, and similar is the case in Polish, Bulgarian, and in other Slavonic languages. So that one good proposition for our national tricolour is: blue, green, yellow.

     But we can approach the question in another way, so that not only to stress on the democratic-aristocratic blue colour, but also to exceed the limitations of the tricolour. The idea is simple (as everything told by genius) and it is the following: one blue band above (symbolizing the sky), another blue band below (this time for the sea), and in the middle on the same width, but this time in vertical direction, to place one tricolour in yellow tinge beginning from left to right with light yellow (to the stick of the banner), then orange, and at the end bright red, which this time will symbolize not the shed blood but the rising (democratic) Sun, which gradually will warm us all. This will be, on one hand, tricolour, on the other tetra-colour, and even penta-colour, and nobody will have such banner, where our tricolour is widely used in the world (with some permutations of the bands). And the sky-sea introduces another, more profound, nuance, because ... well, because the world is a sea, i.e. the world is behind the seas and oceans, what is not only geographically right (2/3 of Earth's surface is occupied by seas), and not only etymologically correct (in Russian the world "mir" means both, peace, as in other Slavonic languages, and also our world, and the connecting idea between these notions is hidden in our more-sea or in the murmuring Latin mare-sea, by reason of ... well, the cause here is the name Vladimir, which in Russian means "ruler of the world" but in Polish is Valdemar, where the mare is evident), and in addition to this the idea is entirely in the spirit of ..., ah, of NATO (what is abbreviation of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but nato as verb in the Latin means swim, swim across, so that everything is clear)!

     Anyway, when we have begun,

     to make propositions

then let us return to our coat of arms, because the lions, as we have discussed this, are not our national element, and let us try to invent something unique and suitable for one, as we eagerly wish this, "Balkan Switzerland", i.e. for a peaceful Balkan country with nice nature. If this has to be some "beast" then why mandatory predator and not something humble and peaceful? The first proposition: ... St. Georgian lamb, which will be white on a green background (to remind us that this is early spring or the day of St. George) and with red boots and horns — bleats itself quietly but when grows can also poke with the horns, and in the same time it is a tasty "chow", because the lamb is positively related with the ... hmm, with the fire! But the fire (ogan in Slavonic, though for you in the Latin form of ignition) comes already from the Sanskrit, where Agni (=Wahni) was the god of fire (and lamb in Bulgarian is agne, or iagne in old Slavonic, or iagnionok in Russian), so that now the fire also enters in our symbolic, and then the red colour will be that of the fire, and as to the question that this colour is good (no matter what the UDF thinks about) there is no necessity to convince ourselves, for the reason that in Bulgarian nice, beautiful is krasiv, or krasiviy in Russian (in addition to the typically Bulgarian hubav, what might not be exactly Tartar word, but it existed also by the Germans — hübsch), and which, obviously (for the Russians), comes from the red colour which for them is krasniy; and then: does it exist in the world such woman who does not want to paint her lips red in order to become "krasnaja krasavitza" (nice beauty)? And the relation of the ogan-fire with the agne-lamb is very rich on ideas, because this, being Sanskrit root, exists also on the West, in view of the mentioned English ignition which is Latin ignis (a fire) or igneus (fiery); and the agne /iagnionok is agnus (a. dei) in Latin, and the point here is about the very process of giving birth of new lambs, of something new, i.e. this is the idea of the ... bird phoenix, which rebirths itself in the fire! In other words, this is the incessant renovation via burning of the old. This idea is good and suitable also for the known "anti"-political power (i.e. the same UDF, which has issued for some years the newspaper just "Anti").

     Another proposition: a nice industrious ... ant, standing on its hind legs like a real centaur! Or, for those who like multiplicity of equal images — three ants with jointed forelegs and placed like in Mercedes emblem; or (for the communist-socialists): five ants connected in this way and forming only the rays of their star; or also (a new figure): six ants, placed along the sides of regular hexagon, plus one more in the center, raised "centaur-like" and looking to the right (surely in no case to the left!) with wings and crown (when this is necessary).

     But who has said that on such emblems can be shown only animals? Some countries picture there trees, other leaves of them, third flowers, et cetera, or even just a circle in the middle — the important thing is to have something unique, right? Well, a red rose is a very nice and unique for us symbol, and in regard to the colours it ties good with our present tricolour, but by known political reasons it and the socialism, as well as the whole Bulgaria, have become a causa perduta (a lost cause). So that let us think out something else, and here is a draft for an unique coat of arms: two crossed like the letter "X" ... skewers, with threaded on them pieces of meat, mingled with pieces of pepper and onion — all this can be in one colour, or meat may be red (preferably also beef, because kravi, exactly like our kravi-caws, in Sanskrit meant meat), onion can be white, and the peppers (supposedly hot, though this can not be seen) can be green. But it might be simpler than this — just one fork with impaled on it kebapche (resp. sausage) lightly curved at both ends! Can be added also drops of fat, but can be combined the skewers with the fork with this kebapche in the middle. Then our message to the world will be ultimately clear — come to us to have a good eating (not forgetting to leave your money by us, for we are in a big need of good currency).

     But we have, or at least have had, also other symbols. It goes now about

     the five-rayed star.

     By God, it is not clear what has made us to take it down from the turret of our former Party House, which could have quietly be again center of all parties (or at least of those included in the Parliament), and which is now part of our Peoples Assembly (our Parliament), at least as ownership. Well, the very building is part of the architectural center of Sofia and nobody has thought to destroy it (like the Mausoleum, e.g., but we have not denied ourselves the "pleasure" to burn it a little — maybe with the idea of the Reichstag in the heads, coming, by the way, at least from Ancient Greece, because: how better for somebody to become "famous" unless to put to fire some temple or symbol, or to defile it in some other way — say, using paint or indecent inscriptions?), but the five-rayed star we have simply disconnected and heaved with helicopter. Yeah, but why? If the red colour was what has worried us the simplest thing was to repaint it blue. Or yellow, for such is, usually, the colour of the stars, or also make it neon-brilliant. It might have been made also with different colours for the rays — for example, from bottom left and clockwise might have alternated: red, yellow, green (on the top), blue, violet; this, for one thing, would have been analogue of the rainbow, and, for another thing, the red colours would have been below, and it would have been also more motley. If we were bothered that this was symbol of another state, then there was not more such state, for the Russians have taken their own star earlier, and on their flag was the sickle and hammer, not the five-rayed star.

     Well, probably we were not glad because of its five rays, but then why have we not first looked around to see how the things are in the world, in order to convince ourselves of what kind are the stars there? The Americans have not one but whole fifty stars on their banner, yet they are not at all troubled by this and even are very proud with their flag. There are also enough stars on the flag of United Europe, and they will become even more. And who does not believe that the stars have five rays then let him ask in the American Embassy, or let him (or her, surely) take one ten of "lions" (because our money unit is also called "lion", lev) and let him go to change them to five euro, and then sit and quietly look at them with magnifying glass. There is also the Pentagon, and it is, in fact, five-rayed star with cut out rays, i.e. exactly pentagonal figure or pentagram, and this symbol, used for keeping of evil powers away, comes from deep antiquity, goes via Ancient Greece and Rome, and is known on the whole West.. If you, occasionally, have not pondered why this is so, then can be reminded to you how many fingers and toes have people on their extremities, what is true for a big amount of animals (if some of them have not become rudimentary), and also about the petals of most of the flowers. It even our system of counting would have been with base five (and not ten), if this would have not increased too much the number of digits, and if people have not had two hands-stars. And this is symbol of power because the human hand (eventually fist, ah?) is symbol of human strength and might, but these are truisms. And also how many rays is thinkable for a star to have? One, two, and three is impossible, four (square or rhomb) is much rough and has another semantic content, then comes five, the six is Hebrew number (meant as star), and so we come to seven, what is much more difficult to picture than with five rays, and about a bigger number there is no sense to speak, these can be only childish scrawls. So that the five-rayed star is such good symbol that there is just nowhere better! A-ah, if we have not liked that there was only one such star with five rays, then we could have placed on the notorious House a heap of stars more along the border of the roof, or at least two more smaller stars on the sides, but we have taken everything away. But then, we have taken it away exactly for that reason — that it was silly to do so!?

     If only we, having taken it away, have thought a bit how to finish the turret of the building — either with some horse-tail from the times of our Khan Asparuch, or some weathercock to show us whereto the wind blows (because that is, isn't it, what we are doing all the time, turn ourselves according to where from and where to the wind blows), or some helix or other composition symbolizing democracy — two like the letter "V" splayed fingers, for example, would have been quite suitable to the corner position of the building (they, hmm, two bent fingers, with another one stuck between them, would have also been very suitable — this time stressing on our thorny path to prosperity, but exactly in the center of Sofia such sign, thinks the author, wouldn't have been much fitting). But even a dozen of years after this euphoric inebriation of freedom (of ... pornography, criminality, corruption, possibility to turn off your stream heating in winter, or even to buy bread and cheese, or not to buy, for there is not with what to buy, or to pay for you teeth and medical treatment, or spend hard earned money for the education of your children, and so on), so even after the coming of witty called by the people freedomvolity (I am trying to make new word as variation of freedom to unneeded frivolity, because in Bulgarian this is called slobodiya, where the freedom is svoboda), or anti-people's democracy (because if it has not existed earlier, and does also now not happen somewhere in the world, the communists would not have coined the term "people's democracy", what isn't at all Russian invention, as long as even in English is written "People's Republic", and China, for example, does not bow either to the Russians, nor to the Americans), so, well, even now on the top of this turret flutters only one banner and can be seen extremely clear that in the architectural composition something is missing. Well, maybe this is exactly what we want to tell the world — that we also have something missing (in our heads) and just like crippled things?

     Or let us take also our


     Well, we have taken away the "mummy" — the desecration of deceased in every possible way is even nowadays favorite people's "divertissement", especially in the Near East, so that, in what are we as population better than the people on those places? — but more than five years the Mausoleum stayed scratched and covered with graffiti and used for nothing. And it could have been made there some discotheque, for example (say, "By Bai Gosho"), or then one good (and expensive) ... WC, which could have very well paid back the money spent for it, and each UDF supporter would have "died" with pleasure to take out there his "special device" and heave it; and even UDF supporteresses would have been delighted to take down their slips and other undergarment, am I right? In general, if the best way to avoid temptation is to yield to it (for what reason the media throw up a heap of obviously indecent, but lucrative, things) then this would have been good decision, at least from an aesthetic standpoint (and this, that there are many people who find pleasure to sneer at the fallen — well, that's their own problem, if they realize it, of course). But nothing of the kind have been done, and only when our "King" has emerged, only then we have cleaned up a bit before his windows (but he, the "poor guy", does not sleep there because ... well, the parquet creaked much to him and in this way distracted him of thoughts about national prosperity).

     Similarly look out the things also in regard of

     the communists and their greetings,

for it is true that the communists have annoyed us, mainly, with their extreme views at various questions, but is true also that we have done everything else, though not have rejected the extremities as such! We, it may be said so, would have transferred the movement on the streets from the right side to the left one, if around almost the entire world would have not been accepted this, what was accepted also by the socialism called communism. We have abolished the death penalty, too, and the taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and other excise goods, and the unpaid (in the moment of need) medical care, and whatnot, and now, little by little, return to the good old and proven) no matter that communist) view on many questions. But what is to be done, the people have always oscillated (and will oscillate) from the one extremity to the other, for the simple reason that the "golden" middle point is a notion which is very hard to be reached, and how one is to search for the middle when the only way to make career, or simply manifest oneself and show one's identity, is to find some (preferably new, or at least well forgotten) extremity?

     But well, will say someone, where have been our political and other leaders, that they have not told us where is this middle point, and have left us instead to stray away like blind and knock with a stick, till we knock on some wall, sidewalk, or a tree (or do not hit hard our "mugs")? Ah, well, it is true that our politicians also oscillated, but it can't be said that we have not have some left-wing fractions (beginning with ASO, Alternative Socialist Alliance), or social-democrats, but in condition of democracy, i.e. when in general the citizens must choose their "herdsmen" (or "pastors"), we have simply not chosen whoever of the moderate in the Parliament (or the "Talking shop", if we translate this Italian word in Tartar, sorry, in Bulgarian — and here in English). So that, not that our politicians are very good, but — how one has asked so was answered to him, or else: according with the demos goes the -cracy!

     The communists, definitely, have gone to extremities, and for that reason people on the West don't like them, but ... well, a la guerre, comme a la guerre, and they have come to power exactly in conditions of war, so that a bit of rudeness, mildly said, was a kind of necessity. While our democracy has come in absolutely peaceful and quiet conditions and by us, thanks God, were no civil disturbances, but there were such in "Serboslavia", Russia, and in other places. Well, many ethnical Turks have first gone to Turkey and then returned in Bulgaria, but this were mainly because they (as also we) know their people and know how in Turkey usually proceed with different minorities, including Bulgarians, Greeks, Armenians, and other Christians, and have decided that we will behave like them (especially on the background of our five centuries Ottoman rule). Yeah, but we have not done like them and then they have returned, in broad lines, to us (at the expense of what later occurred selective emigration on intellectual and elitist principle, but this, as is said, is "from another opera").

     Anyway, the author does not sing dithyrambs to the communists, but for them has existed extenuating the guilt idea of social justice, what idea now we don't have (but in the broad world, say in: Germany, France, England, and also in the wealthy United States, it exists, though they do not call it socialism). At the same time by our democracy, hmm, but it is a reality since 1991 (well, we have needed some time to abandon the habit to ... poke out the eyes of candidates on the posters, or to paint something to their mouths — sorry, sorry —, but we were fast bored by this and have unlearned it), and if so, then by it can't be spoken about ideas /ideals, because in the capitalism (or the postindustrial society, if that's how you like it better) there is not at all any idea of justice, it is rude and brutal like ... well, like the very life!

     Our democracy skids NOT because it is bad democracy — there, surely, can always be wished something better and if this is not so to say that this is not democracy, but the truth is that this IS democracy, and if we don't like it then we behave so naive like when one little child, being spanked on the ... (well, you know where), begins to weep and cry: "Ah, you are not my mother!", but she is, still, his or her mother, no matter that she is bad in this case. So that our democracy is bad not because it isn't such, but exactly because it is such, as also for some other, mainly economic, reasons, but here we again switched to another opera. The bitter truth is that, however bad the communist not were (i.e. used only to swing the "whip"), they, still, if we have left them to continue to pull the carriage (well, after their dethronement and pulling down from the top in 1991-2, for the reason that, if you really like somebody and are worried about him or her or it — be it a girl, or party, or football team, etc. —, then you have to turn your back to him etc. for some time, and if he etc. is a positive phenomenon then all this will be only for his etc. good, but if he etc. isn't such — well, then it serves him etc. right), so that if we have left them to continue to reform themselves internally and again take the ruling, then they, surely, wouldn't have put "the cart before the horse" (as UDF has done, and later on we were forced to call the King, who isn't exactly our King, to pull us out of the mud, but he, too, meets with many difficulties, as you see).

     But the communism wasn't isolated phenomenon only for our country, it has concerned (and still concerns) many countries, and some of them have coped easily with it (i.e. not more difficult than with the next economic crisis of the next period in development of capitalist state), where we still can not cope with it, and will master the situation only (well, not exactly as our folks say, when "our pattens give blossoms", but only) after one-two generations (of 25 years or so) after the changing of our "Bai Tosho". This is so, because one generation — it can now be seen that it will happen so — is necessary for to reach the average living standard of 1988 (for to be sure that this year has not fallen under the influence of the chaos of transition to democracy but only under the crisis of socialism — because it also has shown that can undergo crises), and one more generation we will need to reach the level, to which we would have come after two generations, if we have continued to go on the path of social-communism (or communal-socialism — who knows what is better?), but this would not have been the same socialism /communism, which was in the 90ies, in the same way as it was not the same like, say, in the 70ies, or the 50ies years, because, however centralized clumsy it was, it, still, evolved (and to the better).

     Only that the curious thing now is that from all former socialist countries we have won more than the others from the communism, and from the Socialist Bloc (and we liked to use the strange word "camp" for this union of countries), for the simple reason that ... well, just because we were (and still are such, and who knows when we will cease to be) poor and left-behind Balkan (well, not Asian, like Russia, but it is not poor) country, and, in the same way as in a team of horses wins more the weaker horse (for the carriage pull the stronger horses), in the same way we also have felt better than all! Now, there were other poor countries, but they were not Slavs — Romania, for example, who are Romans, although this is the same as Gypsy, but when we turn to be Tartars ("Tatari" in Bulgarian, and the same "tatari" in Romanian means ... ha, ha, this means to curse, i.e. to behave like Tartar, and similar meaning has also the Russian word "AraP", or also erepenitsya what is to persist strongly, but maybe like an Arab), so there is no need to take offense on national themes. There were other Slavs (Czech Republic, Poland), but they were not so weak as us (for they are not on the Balkans). So that we have gained more than all the others from the "Camp" and from the "brothers" and exactly for this reason we were the first who categorically rejected the communism. If one asks us, why, than we will meet with big difficulties to answer this.

     And there is something more, purely terminological or etymological — the standard communist greeting. If you have not given a thought to this moment then it is interesting to make one worldwide parallel. The Russian "tovarishch" means, in fact ... ah, that's the point! Because it must mean a stevedore, heaver, for the reason that it is derivative from the word "tovar" which means load, burden. And surely to say to somebody: "Hello, porter (or heaver, factotum), what are you doing? They load you and you heave, ah? And how is the lady porter? And the tiny porters? They load them, too, ah? Well, nothing to do, that's how they were born." — well, this is not only funny, but also a bit perverse, don't you find so? But do not think that the Russians are inimitably perverse people because (let us remind you that) the communism has not originated in Russia but in the "navel" of Europe, and the literal translation of Western camerad (in Spanish, resp. camerade in French, and Kamerad in German) is prisoner, convict, or person with whom you are together, but not in an usual room, in some small camera like the prison one, i.e. these are all "labour slaves".

     At the same time ... well, that's the point, that Bulgarian "drugar", or Serbian "druzhe", are just synonyms of the friend (not in this English variant) or the another one — this is German ander (another), which is also old Greek "anthropos" (this animal who "tropaet"-trots on the "dromos"-path), and to have friends and buddies (where this word in its turn must come from the body) is the best thing in the world (if they only are real friends). The root of the drugar comes from wide away in the time, because in the Sanskrit, according to the Buddhist mythology, has existed some Durga, who (she) was the wife of god Shiva (and she was known with this, that she has had many faces, which she alternatively changed), and if a wife is not the best friend (i.e. she must be such), be of a man, be of a god, then who else will be? This is also the idea that stays behind Russian "dorogoy", what is the same as your English "dear". Something similar to this relation of our communist greeting with some dear and nice thing can be found only by the Germans, where, together with their "comcamerist", existed also the word Genosse with this meaning, where the root of the latter is hidden in the ... gene, i.e. this is a man with good genes (dieser Genosse nesiot-carries good genes!), one with whom you can feel only delighted (geniessen, genoss, genossen), to talk etc. (this idea is similar with the Latin casta — a good present from the gods, what has to be clear in the English because of the meaning of your "casting" of roles). So that it again turns out that we, the Bulgarians, have proven to be the most, sorry, stupid (or, maybe, to say "half-witted" will be less insulting?)!

     And so on, where can be continued with analysis of our failures on the democratic arena (where we have tried hard to discredit this form of social government, which as an idea, but also from a psychological standpoint, is well-thought and works in many countries, though not by us), but here we have spoken about what we want to suggest to the world about us. Well, maybe the known in totalitarian times jocular slogan: "silly, but ours"! To succeed so admirably to discredit good ideas, so to entangle all the fibers, that even the very God, as is said, not to be in position to help us, to catch us on such, entirely naked, hook (that, for example, when the democracy comes to us we will at once begin to live like in the United States, yeah, but in the US the standard of life is high not because of the democracy but in spite of it, for they have been also slave-owning country, and this at least several centuries after the slavery was abolished all around the left world; well, now we, really, live like in the United States, but like in those States of before a whole century, or at least half of it, and this in, say, Chicago), and on and on — well, for this, certainly, big efforts are necessary (although not in the right direction).

     Whether for this our Tartar vein is to be blamed, or this is common Balkan syndrome, we will not go in details here, but the facts are well to be seen and the world knows us already. As there goes one Christian saying that: when God wants to punish somebody He first takes away his reason — so has happened also with us. Well, surely, this "birdy" which has "sucked our brains" was obviously with bright blue feathering (i.e. UFD), but then why have we yielded to it and have not said: "Disappear, foul thing!" remains again an open question. And in general, we are good people, but if somebody leaves us in small portions in the civilized world, in order to look around there a bit, and having seen what's what (or, as we say, "where the crabs are wintering"), i.e. what is the official propaganda of those in power, as also what the common people think, then we will cope easy with the things; but just staying in Bulgaria, no matter how many specialist from the West will come to teach us, we will never behave properly, for the simple reason that we are ... well, like concentrated sulfuric acid: it can be diluted, but slowly dripping same acid into the water, not vice versa! And it is clear that the young ones have oriented themselves there and are "diluting" themselves with the West as much as they want. But well, we will put up with the situation, because in this way we at least better the Western people with fresh genetic material (for, if it was not so, nobody would have occupied himself with us), so that we will again make some contribution to the world civilization (and population).

     Written by Chris Myrski in anno domini (and in the middle of it) 2003th



     1. So, I have been silent and silent for a dozen of years, but then decided to raise again my voice, and it is necessary to explain now why I have not written for such a long time any publicistic. Well, the reasons are several, but they are related. For one thing, at the turn of the century, roughly speaking, or with the coming to power of the King's party,

the things have begun to stabilize

and it has begun to happen by us so like on the West, with this difference, of course, that it becomes more and more clear how terribly poor we are. And why are they stabilizing, ah? Well, because, first of all, we have reached the bottom, so that there is nowhere more to sink, what happened with the establishing of Currency Board by us, which has fixed us to the bottom, but also because we have abandoned at last the bipolar model, where the ones always spit on the others, and vice versa, where both poles are as much right, as well also wrong — it depends on the time and the viewpoint. But this is practically clear, and the more interesting question is the following: why exactly our King has begun to settle the things?

     Not that he has not wanted to do this, but his party was just a heterogeneous crowd of all more moderate right-wing (because the immoderate ones have dispersed themselves, and there has emerged also one "Haiduk Sider" — i.e. Volen Siderov, but "volen" means free, like a haiduk —, who has taken with him all right-wing ... lumpens, of course, or mostly youngsters, like there has existed earlier "Hitler Jugend") politicians, i.e. of conjunctural such, who had nowhere to go and a whole decade had sat quiet. But he was neither too much left, nor too much right (well, more right-wing, obviously, for he is strong, he is a King, at any rate, although uncrowned). And he has come also from the West and there people from long ago don't like extremist in politics, and his years, too, were not such to make him do some excesses, what was clear to the population, though we naively have thought that he does this because he is a King. Yeah, but the "guy", has come to take his land and other possessions, as all were very well able to see, and has begun to do what only he wants, having in mind that he holds the majority of places in the Parliament, and was born as King, too, and was in advanced age, so that the people soon have begun not to give much respect to him. But also his party was formed in extremely short time, for two months, so that its members have not even succeeded to change its name and it remained so as "Second Simeonian" Platform (NMSS, National Movement Simeon the Second), i.e. with working name, the only movement then to which three letters did not suffice (and now, too, for the GERB party, although this is also abbreviation, but as a word "gerb" means ensign, emblem).

     What I want to say is that this man, and also all his people, have not given much efforts, they just wanted to "cash in" on the power, without some special ideas, still, it happened so that he gave the impulse for bettering of the things, mostly with his moderation. For this reason or not, but it turned so that those, who very much wanted to better the things, the right- as also the left- wing, have only worsened the situation the more they wanted to better it, where those, who have not striven especially hard, have succeeded to give us the proper impetus, am I right? This is crystally-clear paradox (although it often happens so, also in other cases), but we, as country of paradoxes, can do the things only in this way, ah? Id est that the "point" here is that not the politics can better the things by us, but, as I have stressed this in other places (not pretending, though, to "discover America"), the economics, the usual routine, and often egoistical, work. It is good to understand this, because this party, if it has been built as party with some platform and name — for example "Western Model Party" or "Alliance for Normal Capitalism", or, if you want, "Party of Moderate Actions" — could have continued its existence (I mean that it also have retained its influence over the masses, because with less than 5% of the votes this simply does not count).

     On the other hand I have ceased to write because I have not seen special purpose in this, when now (to the end of the century, after a decade of turbulent changes)

there have not remained unmanipulated newspapers,

or really free press, but only some sponsored by large business groups (I am not interesting exactly which, yet this is obvious, for the reason that all the left, including also party newspapers "Duma"-"word" and "Democracy", have ceased to exist — only that on the West each party has its newspaper, right?). Well, they manipulate those who ... can be manipulated (because me, for example, nobody manipulates for the reason that he can't), i.e. the people got what they wanted, like on the West — it is this, about what we are speaking, that by us it begins to happen like on the West —, so that this groups are right, in their own way. When the people want to be deceived (what in Latin is: Mundus vult decipi, i.e. "The world wants to be deceived"), then there will always be found someone to do this, say: advertisements, politicians, PR-cadres, physicians, teachers, etc., who manipulate in some way the corresponding people. So that is what most people do, but I am not such person who likes to deceive or manipulate the others, and I have given up to intervene.

     But then, when a decade have passed and it turned out that the Internet gives some opportunity to say things to the people, if not exactly in Bulgarian then in other languages (for I can use a pair), I have decided to raise a voice from time to time because I have nothing else to do, i.e. I have not at all work being unemployed (for the reason that I have studied long, I'll tell you).

     So that in Bulgaria everything is quiet, in broad lines, there are no changes in general political course — transition to more and more harder and right-wing capitalism, and this even from the part of so called left-wing parties (because, for example, the flat income tax is one as possibly utterly right-wing economic decision, more right than this there is nowhere, nobody would have accepted that from the poorer was taken more than from the wealthy, but it was silently approved by the left-wing and only somewhere in 2010 they have raised voice, but not so much because they did not like it, as because they wanted to find something for what to accuse the "Duce Boiko"). And in the economy there are not big changes, the stronger Western economies continue to press us and we continue not to unite with more weaker in economic regard countries (because we now can't do this, being included in the European Union). And that in the morality, I want to say, in its absence, there are also no changes, is more than obvious, but such are likewise not to be expected (because, for to give examples, there is not one interesting TV series, or whatever other TV broadcast watched with interest by the audience, where is no cursing, sex, or they don't deal with homosexuals, as if there are no more normal in this respect people left, or where is no violence — and to remind you, just in case, that in the times of Oscar Wilde the expression "to make love " meant purely to show interest to someone from the other sex, speak with him or her, show courtesy, and as "cursing" was taken to say ... "the hell" or "damn it", for in this way one showed disrespect to God). So that I want to say that our "normalization" is in no case normal, but terminologically, and I think also so, some commonly accepted and average situation is taken for normal, even if this is something bad (say, it is normal that corruption existed, normal that there were fought wars, and so on).

     2. So, everything is OK till now, remains only to clear the point which political forces are for normalization or moderation or centering — because, if you ask me, or even if you look at the ancient Greeks, the moderation is a matter of common sense —, and then see whether we can move in this direction and what is our future, in political, but also in economic, regard.

     Which parties are centrists, then? Well, if you exclude Bulgarian "Ataka"-attack party, maybe all the left, because now even the UDF (Union of Democratic Forces, SDS in Bulgarian) long ago (i.e. after its popularity has strongly fallen, somewhere around the turn of the century) is not ultra-right, and the last really convinced socialist (or communist) of high rank was Zhan Videnov, after him the people there keep only the name "socialists", as a trade mark so to say. Well, the "Ataka" is fascist, what at least on the West does not cause any doubts, and they are so called in foreign, English, texts, but there are little things in Bulgaria that are called with their proper names, right? This, that such party existed, on one hand is terrible, but on the other hand this is not at all so, and it is maybe even necessary, in order to channel their protests (in the same way as various fans of numerous stars raise different slogans). I don't like to go into details about this question here, because in this way we go astray from the theme of quietness, but as far as this is its antipode then it is necessary to say a pair of words about them, too. Now see, first of all they are very few people, they have started with some 8% and now are somewhere about 5, what, surely, is little, i.e. they can speak whatever sort of nonsense they like — because it is clear that their plans are absolute utopias, or rather dystopias, as is now said —, for if something from their propositions could be turned to reality this will be another catastrophe! But this will never happen because they will never seize the power. They can "bark", this they can, but not "bite". And for this reason the West has left them to "bark". Besides, they are party of, let us call them so, post-teenagers, i.e. somewhere from 18 and to 25 years at most, in Komsomol age, as it was spoken before, and these "youngster" just need their "actions", doesn't they? They are immoderate simply because they are young, and as far as there is no morality any more there is nobody to tell them that they behave bad (but it, to remind you, even when there was morality, in one highly moral country like Germany, and when some have said to such youngsters that they do not right things, then they, again, have behaved how they wanted, so that now this is beyond hope!). This is the next "childhood disease" of our democracy.

     The proper centrist party, and this for many years, since its emergence as party, is only our ethnical party, the MRF (Movement for Rights and Freedoms, DPS in Bulgarian). And here we again have paradoxes, so that let me explain the things in some extent. For there are not many those who can answer correctly the question:

why (and when) a given ethnical party is centrist,

because their party is ethnical, whatever they alone are not saying (for the obvious reason that nobody will admit officially that he is doing something against the law), and they are centrists (if not for other reasons, then because all Governments have resorted to them when this was necessary, i.e. with them is possible to take compromise decisions, they are not fanatics of whatever idea — to cite, for example, the "great" slogan of UDF: "Compromises with whomever, only not with the communists!"). Well, listen here, they are first of all not ethnical party of the majority, for to be able to do harm and evil, let be clear on that point. They are party of some minority, and then, why them not to try to become a bit stronger? So, for example, they have wanted to be in position to give themselves names like Assan, instead of our Assen, and they can do this now. I personally don't see what so good is hidden in the name Assan, but, maybe, they relate it with their aslan or arslan, what means lion (this has to be some snarling, like by the bears, which animal is called ursa in Latin), so that it is their right, in the end, to bear whatever name they want (and why should someone be able to call himself, say, Uy Min — and in Bulgarian huy, often pronounced as uy is what you call penis, sorry —, and not Assan, ah?).

     But, then, why are they centrists? I don't know whether these people are aware about this, but the answer to that question is obvious for me — this is exactly because they are ethnical party, i.e. they do not divide in some property, or intellectual, or professional, or other principle! They are performing one proportional sample of the population — well, of Turkish origin, but the Turks are like the Bulgarians (or Germans, Russians, Hebrews, etc.), i.e. there are among them all sorts of people, and one party that wants to please everybody must be centrist, else there will be needed at least two such parties, how it is with the other layers-parts (for this is the idea of the word "part" — strata, side, layer). But a minority party, which hardly gathers 10% of the voices, has no rights to split in two parts, am I right? More so in more than two parts. That's the point. So that it turns out that an ethnical party, at least for us, is a very good thing (because for me is obvious that the center is always something good, at least for the reason that this is so hard to be reached, as far as everybody aims at extremities). Now, if it arises some time ethnical Gypsy — ah, sorry, Roma's, as they insist to be called — party, then there may arise some frictions, but otherwise there is no danger, except on the part of "Sider-Jugend", but we have all once been young (and silly, of course).

     There also our King was, inasmuch as this was possible, center, because he is "King" of all Bulgarians, and it is necessary to remind, or cite, for I am not convinced that people by us are aware that the social measures can be equally well proposed by aristocrats and Monarchs, where as typical, though rarely used, example I may mention the fact that the social security was introduced initially in Germany (and understand also in Europe, and in the whole world, I suppose) by some Otto, and in addition von and Bismarck, who surely was not left-wing, right? And due to all this has arisen the directly "extraterrestrial" coalition of former communists, the King, and the Turkish party, because it was possible, and there were no other more or less centrist parties.

     This, what I still don't like in our movement to the center — because, as I have said, both the right- and the left- wing parties are centering —, is that there,

is no fight and competition in the left political space,

it is united and monolithic, all efforts to split it are doomed to failure by the simple reason that the left are on the whole not so powerful for to allow themselves to split, or then they are more intelligent. But the right ones split for 20 years now, there the entire UDF has "peeled" exactly like an onion head, even has begotten shortly also "Duce Boiko" as I have mentioned, who has "prodded" "Haiduk Sider", because there can't be two "Duce" (literally duce in Italian, what means a leader) in one and the same time and place. So that, hmm, if you care for our center, either become supporter of the left-wing, in order to allow them to split and to begin there some political fight, or back MRF (what, I think, is pretty hard to be done by a real Bulgarian), or else form some new centrist party (say, of transport workers, but all of them, or teachers, or homosexuals — they are also of any soft, i.e. representative sample). There is one more variant, almost fantastical, but not to excluded in the future, to which we shall come in the end.

     3. Let us focus now for some time on the leading in the moment party, in order to make our review more actual. This, what can be said is that

"GERB" can continue to exist for about five to ten years,

but no more than this, after what it will follow the fate of NMSS, i.e. some of its members, succeeded to push themselves upward, will remain, or change their party, respectively form their own parties, but our "Duce" will be left alone by himself with a pair of percents of the electorate. Well, a general is not a "head of onion", as we say, but he also will spend himself, or at least people will become bored by him, because this, with what the democracy is good, is not the very choice, but the changing of parties, and if there is not some platform, which will remain after the person at the top comes down from the scene, then the party very soon will fade away. And that his talks about the image of Bulgaria are nothing more than variant of (pre-electoral) advertising, I think, must be clear to everybody. Because, for one thing, our image is all the same bad, for another thing, it is not created for five years but at least for fifty, and, for some more thing, — corruption has always existed and will exist, and, correspondingly, the fight with it.

     Let us explain a bit these things. The image of Bulgaria is bad somewhere since the middle ages, if not earlier, and also of all Slavs, who for the West are assimilated with the ... slaves — compare the English Slav and slave, but as far as the Bulgarians are near to them than, say, the Russians or Ukrainian, then this applies mainly to us. I personally think that the Western people confuse the Bulgarians with the ... Serbs — obviously —, because they relatively recently have one more time proved that, even if there is not especially important cause, when only they have some possibility they will find something to fight for, for the simple reason that them, hmm, said in Bulgarian, "gi sarbiat razete" (to fight), what means literally that their hands are itching, have to be scratched, but is used as idiom for to want something eagerly! This thesis might be questionable, and etymologically here it goes not exactly about itching or scratching, as about sickles or "serps" in Russian, i.e. curved sabers, scimitars, which names already from the Sanskrit sound in similar way ("krpanas", something of the kind), but this is to the same idea. Anyway, let me not expatiate here too widely, but we all in Bulgaria, either know, or remember, or have heard, or then learned, about the circumstances with our Georgi Dimitrov and the Leipzig court trial back in 1933 (because: where to find better person for arsonist than a "Bugarin", how the Serbs say?), and about the case Antonov (because: who else will take into his head to shoot at the Roman Pope if not a "Bugarin"?), or also, who else will agree to kill innocent children in Libya for little pocket money, except some Giaour-infidel like all Bulgarians. This, surely, are sucked from the fingers, or rather from the subconscious mind, justified with nothing insinuations about the Bulgarians, but there can't be said that it is not true that with the coming of democracy a big number of Bulgarians have run to the West, and have reached also to the United States, and the whole Europe screams with terror from us, and for that reason after pulling down of Berlin wall become necessary to erect the Schengen one (even if it isn't exactly wall in the direct meaning of the word; or not only the Bulgarians are such, for there live in Europe also Romanians, for example).

     So that our image is obviously bad, this isn't good for us, but it can't be bettered for a pair of years, just raising the slogan "Amend the image!" For reaching of this goal are necessary many efforts, as from the part of the top (I can remind you about one "Princess", Liudmila — daughter of Todor Zhivkov —, who in her time has traveled all over the world with various exhibitions, but what else can a princess do?), as well also from the part of the masses (for example, with some nice folk songs from the region of our Rodopa mountains, or with Nestinar dances barefooted on burning coals, or with weightlifters, if you like, and so on). But

in order to better the image first of all is needed morality,

a thing which is very difficult to be shown by a nation that is not much religious, and the time in which we live is entirely amoral. We may be very good people (in sense of our genetic makings), but we are quite savage, somebody must teach us to behave properly, and this can be obtained primarily by the usage of a ... whip. Earlier, in the totalitarian years, there was who to swing it and our savagery was not so easily to be seen, but with the coming of democracy this become the first, and still the primary, thing, which catches the eye in Bulgaria. Everything, the dirt on the streets, but also in the nature, the lacking of elementary social measures (just as an example: from the moment when our Central bath in Sofia, with mineral water, known since 5th century, was privatized it ceased to exist as such, only the water flows as before; or to my knowledge there are no public spots for washing of clothes, laundromats as you say; or the buses up to Mount Vitosha, near to Sofia, have stopped to go anymore; and many other examples), and the covering up of big apartment houses with patches on their facades, the so called sanitation (because such things on the West are not to be seen — there either the whole building is coated and painted, or nothing is touched), and the "wild" prices of transport, milk, and other wares, all these are things that does not exist in the normal countries; there the people do not think that some of them are to rummage in garbage bins and other ones can cry "Long live the democracy". When there is no morality and religion it is quite hard in the country, but we have also not one common vision (as we also have begun to say) about this what is good for the state and what not; each new Government carries out its own course, which reduces to this to throw at least half of its efforts on denial and destruction of what was done by the previous Governments (like: to strike out the communism totally, or to declassify the dossiers of employees of former State Security, or to give back the agricultural land in real borders, no matter whether it will be used or not, and other things which does not happen in normal Western countries). If we do not manage to moralize our country from above, to expect that this will happen from below, in a country like our, is almost beyond hope. The Bulgarian "functions" good on the West because there he is in minority and takes example from the majority, but in our country he is who "calls the tune for the song" and it, naturally, comes out of tune.

     Besides, the fight with various negative moments in our development is not platform for one party, but obligation for all of them, so that when on the West they speak that we are lagging behind in the fight with these moments of governing, i.e. that we are quite savage and barbarous people, then this is because there has to be found some excuse (as back in the times of Turkish yoke the then rulers have spoken about "dish-hag" of "teeth-tax" for the reason that: what can be answered to one who asks unnecessary questions? — they have required money from the wealthy, for the latter were able to give some to them, they would not have asked from the poor, for example, like it seems to happen nowadays by us). And also the fight with corruption can't be used as goal for a single party because

the corruption is a matter of ... level of ripeness of society

(thesis which I have discussed in my other papers, too), and, for example, the capitalist society, more than obvious, at least for me, but also for many other persons, is corrupted (if not for other reasons than because it is run by money). The corruption exists if it can show itself, if the system requires it, otherwise it disappears by itself. Saying this in a slightly different way, it is an addition to the government, because the latter can't provide this, what a big number of people want — for example: prostitution, narcotic drugs, organized crime (for the judicial system, absolutely clear, is not good enough in a big majority of cases). I don't say that the corruption must exist, but, for example, what hinders us to require that all state officials of high rank (in order not to say "statesmen", for there are now many "stateswomen"), were on state's keep and received no salaries at all (or, well, let it be so, received three minimal salaries, or one average such, something of the kind), and also remained under financial surveillance for the next at least 5, but better 10, years after leaving their posts, and this to be valid for their direct relatives, too, in view of finding of cases of misuse of their social position? Such people are, really, not so many, not more than 500 persons for a country like Bulgaria, and if only a hundred of them was under control this also would have carried some benefit to the country. But we have not a right view on the question that high ranking governmental officers, in principle, must work for the sake of work, not for money, and on the West people also don't have one meaning, but there in many countries, at least in the USA, exists property qualification (or cense) and the people pay out of their own pocket for to be able to rule.

     The common people, however, don't understand this and, for example, when in Italy somebody from the politicians was media magnate, they say that this is bad, but he at least does not earn via the power, am I right? And not only there. All confusion comes from the fact that the payment, quite naturally, must be tool only for securing of normal life, not for governing, for obtaining of power over the masses, but the entire capitalism is based on money; denying the money we come to the communism, which is not much liked due to its bad realization till now, but accepting the money we come to the capitalism, commercialization, corruption, and so on, which are things that also are not much liked by the population as a whole, because these are immoral things. There, where the religion has influence, people are satisfied with this, that who lives now good will on the "other world" get what has deserved, and vice versa, but with what can we properly be calmed? By some decent living standard there also is possible not to bother much that the "big sharks" eat the small fishes, because the small "fiches" can live decently, if only they want to, but in a country like ours, the poorest in the whole European Union, and hoping to become second in poverty only if Albania becomes included in it, people become much more amoral than in totalitarian years, when especially big corruption simply could not have existed for there was everything under surveillance, and also the money has not this power as it has now, then only the power has the power, so to say.

     In short, let it be clear that the GERB party can do nothing of big importance, it is party of the "good bully", and this will do the work for some time, but, surely, will bore the people sometimes. And he is not much moderate or centered; well, he is not like the old UDF, but also not such like MRF (the Turks), or like (at least some ideal) BSP (socialists). He, though, pacifies the people, because, passes some time or other, and the "whip" begins to flap, and our folks, as humble horses, pull the chariot. For the moment. But the curious moment here — there are only curiosities in Bulgaria, as I have mentioned — is that in spite of the economic crisis we are as if more quiet and stable, than in other Western, i.e. former capitalist countries (like Greece, but Spain, too, Italy, and others), as well as in some Eastern (say, Ukraine, Poland), or that

the crisis by us creates almost no problems,

for the simple reason that we are living so miserable that worse than this is almost not possible! Id est, in Bulgaria, really, in broad lines, everything is quiet. In view of this our "Duce" practically can not "entangle the skein" anymore. He does nothing especially reasonable, he once accepts and then denies some old settings (be it about nuclear power plant in Kozloduy, be it about oil pipeline from Russia, or about some highway, or shale gas, or taxes, etc.), but speaks always with conviction and firmness and is liked by the population, most of all by women, but also by men, at least in the region around the capital Sofia. He has almost no platform, but being, still, a general (not feldwebel like some Adolf), is not silly, holds the masses, and the things are in order. That our situation is bad, it is bad, but as far as we are in this condition a long time, then the present-day situation up to some extent quietens us and we work a little, that's that we work (well, those who have job, of course) much, but for little (money). We wait and wait for the crisis to end, it does not end, though, and we are like domestic livestock led ... to be slaughtered. We neither try to better something, no think what to do, but just stay there meek and docile (and who can flee abroad does it). In general — oasis of stability in Europe. And this, however strange, can little by little begin to better our image (but again not because we want this, merely as side effect of our desperate poverty).

     4. The future, naturally, can not be exactly predicted, but, still, let us try to meditate a little about this, what can be expected to happen after the GERB, in political as well as in economic aspect. Well, the economy is clear, we will continue to be outsiders within Europe, more or less on equal level with Romania, and a bit higher than Albania, in spite of the fact that we are capable and distinctive people. This is so because we have nothing more left to be privatized (to expect that there will be influx of capitals from the West), nor have alone capitals (for we are poor like beggars), nor also have some general line for development of our own industry (as we have had in the times of totalitarianism). When every Government denies the achievements of the former we are skidding (in the mud) and do not bother much about this. Morality we also do not have, we are not religious, so that here we are left to our fate. But in the nature everything is mutually related, so that it is not excluded that

exactly the lack of morality will force us to try to have it,

little by little, such moments can already be remarked (for example, by some forms of charity), but this is very slow process, and on the background of our current-day decaying of capitalist society (for it is so good in many countries by the simple reason that is already overripe) we will need quite much time, but maybe Europe will somehow succeed to integrate us, when we do not fight with one another, like it happens in other countries (i.e. to spend money, instead of to pacify us, for raising of our living standard).

     More interesting is to guess about politics. It is clear that the socialists, however much they were not such, will from time to time come to power, but I don't believe that they will be able to rule alone, because — again a paradox, I'll tell you — the better one nation lives (and we will gradually rise to the surface, for some 10-20 years, and will reach the level of living from ... the times of our "Bai Tosho"), the more to the right it bends.

The left-wing, as a rule, are not loved,

and — another etymological excursus — in Italian (i.e. in Latin) the word sinister means left, but it is perfectly obvious, at least for the English speaking people, that this means also bad, evil, brutal. If you have not yet given a thought to this phenomenon I can explain it to you: the left-wing, or those who think about the others, not about themselves (or at least think that it has to be so, and for that reason, or for another one, live poor), are not much loved because everybody knows that such behaviour is right, but they alone can't behave so (for the man, whatever was not said about, is egoist by himself, and even must be such in the nature), so that they are simply feeling ashamed, that the others, poor, humble, good-for-nothing, etc., exceed them with something! That is the essence of the things. Of course, there is also this moment, that the more poor are also more vile, mean, etc., but they are just compelled to be such, for otherwise they will never succeed in this life, while the wealthy and successful can easily speak about human honour and morality, when receive everything ready. In other words, the "bad" ones are such, because they are forced by the very life, and by the society, too, and the "good" ones think only about themselves and find that that is why they live good and that it has to be lived like them, but deep in themselves they know that this isn't so (and that, for example, they will not find good place in the "other world" with this, that here on this world have lived good).

     But I have spoken about this, that the left-wing will hardly succeed to take the whole power on their own, unless it begins fight in the left political space, what, however, in a barbaric country like our, does not happen, at least for the moment. Where the right-wing, they split for a long time and have already split, and there is nothing else to invent there (for we have spent the ideas about the King, and about NATO, and the businessmen, and the farmers — not that it was some powerful idea —, and the strong people in general). The center, on the other hand, is hard to be reached, and when we reach it, or it is served us on a plate, than we begin not to like it (for we want actions). For the moment I see some escape for a time only in the ... women! In the sense that we have not yet tried to build some

strong feminine or feminists party,

because all women are like all Turks, they represent the whole nation, and they are also as if more meek and quiet, and more mediocre and everybody will understand them (for, if you give some thought to the matter, we are not governed by philosophers, and will not be governed in the future, too, despite the fact that Plato before roughly 25 centuries has come to the conclusion that this is the most correct decision). If this could not be realized than we can only hope to find some foreign rulers (not only come from behind the border, but also with foreign citizenship and ethnicity, say: Germans, Englishmen, Frenchman, Japanese), or on coalition governments and specially of weak parties (what ruling is very insidious, I think, but we may live long enough to see such one), or on caretakers governments, or (in what I don't believe much, but, still, it is not entirely excluded) on some totalitarian ruling (say, of dynasty of "Boikists" — descendants of Boiko Borissov, the leader of GERB party —, if such dynasty exists).

     September 2012

     P.S. Well, as it turned out after less than half an year, not everything in Bulgaria is so quiet, but (for it isn't possible for the author to make errors, is it?) this is even for the better, because — now, judge for yourself, the whole world is already ten years or so in economic crisis and the people everywhere are discontented with this, only we, and being the poorest in European Union, keep silence like sheep. So that I am glad that we have shown that we are not entirely sheep, and I also continue to be right about the expressed in the paper moments. But because there are many things to be said about 2013, then I will dedicate to this question another material — for it turned out that the year was, primarily, guilty for our situation.

     April 2013



(political analysis)

     Such kind of analyses are usually done for one party, but I intend to spend some time for each of the parties (or as a group of similar ones) in Bulgaria in the democratic years, i.e. after 1990 and up to 2012, what has its advantages, as also its disadvantages. The latter ones are in this, that I will not be much precise (for otherwise a whole book will not be enough, and I am also not a specialist politologist), and the advantages, which (how it is normally to suppose) are related with the disadvantages, are in this that, when I am compelled not to be very extensive, I may allow myself to be interested only in the spirit of parties, in the ideas, with which they come to (and then leave the) power, and in this way the material will become popular enough. To recompense the impreciseness my review will have rather philosophical character, be nontraditional, not tied (where this is possible) to concrete personalities, and to profound analyses (which often turn out to be made "without the innkeeper", as we in Bulgaria like to say). Well, let us begin then, hopping that the fingers on both hands will suffice us.

     1. BSP (Bulgarian Socialist Party). The former communists, using just a pair of words, have tried to cope with the situation, i.e. to reform themselves, but have not much succeeded in this, except for some objective reasons, chiefly because of the bad influence of their antipode, UDF (Union of Democratic Forces). To some of the readers this may seem prejudiced, but it is so (as also the reverse influence, but this time rather positive, of BSP over UDF), for the simple reason that the political environment is one, and our nation is one, and especially by the bipolar model is impossible that the two poles don't influence one another. But by this, as you surely know, the bad example is contagious, i.e. people, want this or not, but copy first of all the worst (as also we with the capitalism, of course, for we have begun with the legalization of prostitution, penetrating of drug addiction, increasing of criminality, etc.), so that soc-communists (or com-socialists), too, willy-nilly, have begun to "rejuvenate", and take hasty decisions, and stubbornly contradict the requirements of UDF — as it happens in almost every family, where each one wants to appear more superior and makes many things only on the contrary to the other.

     About the age, which, by God, is impossible not to be some measure for experience in life, it is perfectly clear that for the top echelon has dropped with nearly 30 years, for the former Politburo has have average age of about 60, and many of them were also older than 70, where the new democratic communists were in the average age of 30 to 40 (rarely) years. This just can't not to be the cause for many errors, though they were necessary up to some extent, because the old ones, as a rule, don't want to accept the new tendencies, so that some changing of echelons were inevitable, but surely not with such immense difference, surely not from one pole and directly to the other. But such were the UDF members, in general, due to the fact that they were people non-succeeded to become top communists before, and first of all in Komsomol age.

     Hastiness also must be obvious, if you remind yourself (who can, of course, but then read old newspapers — if you've nothing else to do), that it was at least one ASA, Alternative Socialist Alliance (ASO in Bulgarian, for the last word is "obedinenie"), but also other parties, not mentioning the 3-4 communist parties (up to 1992), as Social-Democratic Party, too, but it happened so that they all did not manage to reach some popularity, i.e. all outside BSP have doomed to failure. But in Russia still exists Communist Party, and with influence, which even 20 years after the transition to democracy takes part in the elections (to say nothing about China and Cuba). And the Social-Democrats also have not succeeded to get through (notwithstanding the fact that they were not so extreme as the communists), although once they lacked only some 5 hundredth of a percent (if I am not mistaken) for to exceed the threshold (of 4%) in the Parliament. There were also other left-wing parties (I have not been much interested in this for I have never been communist myself — and will also never become such, as is sung in one song in Bulgaria), but not a single of them succeeded to "enter the game". At the same time, if there were not the UDF — at least I am convinced in this, although it can't be objectively proved — for some 3-4 years, at worst for five, BSP would have succeeded to reform itself and forget about, eventually to split in a pair of major parties, and continue to rule, either directly, or as opposition. But they have not had time, the right-wing have poked them, so to say.

     And about the stubbornness and acting on the contrary, I think, the things are obvious. Almost sure the communists (well, let them be socialists) would have agreed with some privatization earlier, maybe also with some reasonable Money Board, until the US dollar was still at least 200 - 300 levs, not when it become 1,800 lv, and similarly with other measures. But how to lead normal dialog with people who, by their own words, said: "Compromises with everybody, only not with the communists!", or also "45-years are enough" (and let us now strike them out and return with as many years back in the time, as it, really, happened, at least in regard of our standard of life).

     But there are also objective reasons, and they are mainly in this, that people do not much like the communists, because they preach moral to them, and nobody wants to be thought how to live. For this reason people don't like much the priests, too, but if there exists strong religion then they at least listen to them and behave. And I will give here one ... etymological proof, the word "left" in Latin (as well as in contemporary Italian), which is sinister, means also bad, evil, sinful! What better confirmation than this for the thesis that the left-wing, weak, poor (because the left hand is weaker, surely), are at the same time sinful and bad people? And in this case look at the right-wing and strong, they are paragons for behaviour — and this not because the strong say so, but because everybody wants to be one of them. So that there is nowhere to run away from this, and it explains to a great extent (maybe does not excuse, but explains) the strong discipline under the communism. While now millions of people just rejoice that they may have, for example, either their own petrol station, or a chain of shops, or a bank, or a space shuttle, if you want, et cetera, although even one out of million people will hardly have sometime such possibility, and they alone know this pretty well, but still hope and say themselves "What if ...". So that I explain popularly the contagiousness of right-wing ideas (in which, otherwise, come to think of this, there is no sense — the strong is not right, he is just strong), and the justness of left-wing is proved by the very life (for they have emerged already in the primitive societies, and also among the animals, i.e. living in herds), but they, as a rule, are not liked by the population, especially by the young ones.

     Well, surely can be pointed out errors also of the very BSP members, but let us not go into details. Their errors would have been such in order to oppose the aforesaid, not as principal errors (because there was not terror — "the tanks have not come", how the UDF had insinuated in one of their electoral advertisements —, nor even they wished to continue the old line of ruling — for the simple reason that the transition has begun from the very top, they have dethroned Bai Tosho, right?).

     2.UDF (Union of Democratic Forces, SDS in Bulgarian). The new democratic association have not succeeded to make anything good, because they turned out to be mostly people without ideas, only exalted screamers, thinking that the market will settle by itself and that the democracy will heal everything like a miraculous ointment. Well, in the right-wing idea, generally speaking, there are almost ... no ideas, because, as we said here, the strong are not right, they are just strong, but there is some reason in this to listen to the strong, for this creates quietness in the country. But the right-wing thought that only with cries "Ooh!" and "Down!", i.e. only with destroying (and don't think that I exaggerate because I have been once at UDF meeting) everything will blossom and bring fruit, but this is not a way to pull state's chariot. And not only that they have done nothing good, but they have done not a little bad, for they have destroyed working structures (for example, have given back agricultural land not requiring from the owners to work it; or have introduced Currency Board when it was absolutely unnecessary, our lev has begun to stabilize and have started to go up, but they have fixed it to the bottom; and other things like: safeness, morality, and others, have been damaged, due to unneeded freedoms). And what is even sillier — I beg to be excused, but it is so — they have done bad to themselves, too, because the communists, sorry, socialists, passes some time or other, and take the power for a while, even in "extraterrestrial" coalitions, but UDF now a decade or so have remained on the level of 2-3% of the votes. Besides, it can be said that they have "peeled out" from themselves even the fascists (because it is clear that the latter ones have never accepted the communist ideas), but well, let us not add more sins to them for they are full with such).

     It is clear that, in theory, there was some reason in this to build strong opposition to the communists, in order to help them to reform themselves (for they, anyway, have ruled over us nearly half a century, and were not "pure water" politicians — what means, if you ask me, that they have learned to deceive the people, yet in their own interest), but the bad thing came when they have tried to take the power, and even a pair of times more later. What I means is that, if they have appeared as party (well, coalition, but this is not important, as political power) which wants to destroy, than they would have always stayed in opposition, but never try to govern, when they can not. But let me not expatiate more about this causa perduta (lost cause), because I criticize it also in other places.

     3. MRF (Movement for Rights and Freedoms, DPS in Bulgarian). It has emerged as political power which must support and unite the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, but very soon it has transformed in one stable and permanent center. Now, let us not discuss here the point, are they or not ethnical party, because all, at least on the West, have already answered this question (just look in which regions they win their votes), but let us find the answer, why are they center (for nobody disputes this). Well, they are centrist party first of all because they are ethnical party, but as far as by us this is not clear, and people continue to say that it is bad to have ethnical party, let us give here some explanations. Being ethnical party of all Turks in Bulgaria, they are simply compelled to represent equally good, i.e. as compromise, the interests of all these people, without any difference of age, sex, material status, education, religion, etc., aren't they? In this way they form one representative sample of Bulgarian population, because all Turks are like all Bulgarians (or Hebrews, Germans, Russians, and other nations in the world), with slight differences (regarding the names, for example), which are not essential what concerns the balance between right and left wing, i.e. the conditions for developing of capitalism, for enrichment of some minority, from one side, and creation of decent social living conditions for the majority, from another one. And they are doing this more than 20 years now, subjected to criticism and spat upon by many.

     So that it turns out that, despite the objections of public opinion (not only by us, but also on the West), one ethnical party can, definitely, play positive role for us (inasmuch as for me is obvious that one moderate centrists platform is always something positive, if not for other reason then because this rarely happens — people want actions and thrillers, right?). And why is this so, ah? Well, it is quite simple, because they are ethnical party of a minority, not of the majority (like "Herr" Adolf in his time in Germany, or, if you like, as "Haiduk Sider", leader of our fascists, now in Bulgaria). The minority is, in general, weak, it will not begin to create disorders (for they even — to give some examples — have not tried to "repaint" monuments, or break windows of our National Assembly, or disturb the service in Christian churches, but other parties have done such things), so that some strengthening of them does not do much harm. Besides, we must not doubt here, they do not at all want splitting of Bulgaria and annexing of some part to Turkey (as many Bulgarians have thought earlier); they don't want such things because Bulgaria is in Europe, but Turkey isn't, and now we are even in European Union, so that — why should they be so silly to want to run away from this? They wanted to bear names like Ahmed and Mehmed (all men like, hmm, ... med-honey — what means mead, of course, where the root comes from the Sanskrit), or also Assans (like the Turkish lion called aslan /arslan), or Gül-something (i.e. roses), or Sedefs (pearls), Sevdas (beloved women), or, maybe even Aishas (what is a Gypsy name, but comes also from the Sanskrit, where aksha meant an eye, i.e. they cherish her like eye-pupil), and others. In the end — it's up to them, how they want, this shouldn't have become political question, but when the communists in totalitarian time have messed the things, so it serves us right.

     4. Social-Democrats and other left-wing parties. This powers simply can not come to power in Bulgaria (they have tried once and might have succeeded but failed because of parts of percent less than the minimum), and this is very bad, I think. This is bad because, as you have heard, there is no victory without fight, and fight in the left political space we have not, yet in the right space we have, more than necessary. This, at least, does not balance good the left and the right, but it also hampers the left to evolve good. According to the meaning of quite many people, to which this time I join, the left are such mainly pro forma, as a trade mark, but are not at all such in reality (after the last "Mohican", Zhan Videnov). And there could have quietly existed several left-wing parties with influence, which could make coalitions for the elections, if they want, but otherwise remain separate parties. There is nothing bad also if we have one communist party with influence (like, for example, they have in Russia), because the ideas of communism are right — they, the ideas, are even ... divine, if you ask the Ancient Greeks (idea = i + dea, where the second, obviously, is a goddess) —, only their realization limps, but the realization of capitalism by us is at all "in wheelchair", so to say. For me the lack of some "significant" Social-Democratic party is a big omission, which surely can be mended, but the soc-communists, by their old habit, think that must exist only one power, for to be a real power. Well, we have touched this question, but something must be done in this regard, and this is work for the masses (when on the top they don't want), i.e. they must begin to want some other left party. OK, let it be so, I will propose to you some names (with implied platforms): New Left Force, Moderate Left Party, Capitalist Left Model, People's Left Party, Party of Left Ideas, Labor Party (like in England), Party of Social Capitalism, even SOCI, if you like, what can be decoded as "Social Otnoshenia-Relations and Civilized Institutions".

     5. Peasant parties. The emergence of such parties was another misunderstanding, yet they have emerged and have "muddied the political waters" for some time, but it is good that they have not succeeded to reach the Parliament. Now look, for one thing the peasants (or farmers, this sounds better) have never been, and will never be, united power, and for another thing they have decreased significantly in their numbers as a strata (I mean here exactly the farmers, those who produce agricultural things, not just live in the villages), where in Europe they are on the average about 10% of the population, but in some countries, in the United States, for example, they are even 4%. Well, we might have had some such parties for assortment (say, Farmers Party), but not to expect to have success with them. They have emerged, maybe, because of our former, from totalitarian times, Bulgarian Agrarian National Union (BZNS in Bulgarian), but this party was, more than obvious, subdivision of our communist party, with functions of a screen, for nobody could have said that we have single-party system. There, you see, not only the farmers have become less, but also the workers as such, i.e. those working in factories, are now not many (again roughly 10, maybe up to 15%, if they are correctly measured, from the employed population). The major part of those engaged with work, according to the author, are people of the sphere of services, if there enter, really, all those who provide for us some services, i.e.: transport, education, police, a heap of institutions (say, telephone operators and /or the Internet and /or cable TV), the classical services (like shops, hotels, restaurants), medical care, and possibly others. We all serve each other. The working class was one momentary phenomenon (of approximately half a century), when the capitalism was still very green and there were needed many workers (like it was before with the peasants, or the artisans, or, if you like, with the drivers of cars and earlier coachmen). We can divide us on spheres of activity, but not on workers and employees, because then the major part will be employees or servants (as far as they serve meekly to some boss, don't work for themselves, on their own account). But this was a small deviation from the theme of politics.

     6. Businessmen. Such parties also have emerged by us, but hastily and for opportunistic reasons, not as real parties of businessmen, and due to this one such party (BBB, Bulgarian Business Block) just entered in our Parliament and disintegrated and gone out of it. Surely the businessmen are even less than the peasants or the workers. Can be spoken about party of small business, for example, but I am afraid that with such party also nothing much different than with our peasant parties will happen. They will not be united, and can't have some special political ideas, which could not have been defended by any self-respecting political power. The real layer of large-scale businessmen, even in developed Western countries, does not count more than 3% of the population, and what can be said about the poorest country in European Union. This is "throwing of dust in the eyes" of people.

     7. Fascists. Here the things are quite equivocal, so that it is necessary to pay some attention to them. On one hand it is clear that worst idea than this of fascism in the current-day society is hardly possible to be found (the communism, despite the book "Fascism" of our Mr. "Yelyo Yelev" or "Zelyo Zelev" or "Zhelio Zhelev — what, written so, we read as 'z-h', to be sure — etc., it depends on the transcription, because the nice letter "zh" — like in "measure" — is mutilated on the West how they only like, is not the same as the fascism, how he states in his book, I beg him to be excused; it is not the same, if not for other reason, then at least because not a single Hebrew can become Aryan, can not change his or her gene or ethnicity, while every wealthy one can easily become proletarian — what is necessary is just to take away his property, right?). The world, well, at least Europe, for a long time now does not argue on this question, especially after 9th of June have become day of Europe (the day of victory over the fascism). But, on the other hand, our fascists must not at all be taken seriously! They are youngsters, kids, post-pubers, "Sider Jugend". They are impudent enough (I don't see why I have to excuse myself for something really true) to chant sometimes even — this was shown by our TV and was pretty clear to be heard — "The Gypsies to soap?", but they don't at all think what they are saying! They are to such extent dumbfounded by the media, ads, and Internet, that take every possible fable for reality, as also vice versa — don't believe in proven and unquestionable facts (I personally remember a talk with a relatively intelligent girl of about 15, who has said to me that in all this, what was spoken about gas chambers and the Hebrews, she does not believe!).

     Id est they are sick, schizophrenics, something like that, they can't distinguish between facts and fictions, don't live in this world, are not adequate to their environment. I can not excuse them, obviously, but it is necessary to show some understanding to such undeveloped personalities, because we all have once been young, and when there pass, so, 5 to 10 years, they will heal by themselves (how in this day you will hardly meet a person who will admit that he /she was sometime UDF supporter, but they have won more than half of the votes, and this by 90% electoral activity, and were all young people, so that it can't be said that they have already left this world). If only they do not make special disturbances it is necessary to endure them. And here comes another viewpoint: when they are legalized, then the things are in some extent channeled, it is known who are they, nobody hinders them to imagine whatever they want, and in this way is relatively reduced the danger from them (for the reason that one shows perseverance to do all sorts of trouble exactly when is contradicted to him). Possibly because of this the noise about them (which in the beginning was pretty strong), not only in Bulgaria, but also on the part of Europe, subsided, because — it is so, right? — one of the psychological advantages of democracy is that one can "shout" a bit and after this feels better. They will change nothing around themselves, but will change something in themselves.

     But here is also another moment, on which I would like to turn your attention, on the ground for fascism in Bulgaria. Priory their emergence I personally was convinced that there is no ground for fascism by us (no matter that there were earlier fascist parties, i.e. they were at the power), for the simple reason that the fascists assert, roughly speaking, the following: we are good nation, capable, have had our own empire, look, how many things we have done, we are concordant and united and can do even more things, but we are hindered in the state by bad elements, by foreign individuals, and that is why now we live so bad; let us take them away and you will see how all will blossom and bring fruit! While the communists assert, for example: all hard-working and capable people live bad, because the wealthy ones hinder them; let us take away the wealthy, free the labour slaves, and the things will blossom. Id est, the fascists show as root of evil some ethnical minority, where the communists think that the economic minority is guilty; the fascists go from one industrious and united nation, which is exploited in their own country by foreign "bloodsuckers", but which has given many examples for domination in the world, while the communists start from the idea that the simple and hard-working population lives bad because of robbing from the wealthy individuals, but the people have not yet unfolded themselves and shown what they can do. So that there is a difference.

     And, really, look where the fascism has "given sprouts" during the Second world war: Germany is obviously a super-disciplined country (as is said, and I beg the people there to be excused, but they without permission will not ... go even to the toilet, they can crap their pants on their posts), the Japanese are fanatics of the idea for their domination, because they are forced to, due to their excessive overpopulation (maybe they are the most densely populated also today, and this in evidently seismic region), and the Italians, well, they are Catholics, and this, in some cases, unites more than the communism (I can give as an interesting example that I have read some Italian juvenile books of the genre ... "religious science fiction", what kind I have not met anywhere else till now). But in all those cases these are countries with proven success in the industry, or wherever it can be, they have had mighty empires in the past, and now, too, they demonstrate "wonders" in their development, and are extremely united (at least the Germans and Japanese have rebirth literally like the bird phoenix after their defeat in the Second world war). Where we, the Bulgarians, are quite savage and barbarian country, whatever we were not officially stating, and if we have had sometime "kingdom and state" then the other nations around us have had not smaller such, but we, obviously, are utterly disunited and can begin to kill one another if there is not somebody to bring us to reason (just recall to you, those who can, how in the first years after the coming of democracy we have poked out the eyes of candidates for MP, or have depicted "something" to their mouth). From what follows that there is no ground for natural emergence (in times of war this, as a rule, is not counted, it was imposed to us) of fascism in Bulgaria.

     But look, it has come "Haiduk Sider" and has organized fascist party and it turns out that I was wrong. Yet this is not so (for, after all, how can I make a mistake, ah? — rhetorical question, the answer is clear), because this party gathers not many people, on the average about 5%, and this predominantly among young and silly ones, so that this situation has to be valid, maybe, for each country. Conditions for effective fascism by us do not exist, and have never existed, we maybe do not like much one another (for example, I personally can not say that I am just "overflowing with love" to the Gypsies, or Hebrews, or, Negroes, or ... Americans, no matter that there are not such living in Bulgaria), but we would have not risen to perform raw physical violence against them (where we have examples even for the contrary — for saving of Hebrews during the fascism, or for accepting of many Armenian refuges before this). We are savage, but quiet and meek, people, and this that some youngsters push up to express themselves with something — for there is nowhere now to show our "heroism", there are no wars, no revolutionary situation, no even special interest to live, because life is significantly easier than half to one century before — well, it happens so with people, as I have said, these are illnesses of growth, something like the pimples acne (which word, to "educate" you a bit, means something "akano" in Bulgarian, or caco in Latin, what are ... the faeces!).

     8. The Tsarist party (NMSS, National Movement Simeon the Second, NDSV in Bulgarian). It has come nearly like a bolt from the blue, as is said, was organized in a pair of months, and if there was not the quite clever Solomon (who has passed us to the Atlantic, because his very name was such, Passi), it wouldn't have had the possibility to see the white world (and there were also a big number of many more or less right-wing politicians who have grasped in time that UDF will only "entangle the skein" and have run out of it long ago, so that they just waited where to enter). This party was entirely opportunistic, practically without ideas (like everything right-wing, as I have said), if one does not count the subconscious comprehension of everyone that if something comes from the West then it must be good, and also when Simeon was born to be King, then, maybe, it is worth to try with him, too. Yeah, but he has come to take back his land possessions, has behaved as a King, i.e. have done what he wanted (when has won the majority of votes) and, as far as he was also in years, withdrew later from the politics. And in addition (and I think, but maybe I just think so, that I have tried to tell this to these people — but what prominent personality will read all the correspondence which receives?) they even have not succeeded to correct their name, but have remained with the "working name" NMSS, i.e. only to them three letters for abbreviation of their name have not sufficed (because GERB party, although this is some abbreviation, as a word in Bulgarian means ensign); when at the end they have decided to change their name this has become useless, the King has withdrawn. Where they could have named themselves, for example (to give them post factum some hints — for I, contrary to many, have enough brains but little money): Moderate Western Party, or Party for Moderate Capitalism, or Turn to the West, Strong Right-wing Alliance, or whatever they have alone chosen, only not this unfinished name for playing hide and seek under one (olden) "hat".

     But don't thing, however, that I am not contented with them; I in principle don't like whatever party, because it defends its partial (from "part"), not some common for the country, interests, but I think it's a shame that they had very good chances and have simply wasted them. They had chances, at least, because they were not extremely right, like the UDF, but also because ... hmm, for the simple reason that they had no special ideas for ruling, they just wanted to "cash in" on the power. Here many of the readers might have thought that I have entangled myself in my reasonings, but this is not so — because life is entangled, the dialectics require it, see? So they were moderate at least because otherwise BSP, however much it was socialistic only on words, have had no other choice for forming of coalitions except with parties close to the center, and these were only MRF (the Turks) and this King's NMSS, and they have done this — simply unbelievable! But we are discussing the tsarists party, which has succeeded — it is true, as a side effect, at least I think so, but has succeeded — to break the bipolar model, which only exhausted our country, and have marked the beginning of our pulling out of the swamp, slow, hard, but still pulling out and moving to the West. It is right that this Western model is not much suitable for our poor country (the poorest in European Union), but it was our nation that wanted this Western model, wanted not to look to the East, i.e. toward Russia, so that they have given it (us) this, what it (we, as a whole) wanted (then and now).

     And for those, who still can't understand how people without special ideas, and in addition also opportunists and careerists, can make quite good successes, let me add, that it pretty often happens exactly so among the "sapient homos". Id est those, who defend very actively some ideas and are ready to fight for them, they usually ... well, want to fight, right? And those, who look at their own interests and are relatively moderate in their wishes, they exactly show themselves as good professionals and achieve success in life, for the reason that the middle point is exceedingly important thing on this world (and maybe also on the "other", I don't know). So that this opportunistic party, in principle, has succeeded to begin to better us, it, so to say, has marked the beginning of our way to real democracy — with a delay of a decade, due to the whooping and incompetent UDF.

     9. GERB party. This party was also unexpected, even for the soc-communists (and primarily for them), also right-wing and opportunist, also without special ideas, but — how to put it? — brilliantly setting on the subconscious in the humans! Have I put it good? I want to say that they have come to power with some, but entirely sucked from the finger, understandings, that the "good bully", or "Duce Boiko", whose very name is so "boikoe" (in Bulgarian, what means not so much jaunty or buoyant but brave, courageous), will defeat the corruption and raise our image before the world, which image is "stained" at least for centuries, but especially since the coming of our democracy. And this, that the image of a nation can't be "cleansed" for a few years but at least for half to one century, that this isn't done with swishing of a whip but with the use of moral (which, especially in country practically without any religion as ours, and in unmoral time of collapse of civilization as this in which we are living now, isn't clear from where can come — more so after we have rejected the exaggerated communist moral), and that the corruption has ever existed and will exist, because it is a matter of addition to the official ruling, for it is not enough ... ripen, and so on — to all these questions our population, neither could, nor wanted, to give answer, the people just run away from the "extraterrestrial" coalition, as I mentioned this earlier.

     But he has set brilliantly on the subconscious by the people thanks to his good PRs, or because he alone was clever enough — a general, still, not "a head of onion" —, for he was shown nearly 5 years everywhere en gros, and with a big head. Saying it otherwise, this was one ... hmm, phallic advertisement! But if the cult to the phallus was not hidden deep in the subconsciousness of people, then it wouldn't have emerged before millenniums (for you have not heard about a cult to its antipode, to the Latin putta, or French putain, have you?). As a joke or not, but this man indisputably is liked by the greater part of women (I personally have once heard how a young girl, when it come to this Boiko, has said with a happy smile, "ah, Boicho" — and this is building of diminutive in Bulgarian, what usually means liking), and probably is willingly accepted (well, not that they really like him so, I suppose) also by the majority of men, especially in the region around Sofia. The strong bully is always popular and he has very well known this and set on it.

     Otherwise his ideas — and what ideas? The corruption in Latin means decomposition, breaking (and probably with some crushing and squeezing, for they said corrumption), but this is adjustment to the environment, I'll tell you, because you know very well that the tomatoes are eaten when they become ripe, while the cucumbers when they are green, or that the capitalism is like a medlar and is good when it begins to decay (like it is now, not like what was a century ago). And it is an addition to the system, as also the prostitution, organized crime, etc., are (for if the people did not have needed them then they would not have existed, as far as all, even the sluts — I beg the women, and, maybe, now also the men, to excuse me — know well that they are doing something unmoral, but they do it because there is demand on this). So that, if the system is good, then it wouldn't have needed such additions, but as far as the entire capitalism rests on money, which according to each religion are something bad, i.e. an amoral things, then one can not do without corruption. This, what can be done in the given situation, and is also done, is ... hmm, that the state corrupted itself instead of the people and companies, i.e. the state collects taxes for something, what, anyway, is amoral!

     But there is also something else — especially in the politics there is often something else, another view to the things — bad or not, bully or not, with ideas or without such, only speaking and often contradicting himself or not, but he quietens the masses, because we (and all other nations) are like horses, we want to hear the whip to snap and then we pull the cart, but otherwise resist. In this sense he is also embodiment of the strong hand in the government, what neither is a new idea, nor is valid only for our country, nor will some time disappear (on this is based the right-wing government, as I mentioned). And note the precise (in order not to use the same epithet again) matching of other big political figures around him: the mayor (or rather "mayeress", for it is "she") of Sofia now is one modest and mild-looking woman; almost all other persons from the government (with the exception, maybe, of the foreign Minister) are also dull, unpleasant, and /or featureless; and our new President is "berry of the same field" ("bird of a feather" for you), too, absolutely faceless, no matter that he is man and President. For the reason that — it is so, isn't it? — the "Duce" (in order not to say again the other word) can be only one, and the others must only listen and execute. Well, I don't say that it is easy for him, "the royal crown is heavy", as the folks say (and he, really, looks in the recent time somehow wearied and bored by the power — if he does not play all this on purpose, yet even if so), but it isn't easy only with bare words — well, almost — to keep the entire nation in subjection.

     (I can add a pair of sentences more about our current President, "rosen-presen" how is said in Bulgarian (what means fresh and with dew), and he, either is from town Pleven, or his great-great-grandfather has had somewhere plevnia-barn — really, because he is named Rosen Plevneliev — but sometimes, it depends on the angle, he has a bit, hmm, moronic view. Apologies to him, for I have no intention to offend him, but he is so confused with his new position, and how he was used till the elections only to stand to attention, like the dogs, and now can also command, then he just looses himself sometimes; he could have been good "chef de salle", how "Haiduk Sider" says, but to be President is too much for him in the beginning. But he is not at all silly, because have learned very well the science to speak much and say nothing. This definitely isn't easy, I'll tell you, because myself, for instance, no matter how I have tried to say empty words, still, will sometimes make an error and blurt something reasonable. Generally said, he is a good example of Latin proverb "Ars est celare artem.", what means "Art is in this, to hide the art.". Well, he at least does not treat all people like retarded, which was the manner of our former President "George the First" (Georgi Parvanov in Bulgarian, and parvi is first). So that "the guy" is confused, has not at all suitable for the post appearance, but ... he will justify the confidence, almost sure, and in all probability will be not worse than out former Presidents.)

     But the curiosities does not end with this, because his people are good rulers, they perform their work, at least about the mayeress nothing bad can be said and the people have reelected her, and the Government is also good, for despite the protests of opposition (especially of that who "already-become-boss" — I mean Stanishev, the head of BSP, due to my funny observation that his name splits in stani-become + shef-boss), and this, mark, in conditions of crisis! It turns out almost so that we "function" even better under conditions of crisis, than under normal conditions, because the whole Western Europe has suffered, to say nothing about ever discontented Greece, or about classical (now) discontented between the ex-communist countries, Poland and Ukraine. It is true, there are objective reasons for this: we are living so miserably, that there is nowhere worse (at least in the Euro-Union), so that this, that now also others are in bad conditions, as if pacifies us and we "pull our cart" still and quiet, but who knows how much quiet we would have been if we were still governed by the old coalition (having in mind that people don't like the socialists, and that they do practically nothing in really socialist spirit)? And in addition to everything else this real "Duce" as if has pressed the self-proclaimed "Haiduk Sider", because the "shares" of the latter have significantly sunk.

     So that I personally may not esteem "phallic" politics, but it works by us and I accept it. In spite of his feverish and incompetent at first sight governing he, as is said, is the most suitable for the time and the place politician in Bulgaria. He draws funds from here or there, builds highways in order to do, still, something, to reduce the unemployment, and on the West nobody criticizes him, and, to all appearances, he will be reelected. Well, but till here, no more. I give him 5 to 10 years of reign, and after this — adio ensign (i.e. "gerb"), adio Duce! Because it isn't possible that a party without ideas (practically, as I've said), built around a personality, has existed for a long time; a personality, sooner or later, becomes exhausted. There will remain only some succeeded to push themselves up persons (in order not to say antipodes of the phallus, have I said it?), how it has happened with NMSS (the King's party). This isn't, say, liberal, or Christian, or conservative, etc., party, there is nothing else that can remain after it (except if they will not form some dynasty, but as if there are no such perspectives).

     10. Other new parties. Well, the fingers on our hands have finished, but we have nothing more to add. Here, obviously, can only be guessed something, so that let us also do this for some time. It would have been good if we have had fight in the left political space, as I have said, but there is nothing of the kind by us, so that I have almost lost any hope that this will happen sometime. I don't know, is it not exactly this the main drawback of the left-wing, that they don't allow other opinions, especially if they slightly differ from their own, maybe it is so; and if it is so then it is quite possible that they, sooner or later, will come to this conclusion and will correct the things. Let us hope. But the new parties, which emerge, they are all more or less right-wing (as if more "more"). Though I can't imagine what new can emerge, after "Boicho", on the political arena, because we have used the ideas about: business, peasants, the King, strong hand, Western influence, our image, and so on. We have not used to the end the religious idea, but we are not much religious. Now, I see two possible directions of moving: one is to build some centrist party, what is the right course, but we will see of what kind it can be, and the other course is to come to the next "dead-end" like the fascist Ataka-attack (say, some other ethnical party, either Turkish, or Gypsy, or Macedonian). The dead-ends will not help us so that let us leave them. The centrist party, however, is not easy to be built (people want actions and thrillers, don't they?), so that it can happen chiefly as concomitant element (take MRF as example, and up to a certain extent also the King). Can be supposed that will be built some party of the small business, for example, but with some influence, so that it could have succeeded to enter the Parliament, or some professional groups (say, of transport workers, or builders, or teachers — whether I know, the SDS-UDF has started with pop singers on the head, so that nothing can be stated with certainty), but as if there are not such examples in the world.

     Well, something nearly fantastic got into my head, but, as is said "sure thing but who knows". So that we have not used to the end the idea about the... emancipation. I mean, we still have not some feminist party! Such party would have its advantages, because, for one thing, the women are the mediocre sex (let us not enter here into details for I do this on other places, but these things underlie every religion, and religions are based on life experience of the whole humankind), and in this case they will be exactly centrist; for another thing they are more mild or soft (and in Latin and Greek "sophia /sofia" lies the wisdom, it is good to remind you these linguistic moments), and if so then with them will be easier to work, they will be more submissive, more given to compromises; and for a third thing the women build a representative sample of the population, and exactly of its middle part, so that they just can't not be a good center. This is my brilliant idea, which I make known to you at the end. Help God it will give some useful germ, because the world has long ago suffered enough from the brute masculine force (the machoism), since the time of Christ (what means also before him, for to make him to raise this idea). Else, if this will not be the women, then, maybe, we will be forced to take refuge to ... the homosexuals, ah? Well, I personally prefer, if it must be, to be commanded by women than by gays; how is it with you, though, I don't know.

     September 2012

     P.S. Well, it turned out that I have significantly increased the ruling of "Duce Boiko", but in broad terms I have been right in my analysis. Anyway, there will be another material about the fatal for us 13th (at least after ... Bin Laden, ah?) year.

     April 2013



     The idea, which I will elaborate in this material is simple and taken from ancient Eastern philosophy, as also from Ancient Greek dialectics, and it reduces generally to the following: when morality degraded, but to the utmost (and even more than this, as is said), then it will emerge again, modified. In principle this is so, but the difference is in social price which we pay, for the things are not so simple, it is not as to say: "well, let it degrade then". Only the chaos, which in old Greek was written with just two letters, χα (or this was the root), was imagined as one big mouth (the letter "h" in many languages is not read, and the Italians, for example, take it at all away, and there the hygiene is igiene, the harmony — armonia, and so on), and then this reduces to one "a-a", and if so then it has eaten everything, but later on all emerged again from the other end and in another form, yet this method leads to much disturbances and shocks. And I am speaking about Eastern philosophy for the reason that in the Sanskrit was stated that our world was something thrice negated: it is not constant, not perfect, and not isolated! In other words, it not only changes all the time, but is also not finished (imperfect is the same as incomplete; and mark that this is exactly the opposite to what Christian religion says), and is so entangled (with dialectical links) that this, what must happen, it happens anyway, but only after some things change and some cataclysms occur, in order to set them in order.

     But let us begin and first of all convince ourselves must these things happen.

     1. The degradation of morality is practically evident for everybody. It is something in what are convinced even those who welcome it and say to themselves "Wow, what f###ing goes now, not like before!" And it is even not necessary to compare what is now with the oriental countries and a pair of centuries earlier, when the women have not gone out of house without feredje-veil, no, even on the West, and also in Bulgaria, the decent women have worn veils on their faces, not to mention to show something more than an ankle, while nowadays they show freely also their breasts (were there what to show, but also if they are not much demonstrable), and even their genitalia, and by the Internet now sucklings, too, can gape at such things as much as they want and enjoy them. But in the times of Oscar Wilde, in the end of 19th century, when they said "to make love" was understood to speak with a person from other sex, to court or seduce, where nowadays this phrase means hard sex.

     This sexual promiscuity, quite naturally, at least for me, leads to disintegration of the families, because the women, when (or rather if) they marry and when they give birth to a pair of children, say to themselves "so why should I have a husband anymore (except to ... piss on the toilet ring, ah?)" and decide to get rid of him. So that the question isn't in this, is free sex allowed — let it be allowed, if it does not interfere with the families, and from here, with the society — but in the consequences from this. Because today hardly somebody, be this man or woman, will come to the idea to ask him- or her- self the question: for what reason earlier the women were obliged to marry still virgins, when the sexual relation is a kind of "knowledge", in the Slavonic languages, but in the Latin, too (and supposedly also in the ancient ones), and if this is so, then it is not clear why some additional knowledge has to hinder the woman? Yeah, but it hinders her, for the woman this knowledge (and maybe every other?) is of no benefit, it only unleashes or unbridles her, increasing her already boundless wishes, and it turns out that from this neither she benefits (for goes prematurely to look for vibrator), nor the family, nor the society as a whole. These things I discuss in other materials, but the idea is that the freedom in sex leads to dissolving of the families, and the woman is who wants to have children and family (to clutch stronger some man).

     In this way the women not only "cut the branch on which they are sitting", in this way suffer the children, too, obviously, though they, having no basis for comparison, can't judge is it good to have a pair of parents, or one is enough. But it isn't the right thing if a boy is brought up by his mother also when he grows a bit (she, really, I beg to be excused by the women, can't teach him even how to ... piss, right?), neither only by the father, especially if these are girls (for the same "toilet" reason, if you want). If the dear God has wanted to be one parent he would not have created the two sexes, or would have left also by the mammals the reproduction with eggs, in which case they could have not at all known their parents. But it isn't so, and this is clear to everyone. It is clear also to the women, but they are extremely biased, and for that reason are not in position to make the right decision, not because they are "a bit silly" by nature. If the people could have, like the French, at least according to the hearsay, quietly accepted existence of wife and mistress (respectively, of man and lover), then there wouldn't have been problems, but they, as a rule, can not.

     But let us not more distract us in this direction, because the sex, however you turn it, is an annoying hindrance in life, which brings us some pleasures, this can't be denied, but is, still, a hindrance, with which everybody copes how one cans. But the point isn't in the sex, the latter is secondary element of morality! And morality, according to one my old, call it working (but it is true enough, and at the same time not restricting) definition, is a set of rules, directed to uniting of people in the time, and in the space. The uniting in the space means to know that we don't live alone, that there are other humans around us, and above and below us, if you want, and we can't think only about oneself, because (at least having in mind the mutual tying of the things, but if you so much insist then think that this is because there is some God) this reflects back on us; saying it otherwise, he who looks only at himself, he very often does not look rightly at himself, at his interest (for he does not know how), and he who thinks about the others, it often turns that thinks also about himself. Such uniting in the space can be reached also without morality (whose main carrier, till now, were the religions), via the strength and compulsion — of some King or "Duce", or some other boss —, for the reason that the strong, if he is not very silly thinking about himself only, in fact, cares also about the others, he wants that people respected him, that they remembered him with something good.

     Uniting in the time, though, can't be reached without morality, and this is joining of generations, relations between children and parents. Why this can not be reached, ah? Well, because if there are not families, then there are not, or almost not, also parents. And if there is not a gender, then very often there is also not a society in worldwide scale. At the same time — in order not to think that I just "plow the sand" — according to the data from last population census in Bulgaria in 2010, out of the newborn children 55% (more than the half!) were extramarital, who until recently were called unlawfully-born (now they are lawfully, for the law was changed), and the common people called them just ... bastards! Well, if the major part of children are bastards then this does not hinder them, of course, but comes time and this will begin to hinder somebody, because in this way the moral is quite weak.

     And don't forget also that nowadays the drug addiction, and already also the terrorism, have significantly grown, much more, maybe tens times more, than in the era of O. Wilde (or Karl Marx, or our liberation from Ottoman rule, in 1876, and other close in the time historical moments), and these things are obviously also related with the lack of morality, because people just look for something which is worth living for! Those, who begin in early age to look for drugs, are such because, when there is everything allowed in the sex (sado-, mazo-, etc., as is written in the ads of prostitutes), and also in the absence of strong paternal hand in the lacking family (which hand would have firmly slapped the child's bottom if nothing else helped), don't know what more to require from life, and when food, shelter, and clothes are secured, then what more can these kids and adolescents want except something with which help they can escape from this meaningless real world? And those, who bind around their waist dynamites sticks, they think that in this way they will at least leave this word purposefully — for they are not sadists, neither crazy, they are persons with some fixed idea, but it goes out of some moral understandings! On top of all this such people can not be punished, because they don't live for pleasures on this world, they live for ... the eternity, so to say. So that when there is not a decent moral then people look for some ersatz or substitute for it, because by no means all are ... "calves" or morons or imbeciles or oligophrenics (chose the suitable for you word), which are contented only with the advertisements and the fables for happy life (full with smiles — as in the ads), there are also restless, searching personalities, who in different circumstances push forward the society.

     Anyway, let us not comment further obvious things but go to the next point, which in some extent explains why we think that we can do without morality.

     2. Much morality does not lead to moral actions. This can look out pretty strange, but by the humans, who, in contrast with the animals, are far beyond the immediate needs in life, or have "jumped over" or overdone their necessities, if you like it better so, out of much morality often come to the exactly opposite of it. This isn't a new moment and all of you surely have heard the phrase that "The path to hell is strewn with good intentions", i.e. only with intentions one can reach nothing, but out of strong wishes for something people begin to impose their views on other people, who, however, don't like them and begin to oppose, but the first ones, thinking that they are doing something in interest of the others, especially if it goes about "eternity", i.e. about "the other world", i.e. on religious questions, continue to insist, and in their insisting they come to wars and bloodshed. I personally don't think that there exists religion, that can boast that in the name of religion it has not come to human victims, but as if with greatest "asset" in this regard is "famous" the Christian religion. More than this, it gives very bad example to relatively tolerant Eastern religions, to the Islam, for example, how to defend your own convictions.

     This is really so, because earlier, before Christianity, and also roughly to the 5th century of new era, in the Levant, i.e. in the eastern part of Mediterranean, or in the Arab world, has existed quite good tolerance to the other religions, if not for other reason then because there were many and different religions and people were simply compelled to tolerate one another. But then begin the Christian crusades, and even much later, somewhere in 19th century, Turkey, as a sufficiently civilized Arab country, which eagerly wants to enter in Europe, and them to be like the Europeans, and introduces family names (for there was said before: Assas, son of Osman, son of Pishman, for example), decides once to conduct the "known" massacre of the Armenians — because that is how they proceed on the West (and now try to say that on the West they don't do so!). Also in Ancient Rome around the new era was teeming with various cults, but nobody has taken them seriously, until the Christians have come and have given their negative contribution to the development of morality.

     But in the same way we can "spit" also on the understandings of the common man, who has not agreed that his bride has had other lovers before him, no matter that every man allows himself to do this when he cans (and has money, of course), but only not his wife. Now, look, there is one very good definition (in my view) of the liking, or the love to something and somebody, it is in this to think that the object of your feelings is ... perfect, what means that it is nothing that you can, either add, or take out from it or him (or her)! You just stay there and enjoy, ah? Yeah, but when two people love one another, and this genuine, I don't speak about cases of pretence, then the first thing which each one wants to do is to change the other one according to his or her own views, and this is exactly the opposite of proper love. What means that we again overdo the things, even without any religion, just by ourselves, because that is how we are.

     We can continue in this spirit mentioning also the Catholicism, about which the author has no direct feelings, but he has read some books, and somewhere in 15th century in the Western countries people have proclaimed "Better to the Turks than with the Pope!" Because the Catholics intervened in personal life of people in many cases worse than the communists (and this of revolutionary times, not of 70ies and 80ies years of former 20th century). Well, nowadays the Pope may "flatter" all nations, saying "Glory to Jesus Christ" on all possible languages, and does no longer instigate wars (because it is not at all necessary to incite Americans, they are always ready to fight with everybody, especially when is necessary to defend their understandings of "democracy"), but in the times of Columbus, for example, he was not so peaceful.

     So that we, all people in general, really take too close to heart every possible delusions, and are ready to fight for them, naively believing that if somebody is ready to defend with weapons his view then it maybe is right — and if he becomes victorious then it surely is right —, while if he does not want to fight then in this way he states the weakness of his thesis. And isn't it so even nowadays? Well, but if one scratches a bit his "mug" he may scratch out the thought that the truthfulness of a given thesis has nothing in common with the power that stands behind it or defends it! The power or strength proves only the power, not the truthfulness of this, what is the cause for fighting. But such is our morality. More than this, we think that the duel-fight is a good thing, this lays in the Latin, but we may use contemporary Italian where bello means nice, good, but bellico is military. As also all militarists, i.e. the military people are very ... dear people, etymologically (the root "mili-" or "meli-" is very old and it means something nice, sweet, like honey or mead; in Russian this is exactly "miliy", what isn't away from your "mild")!

     Now listen, as an idea, and at least before the invention of gunpowder, in this view was some reason, because the important thing is the duel, which proves who of the individuals is stronger, this work for the selection of the fittest, so proceed all animals, and this is a kind of submission to "God's commandments". But not in contemporary conditions of fight or war, where one may stay on some safe place and throw out bombs, these aren't duels, this is devastation, this is slaughter. So that our morality stumbles, it has grown hopelessly old, at least with five centuries, it must be changed, and if this is not possible than be dissolved. It is time for some new morality to come, and will this happen minimizing the bloodshed, or "losses of proteinaceous matter", or in some rough and chaotic way, depends only on us. Therefore let us proceed to the next point and see of what kind must it be and is it possible to reach it without self-destruction, defending "perduted"-lost causes.

     3. The new moral must be first of all tolerant! Nowadays there in no more need for selection of the best personalities, nor fight for survival, more so of the best, no, today the most important thing is not to shed unnecessary human (and also animal, if you like) blood, because it helps us with nothing. We must simply learn to endure the other one next to us, even if he (or she) does things which, but absolutely, don't appeal to us. We must somehow moderate us, when from much "morality" overdo the things. Saying this otherwise, we must begin to love people, how Christ has spoken (if we give credence to the fables about him), but also in the spirit of our definition of love and liking, and as the ancient religions have preached, too, stating that this world is neither good, nor bad, it is simply the best of all possible, but it is just (understand, for all — say, for the wolf and the rabbit).

     This can be expressed in a bit different way, sexually oriented, i.e. as masculine and feminine behaviour, and from here also morality. I mean not machoism and establishment of supremacy above the others, but with mild approach and accepting the foreign things, what is the feminine way for establishing of supremacy. Up to some extent we must turn our back to all evolution of the strong till the moment and look not for dominance, but for mixing of morality, of "moral genes", if I can express myself so, what must guarantee variety of views and bloodless battle of ideas, not leading of direct physical battles! Because one always wants to impose his view, but accepting also the views of the others (not as approving, just as admission of another variant), allows fight, yet in a feminine way; this means that, instead of to fight with weapons for a given cause, let us leave everybody defend his or her positions and see in this way who will turn right after some time, or obtain some averaging of the views. Or peaceful co-existence of different moralities, something of the kind, approaching the things more elegantly and gentle, not brutally and in masculine way. (I express in various other places my views to the women, now and in the future, so let us not digress here, but the idea in this case is that the imposition can be active and belligerent, but it can be also passive, in a feminine way, yet not less insistent, and that this is the other side of the "coin", and if we want to have some middle point then we must look also from the other side, because they are for that reason two sides, in order to use which one is necessary, when necessary.)

     But let us return to the tolerance. Say, if some woman (eventually wife) wants so much to have sometimes sex not with her permanent partner — and, surely, the same thing from the standpoint of the woman about the man — then why not to do this, but not to violate the permanent relation, especially if it goes about family, for the children want also examples in life, and punishments, and cares, and not just in material sense. The children, by the way, don't obey most often not because they are bad or ill-mannered, no — however widely this is not understood by many people —, they just want to grasp what is good and what not, and this is learned in the easiest way if you can remain unpunished (because the words, they are second signal system, this is so, yet there is also the first one)! In other words, the punishment for the growing children has healing effect, it is part of the upbringing, and when the functions of the family are neglected then the children can't learn many important things and continue, for example, to "learn" when they grow up, and want to check whether will be caught if they carried out some robbery, or try some narcotic drug, and other examples, too, So that if there are not families then must be increased the functions of society, the children have to be given in some weekly boarding schools, which as if have begun to disappear in the recent time, and the children, left without control, in spite of the difficult sciences which they study, remain uneducated in the sense of everyday morality.

     And take also the contemporary capitalism — it is amoral from the very foundations, it is corrupted, it rests on money, and there are no money even in the animal kingdom, i.e. in this way we, in some sense, descend with one step lower than the animals (because by them succeeds only the stronger instead of the meeker, or hard-working, etc., where by the people also the wealthier, and the more impudent, and so on)! But in the same time all religions deny the power of money, it does not proceed in the other world, God does not judge by the wealth, at cetera, and religions are based on the views of masses and behave, in general, in their interests (even when they incite to bloodshed they do this because people want this). So that it is clear that our society is bad, unmoral.

     Now look here, I defend the morality not out of moral considerations, but out of reasonable such! Hardly more than 2-3% of the population has come to such positions, but the more intelligent inevitably must come to this view, because the conclusions from it does not differ much from those of various religions, only the approaches are different. In linguistic sense, I think, is good to remind you the meaning of English word "moral", which means teaching, lesson (where to be of good moral is morale), so that the morality is a kind of system of rules, instructions about life (and linguistically these are just habits, customs, for the reason that in Latin "mores" is plural from the custom — recall the phrase "O tempore o mores!"). These rules are this, what the young ones want to learn. But ... it isn't that they don't suppose them in advance. Id est, I mean, that the people, as well as the animals, have inborn sense of justice, morality, because all want to be liked by the others (the little children and the animals, in addition to eat, want also to have somebody to play with, that is to make friends, not to quarrel). So that the people are good by birth (i.e. they try, as far as they can, to think about the others), the society is what makes them bad (forces them to think only about themselves)! Remember this, please, because this is the obligation of new morality: it must make the society more just for the people, must satisfy their expectations (that the bad will receive his punishment, and the good will be lauded, not vice versa).

     At the same time in the contemporary society, as I have mentioned, is done everything else, but not to ensure some expected and justified punishment for those who have deserved it. More than this, in our time is insisted on successes in business, career, et cetera, which are all transient (according the religions) things, not on selecting of more moral personalities (and forget about the sex, it isn't important). Of course, in this world nothing is isolated, as I said in the beginning, so that one can't avoid to be egoist, but one has also no rights to strive only for dominance over the others (if not for other reason then because one, anyway, aims at this, i.e. exactly on account of this the morality must oppose to it, in order to force the given person to turn to the other side). While there were clans and families, and were many fights between different tribes and nations, there were reasons for selection and establishing of superiority, but nowadays the most important thing is ..., well, preservation of the diversity (and even creating of new diversities), what is another way to express again the assertion about tolerance. For this reason is considered as good whatever mixing between nations, between wealthy and poor, if you want, between intelligent and mediocre, and this is the new morality.

     As if close enough to this view are ... the different sports, because there the personal expression is not related with ideas for hegemony, though there also exist various ways for remuneration of the winners. There are no immediate goals in this area but exist some abstractions, to win the given medal. This, as I have said, looks good to me, but ... . But the bad thing is that this isn't mass phenomenon, this concerns only some 1-2% of the population (if not less), and it is much specialized, i.e. this not so much develops the body as deforms it, in some aspect, so that the sports are also not a model.

     But something has to be done, there must be some families (I have an idea in this regard which is expressed in other places), some ethnicities, some rules for good behavior, but different from narrow national or racial, or of the caste or family, or some other, interests. And have to be taken into account the intentions of people (this is morality, not only the results). And has to exist considerable surveillance of (almost) everything and everybody, because we have become now too strong for to leave the things just to take their course (i.e. it is not important who with whom has slept, but who "bears grudge" against whom and for what, what can be done in order that this person, and others like him or her, "drops" this grudge). And everybody must have conditions for development, for more complete unfolding of the given to him by God /gods (or Nature), the more so because, when there are no (or almost no) families, and when the genius, as this is checked many times, is not passed by inheritance, we have to give it (the genius) chance to show itself, still, from time to time. But, if we will continue in this way, we will come in the end to the ideas of communism, and also of Plato from 25 centuries ago, ah?

     Well, that's the point, that it must happen exactly so, because there can not be morality in the interests of all people, and not to go out of some common (of the community) interests. We can't want that people evolved fully, when some are born in wealthy conditions (let us not necessarily speak about family), and others in poor, and if for health insurance and for education must be paid, i.e. they are not available for all. So that the new morality, as it seems, will turn to be very old, the morality of each religion. So it is true, but I had in mind exactly the morality of each one of the religions, i.e. of all the religions, i.e. (using the language of mathematics) of the intersection of all religions! This intersection, if we succeed to reach it with our egoistic inclinations, will be exactly the quintessence of morality over the centuries. It remains only to reach it. Because if we can not, then there will be "a little" chaos, then "a bit" more, maybe, and after this ... will be again necessary to reach it.

     It is necessary to have clarity on all these issues when we criticize or accept the degradation of morality. The young ones try somehow to survive, this is their right. For that reason it turns out that when people have everything, then they haven't, first of all, morality. And they look for it.

     September 2012



     Or in whatever other "-aria", if that is the point, but, for one thing, I live in this country and is normally to speak about it, and, for another thing, it is good to give some concrete examples which are tied to more accurate numbers, for a given country. The very idea about this has come to me, maybe 10 years ago, and I have explained it schematically in other places, but here will try to be more precise and speak with numbers, what can sound more convincing, because this, what must happen, it sooner or later happens — as I have stated many times —, but the difference is in the social price! In addition to all this an example with Bulgaria, as the poorest country in European Union, what, in principle (though not in Bulgaria, of course — by us nothing happens properly), is a reason for moving to the left, is quite indicative for the worst case, and, hence, in each other country this will happen easier. Yet it is not without importance also the fact that we are not a big country (now less than 8 millions, with tendency to decreasing, although there are even smaller than us — Estonia, for example, or Luxembourg, Monaco, some island), and at the end of Europe, too, i.e. in the angle of Balkan peninsula, and if so, then pretty isolated, so that the conditions by us are ideal for similar experiments (were they only be taken seriously by the wealthy countries, which can even decide to help us).

     But let us begin the narration.

     1. What the author understands under moderate communism?

     So, the most succinct definition would have been the following: the moderate communism is this, what could have been called also moderate capitalism! Is it clear now? Well, I doubt this, so that let me give some explanations, Firstly, what is this communism (according to the author, for everybody can have his own views on the question, some, for example, may think that this means concentration camps for the wealthy)? So that this is care for the society, for the commune, of course, for the ... communal expenses, if you want, because this is what says the very word; while the socialism is care for the "socio" or "sauce" of the society, i.e. for the prevailing masses, not for the top; from what follows, how it might have been expected, that they are practically synonyms. Here, however, I prefer to use the word communism, because it begins on the same letter as the capitalism, and in this way these extremities somehow more naturally come close one to the other. And the capitalism, obviously, means power of the capitals, i.e. that the "parade" commands he who keeps the money (as it was from deep antiquity, but there is no other power which could have interfered with the money — there is neither aristocracy, nor priests, nor intellects, etc.). Well, with some stipulations, because there are states, too, but under the capitalism, or the democracy as contemporary capitalism, in the ruling of states, in general, again the wealthy ones have their say (or at least those who are supported by wealthy persons — the elections are elections, but the millions, and rather milliards of dollars, which are spent for pre-electoral and post-electoral manipulations of people's minds are paid by financial circles).

     Speaking with bit more details, my view to the moderate communism in some country is that it is duty of the state to care equally about all on some minimal level, according with the living standard in the moment. But when this is also moderate capitalism then the money exists, the property inequality, too, there are wealthy and poor, but if someone, by one or another reason — the reason is of no importance, mark this —, has not sufficient income in a given moment (which may as well continue for the whole life, for some people), then the state secures it for him (or her, naturally), and all this — mark this again — without necessity of humiliating and asking, filling the necessary applications and visiting different instances. This provisioning for the poor, or allowance, is performed in accordance with the capacity of the country in the given moment, which I think can be safely taken to be equivalent to half of the minimal monthly salary in a month!

     Now, look here, there is no need to speak about money, for the simple reason that the numbers age very fast (by a normal interest rate of 4% yearly, for about 20 years, as compound interest, we get devaluation of money twice, and if I have made proposition for something that will not last for 20 years then I wouldn't have done it at all, not me). The minimal monthly salary (MMS) is term which exists in all countries, it is corrected in accordance with the moment, it is measure for this what a person is entitled to receive if he works something for a whole month; well, and if he does not work he has rights to have at least the half of this, also for simplifying of the calculations and that's it. One can study, be old, ailing, want to become pop singer, or whatnot (even if he is addicted to drugs, or is criminal), but he must eat and sleep somewhere under roof, travel around the country, and so on. With this only the necessary care for many people is not done, and is entirely possible to have also the corresponding dormitories, cheaper canteens, et cetera, for those who can not afford themselves to pay "normal" prices, but at least half MMS in month must receive everybody just because he (surely, she) has been born. (As an example, I have heard that every citizen of Kuwait received in an year some thousands of dollars only because he is citizen of the country, without whatever work.) You can name these cares some social sun, if you want, but they must exist.

     This cares must exist, in the first place, because we can now afford them — when we can throw away a heap of good and working things, then we produce more than necessary, ergo, we are wealthy enough for to be able to care about the poor in the moment. But not only for this reason, also because when we care for them we have (i.e. the state has) more motives to require all kinds of taxes from people who have enough, and also reasons to monitor or control people more strictly. Because, let be clear on this matter, nowadays people can't be left to do what they only want, for some of them may want to make bombs, blow themselves up, et cetera, surveillance of all and everywhere, little by little, becomes reality (on the streets, during exams, before banks, and where only not — everything is filmed, and later somebody may look there if necessary). And when everybody receives money from the state, through some instance (we will come to this) then somebody sooner or later may become interested and cast a look at this how long the given person lives at the expense of state, why, could somehow be helped to him (social assistance exists for long time), or then watch him closely, because he is strong and healthy and does nothing. Everybody must have the possibility to live even his whole life on this half MMS, but the idea is that there will be not many those who will agree to this, unless they have some more serious reasons or causes (as I said, he may study something, and nobody knows will some additional knowledge be useful for the others, it must be first accumulated and checked for what it is good); so that if some people do not do something proper then, maybe, they do something "improper" (say, sell drugs, or are engaged with prostitution, etc.; they can at least harbour taxes working something without official registration). Id est, this care for the people will be also ground for increasing of the control on the part of financial organs.

     In this way the very capitalism will win, because will know better what resources of labour force it has in its disposition, and also when is paid to the people they abstain from more violent expressions — what is evident, this is the reason why are paid all allowances (not because of "God's commandments", I suppose). In other words, the moderate communism will be also moderate capitalism, because it will propose more quietness in the country. In addition to all this the instance which will perform this care will mainly conduct means from other existing in the moment instances (for pensions, sick leave, etc.), and will provide common view to the things, a matter which the capitalism rarely can boast to have, i.e. in conditions of competitions there exist many competing with one another organizations, but there is no centralized control, which in many cases is very important.

     2. What sums will be necessary for realization of the idea?

     Here we tie ourselves to Bulgaria and will speak about its population of 7,365,000 people, according to the population census for 2011. From them, by official data the working force (again for 2011) is 3,322,000, what as percentage of the whole population gives 45, what seems quite low (for example in Russia in June 2012 the economically active population is given as 54% of the whole), but there are some methods for computing of this (supposedly are subtracted juveniles, students, pensioners, etc.), so that we will take it for true; in addition is given also some coefficient of economic activity about 52%, what seems better. Well, there are lost 6-7% by the counting of economic activity, but this is not important for our calculations because these additional percents receive something from somewhere, where we are interested in those who receive nothing.

     But working force is one thing, and employed population and unemployment is another. On the average the employed people in 2012 are given as 2,150,000, what as percent of the entire population makes only 29%! For them, respectively, the average monthly salary (for June 2012) is on the average 755 lv (or 2.6 MMS, by one MMS after May equal to 290 lv, what is more or less correct, I think; earlier it was worse, it turned to be nearly 3 MMS, what is not normal for many of the countries). In this relation, of exactly occupied persons (having in mind that there exists also partial occupation, and other exceptions) we are holding the absolute "record"; I have compared with data already for 1998 and there the percentage of occupied persons from the whole population in Bulgaria was 31.5%, but for Poland, for example, it was 55, for Russia 71.3, for Hungary 60, and so on, everywhere were big numbers, where with less than 50% were, except us, only the Czech Republic with 44.4, and Romania with 35.2, and on the average for 12 former socialist countries, including the Baltic States, were 56.7. Now here is an important moment, this, in my view, is the hidden unemployment, these are people who neither work, nor are counted as unemployed! So in 2012 is given that we have unemployed 372,000, with unemployment coefficient of 11.2% (but this is attributed to 3.322 mln employable, not to 2.15 mln employed). I want to say that the hidden are those who remain when from 3.322 subtract 2.150 mln, what gives 1.172 mln, where if we take from them the registered as unemployed 0.372 mln, remain still exactly 0.8 mln obviously unemployed (not only 0.372, i.e. in 2.1 times more than the officially given), what gives now 10.86% of the whole population (while else it was 0.372 / 7.365 = 0.0486, i.e. less than 5%).

     Well, I don't state that all these 800,000 people work nowhere, no, the major part of them somewhere something receive, but they hide themselves and in this way pay no insurance payments, from what win the employers, as well also the very semi-working people. Now, these 0.372 mln officially registered unemployed receive something, it may be less than my proposal, but may also be more than this, let us not bother with them here. From the left 0.8 mln maybe the half also receives something, it, almost sure, is less than 1 MMS, so that they don't hide especially big income, they work only from time to time, here and there (the employers hide what they can), so that let us accept that the most poor make only 5% of the whole population, what gives again nearly as much as the officially registered, i.e. 0.368 mln, let us multiply this by 0.5 MMS or 145 lv already , and also by 12 for to get for an year — this gives 640 mln levs.

     This, surely, is not a few, because, for comparison, in the budget of the country for 2012 is given (all in mln lv), for example: the budget of judiciary 260, of National Assembly 50, of state universities 345, for the entire healthcare 946, and so on. So that 640 mln is a lot of money, but ... . Well, you see, this is money which we must only be ready to guarantee, for some time, these sums are not necessary to be paid, because when we begin to pay them it must be possible to catch many people, who receive something, what may be less than 1 MMS, in order to pay taxes for it, but even if it is 0.3 MMS in month it will be subtracted from these 0.5 MMS, which will be given to this person. If it turns out that the money is not enough — and after a pair of months this will be clearly seen —, then it is possible to decrease the paid sum a little.

     Because there can be done many calculations (which, very often, will turn to be made "without the innkeeper", as we in Bulgaria say, but let us make them, anyway), for example, it may be taken that the real unemployment is 0.5 mln (or 15% of the working force, or 6.8% of the population, what looks quite acceptable even for Bulgaria), and not the official 0.372, and then those who receive nothing, or the hidden unemployment, will be the difference between those numbers or 0.128 mln (or 1.74% of the population) and if the help will be only 100 lv (i.e. 50 euro) per month — this isn't much, but for one Bulgaria it is pretty substantial, I'll tell you, each month, not moving a finger — then there will be necessary 0.128*100*12 = 153 mln lv; even by 0.6 mln unemployed (18% of the working force) and by the same 0.372 officially registered, there will leave 0.228 mln (3% of the population) who receive nothing, and if them will be given again by 100 lv per month this will give 273 mln levs. So that the sum has fallen from 2 to 3 times.

     Let us take some 250 mln (what, let me remind you, is for roughly 17% real unemployment, significantly more than the official 11%), and look at this in comparison with the revenues. Well, all tax revenues are given as 17,000 mln, so that 250 are only 1.47%, even if we compare with the revenues only from excises, which are given as 4,130, then this will give 6%. Well, I personally think that sums of the order of 1-2% of all our revenues, or about 5% of those from excises, really, are nothing compared with the social significance of this experiment — in any case this is much better than a new ... revolution, isn't it? Besides, I don't plead at all about experiments in the frame of entire Bulgaria (as in his time tovarishch Lenin has decided to experiment in the whole Russia, plus a dozen Republics, right?), no, I think that it can and must be performed an experiment in the frame of one averagely big, rather not big, town, with population approximately of 50 thousand, maximally to 100,000 inhabitants, and then the sums will decrease at least 20 times (i.e. they will decrease more than 100 times, but there must be guarantied also all other sums for social security payments, like pensions, scholarships, allowances for all unemployed, etc., which will be required from the corresponding instances, but they may delay the payment or refuse some part on it, and so on, so that let us be on the save side in our assertions).

     3. How to realize this moderate communism?

     So first of all must be created the necessary instance which will be engaged with this control, payment of allowances, collecting of everything what anyway is paid, respectively all salaries must go through it, and taking back the given initially doles. This, obviously must be banking institution and I propose it to be called Bank for Moderate Communism (and, as I said in the beginning, some people may call it Bank for Moderate Capitalism). This is really an ideal name! Well, it is so in Bulgarian or Russian where may be formed initials BUM or BUMCO (there "moderate" is "umeren"), what sounds like ... boom, of course, in this translation it must be BMC, but there may be thought about something similar in English, say from Bank fOr Moderate COmmunism, or Bank Of etc. and have BOMCO. Or if not playing around the boom then around the ... furor — say, Formation for Uniting or Resources and Official Registration, exactly FUROR, but let us not complicate the things.

     This, what has to be done, after finding who will sponsor the BUM — you see, by revenues only from aids and donations calculated to 41 mln lv in our budget for the same 2012, and if we reduce the used above 250 mln hundred times (proportionally to the ratio of 50,000 persons to more than 7 mln for the country), there remain really necessary only about 2 mln levs —, so that after this must be legitimized that all, but indeed all, under pain of heavy fines, payments to the persons from that region — there are no problems to prepare ordered lists by UCN (Unique Citizenship Number, this is Bulgarian personal ID number) for all of them — are to be conducted via this bank. Then it will pay each month, say on the 15th, to every  citizen of age (there are no problems to include here also the children, if they, too, receive something, i.e. if their parents receive something for them, but let us initially include only the persons of age), the sum of, let it be exactly 0.5 MMS (according to its value in the given moment), where in the end of the month it will be subtracted from everything received during the month. Now, there can be operated according the money due to be paid for the given month, but this may delay the system, will remain unpaid old payments for months back, surely (at least in Bulgaria), so that I think it is better to work on the basis of the current month and the received and spent in it.

     It will not be easy to get around BUM because for each company can be checked where are sent the remunerations for every person working for it (partially, on full time basis, it doesn't matter, that is why the payroll lists exist). This will be made easy because for everybody will exist a number, for example BUM_UCN_No, where to the sums for him (or her) are to be transferred, so that the companies even will not pay the salaries in banknotes, this will be forbidden to them, for the reason that everything has to go via BUM. This will simplify the financial operations in each of the companies, and can easily be controlled. And the people will have cards for this current accounts and will be able to take money out of them when only something emerges there. That is why I am speaking also about moderate capitalism, or, generally, development, because from this will benefit the companies and the business, as well as the state, which will receive more unfailing this, what is due to it.

     Well, while it will be worked on a level of one town, the things will be a bit more complicated, there will be nonresidents living in other places, it will be needed to make some exceptions, but later on, on the level of the whole country, everything will be extremely clear. But in the frame of a town there will be no problems for every foreign citizen working for a company in this town to perform all his payments also through this bank (as far as BUM is a bank, as every other), only that he (or she) will not receive initially half of MMS each month, and will not be monitored, i.e. he will be under simplified control; from here he will be able to withdraw his money when only wishes. This bank will be able to send information also for the annual income declarations for everybody, no matter is he an ordinary citizen or "plays with millions". That is how the communism can be equalized, as much as possible, and in direction in which this is possible, with the capitalism. But this isn't control of the bank accounts, only of the incomes; and, in the end, the financial institutions in the state must, anyway, know how much everybody receives (in order to "cash" also something together with him, of course), but will he spend his money, or accumulate them, or make business with them, is his own business.

     Good, in bare outlines I think the things have begun to clarify themselves: there will be necessary some decent sums in the beginning, but if this, what is paid as minimum, is at such level that each, hmm, normal snob will not be satisfied by this allowance, then there is no danger that some people will begin to rely on this money and will give up working at all, i.e. those, who will cease to work will do this for some important reasons, which can be also checked (for example, a real intelligent must be entirely in position to live on this money and praise the communism in our country, which will somehow win from his brain). This measure is profitable as for the poor citizens, as well also for the state, and the companies, too, to a large extent, will have some benefits, because their financial duties will become easier (for the moment they will only not really pay the salaries, but in the future can be required to perform via this bank also the distribution of all taxes for the given person; for the contemporary computerized systems this is no burden at all).

     As far as, however, the expressed here ideas, in spite of their revolutionary meaning, are not something entirely new and not used somewhere on local level, it is quite possible to come to them also in other ways. Let me remind you something, what is known by pretty few of the people, but I have met it several times in Western journals, namely the fact, that the pension insurance in Germany, from here in Europe (and possibly in the world, too) was introduced by Otto von Bismarck, who, obviously, was not a communist, and has defended the interest, first of all, of quietness in the country. Well, I propose common anti-misery insurance, valid for every country and every time, and together with this also possibility for centralized state control of the incomes of the population. But taking something from the people is necessary first to give them something else, for otherwise they will become indignant, and this with reasons. So that think good, before you take this proposition for another of my utopias.

     October 2012



     As it is evident from the title the subject of this material is a social order which contradicts, in some extent, to the common sense of its citizens, only that this time this isn't the communist socialism but the contemporary democracy. I hesitated for a long time to write this paper or not, because it is obvious, and I alone have emphasized this many times, have written whole books, or, if by papers or chapters of books, then more than 50 (rather near to hundred) things, where have explained that, putting it aphoristically, the democracy is the most flagrant contradiction to the common sense, and exactly for this reason it is the very biggest achievement of humankind in the social area! Saying it otherwise, if all people want to deceive one another, then here is the democracy. Your rulers will cheat you so bold that you will even like this. So that from this viewpoint there is no more need to ... "stir with stick the guano" (in order not to use here indecent English words, but foreign is allowed).

     So, but my readers in the Internet continue to pay bigger attention to this essay (under the implied now number one), compared with others much more interesting papers of mine, so that I have begun to give a thought to really writing continuation on this theme. Because there the question is posed quite naive, we wanted then that the society was humane, for it is obliged to care about people, while now it, even if takes some care, then this is for defending of the pockets of the wealthy persons of this world, for the simple reason that the hungry and discontented people (as also home animals, the situation is similar) perform worse their duties, i.e. there are not proper conditions for exploitation! But this, too, at least for me, is obvious, and there is no need to "dig a hole in the sea". Still, when 25 years later I have begun to translate myself in English, I have come to the conclusion that it is good to write this second essay, in order not only to state that the capitalism, i.e. the democracy of Western type, that of the stronger in this world, is inhumane, corrupt, and so on, but also to try to point out the possible ways for its improving, which are much more difficult than in the times of totalitarianism (when it sufficed to reach somehow the ruling place — not that this was easy, but it sometimes happens — and then perform changes on a big scale, how, for example, has done Gorby in his time).

     And, in general, 25 years is not a short time for to allow oneself to raise again old questions, under new condition. So that I will write this review, using initially the same points of the former material, and later something will be added. But I must warn you that this, to what I will lead you, is ... well, to vindicate the communism, of course, for there were many good ideas in it, only the realization was limping (but under the democracy there is not at all worthy idea or moral — if we exclude the clever deceiving of the common people). In what there is nothing surprising, because all totalitarian forms of ruling (like, say: church state, Sultan ruling, the idea of aristocracy, and others, the pharaohs, if you want) go out of the assumption that the people are simple and they must be taught, not to put the "cart" before the "horse", as the democracy does, spreading the delusion that exactly the masses must teach their rulers what to do, or, using words from proverbs, the calf will teach its mother. So that I will whiten the communism and blacken the democracy, and if somebody does not like this, then let him not read further.

     But let us begin.

     1. About the unnecessary prohibitions. Oh, God, they become not at all less, they have become now more. Earlier there were predominantly such, where minor servants, hiding behind their posts, have shown redundant zeal, so that the others, if they do not respect them, at least to be afraid of them (we even have a proverb saying that the King permits but the guard doesn't), and now it is shockingly full with such where the jurists "wash their hands" and the "plebs" suffers. Because, for example, when you go in a bank to open a deposit you must sign a document of 20, usually, pages, and confirm that you agree with the conditions, and the same is the situation with protection of rights of given products, and it is pretty funny this to be applied also for some software products or on the Internet sites, where nobody can check is it really so or not (for example, confirm that you are of full age — certainly one can bet that every adolescent will eagerly confirm that he or she is such, how it is needed), but this forces people to lie (that they have read it) if they want that the things move further. This is utterly incomprehensible teaching of honesty through accustoming at an early age to deceive, but it exists, because is "democratically".

     Or also, that the cigarettes harm the health, even lead to death — and tell me, please, how one must live in order to avoid the death, because for me, in my old age, this point is of great concern — but nonetheless they are sold everywhere; the same also about the prostitution (well, not exactly the same, there they don't warn you that it is unmoral, there you know pretty well how the matters stand, but it exists wholly legally, so that the inconsistency between the said and the existing is entirely obvious); the same also when is advertised some medicament and you are advised, just in case, to read the leaflet with the instructions; or when they proclaim that buying and selling of votes is offense (especially when it does not exist, for everyone can promise to vote how they want, and vote how he or she wants, since the voting is anonymous). Id est these are not only prohibitions that are unnecessary, with which nobody complies, but you are even warned what you are not to do, what you, anyway, don't intend to do, with the only purpose that somebody else wins from this. And this, what is necessary, say, that after each advertisement they must be forced to add that commercials are cheating, or something of the kind, is missing, of course.

     And so on. For example, in the recent time I even become infuriated when in shops and in other public places they are directly "selling" politeness to you, repeating without whatever necessity "thank you in advance" or something of the kind, when this is simply a regular ... advertising, of course, that, look at us, please, how polite we all are, just a feast for the ears, so that go on, come to us again. Earlier we have said that there is nothing so cheap and which is valued so high like the politeness, but then the prices were of almost no importance, and now, when they are really important, this slogan is used to the full, because the politeness, really, costs nothing (yet it cheats the people, like the smile, by the way). Because of this I have come in my "Constitution of Cynicland" to the conclusion, that if we want that everything is honest and frank then it must be written in the Constitution the right of everybody to deceive, that this is basic inalienable right for each civilized society! And isn't it really so? Well, people don't like cynics and, surely, there is no radical way for fighting with the superfluous prohibitions and other annoying elements of life — and nowadays the most annoying element are the ads —, because this is reduced to moderate way of life, and the immoderation is main characteristic of the living matter, especially of the young individuals (humans or animals), so that we must cope with this, it is so, but something can be done, if we only want to. Like I have proposed above to mention by the commercials that this is delusion; or to revive the morality and try to raise it above the law, because the law can easily be changed, where the morality is more inertial.

     The morality, obviously, is a very fuzzy notion, but if this is desired it can be concretized by some procedure, I have hinted this somewhere: say, it can exist some Council of Moralists or Elders (what is the idea of Latin Senate, and the sirs and other titles of nobility), but in such way that there were included big number of independent thinkers, and this according to the estimation of the people, i.e. there must be expressed the democracy, in the defining what is moral, not in the governing, where there are some procedures, standards, requirements. The simplest variant of such Council is some congregation of all beliefs in the country, plus independent candidates, plus people who have achieved publicity. This isn't easy to be done, but I don't propose things that will be one and the same for thousand of years (like the fascist thousand years of peace, to which they, anyway, have not succeeded to come), I propose dynamically maintained structures. And this Council can easily pay attention also to all kinds of unnecessary prohibitions and complications of life — after all, there exists a Council (or Commission) for protection of the rights of customers /users /citizens, but it is engaged only with cases where the health of people is endangered, and that somebody have cheated, well, that is what the democracy is.

     2. Initiative and money mechanism. Well, here I have judged not very correct before, but I simply wanted to raise the question that in addition to the price tables there must exist also some ways for tying with the demand, i.e. not to stay only on one pole, and in this sense I am right. I am right, as you alone can see, because we just jumped from the one extremity to the other, but the things are again not moderated, not properly linked, for there exist obligatory things and moments, and exist also such where must be acted according to the demand; now everything is the same, only in dual meaning, from the standpoint of the other side. Now in Bulgaria, at least in the period of initial robbing (well, let it be accumulating) of capitals, everything is subjugated to the demand, and if, for example, there is no particular demand on intellectuals (when they don't provide actions, thrillers, sado, maso, vaso — maybe? — and other forms of delusion, or simply something amoral), then, as a result, they can even die of hunger. It has happened so also by other revolutions, those intellectuals, who were linked up to some extent with the ruling class, by the overthrowing of rulers were overthrown, too. Yeah, but the intellectuals study and are built long time, while they go out of order very fast (approximately for two years, according to Western views by applying for work), lose their form. In the normal Western countries the society tries somehow to take care of all people, especially of the intellectuals, but it isn't so by us. We have destroyed our pro-communist intellectuals and have created just pro-commercial such, what, in my view, definitely, is worse.

     But let us take more concrete look here. I have spoken earlier about the medics, that they have not received good payment; now they more or less provide it themselves, but through advertising and delusion, where inconsistencies can also be seen. For example, in order to go to the physician now one who pays his (her) installments (I am not speaking about uninsured ones) must anyway pay to his JP for a referral to another doctor sum equal to one percent of minimal monthly salary, MMS (what makes roughly about ... 20 eggs, what isn't a few, I'll tell you), for routine paper work. And, in general, all payments for necessary expenditures, like healthcare, education, but also others, do not go out of people's personal incomes, but these are officially recognized social services without which nowadays there is no go; the only thing that is done in this regard is to outline some groups of people in dire need (say, disabled, with oncological diseases, or of Gypsy origin, etc.) and for them to make discounts, but there are no intermediate levels, what isn't a right way for doing of these things, in this way people may only be debased forcing them to beg (and in many cases even this does not help, because for Gypsies, as I have just said, there are such helps, but for Bulgarians, as a whole, there aren't, this only pours water in the mill of fascists).

     In regard of stimulation of the young as more initiative part of the society, not only that the things have not bettered, but they have definitely worsened, at least in Bulgaria. Earlier dwelling houses were given for deserves "in the building of socialism and communism", and today they are bought by people with deserves "in the delusion and cheating of citizens", so to say. According to my approximate estimation in Bulgaria the population (for, say, 30 years) has diminished with about 15 percents, the housing stock has increased with about 25%, what gives real global bettering in the living space of 45% and more (1.25 / 0.85 = 1.47), but this has expressed itself in this, that homes are bought just to be used as capital investments, i.e. somewhere about one quarter of all homes are, either bought as second homes, or they are simply not yet bought because people have not enough money! Id est the situation with the living space in principle has not changed, the young continue not to have where to live, and when nowadays there were almost not left families, then people can more difficult provide themselves with decent home or flat; this is confirmed with the fact that the rentals at market prices continue to reach nearly one MMS for a decent flat, or they come to this including the communal expenses where the major "weights" are the central heating and electricity, and, besides, all banks for more than 10 years are directly "pushing" offering loans for purchase of homes. Add to this also the paid education (in colleges or universities), as also for healthcare, and you will see how the horizon of the young is darkened to the unimaginable.

     Ah, in regard of the fight with monopoly of the state — also nothing is done, we have only changed the monopoly of state with the monopoly of big companies, where roughly half of them are with foreign participation; the small and media-sized business, however, continues to experience great difficulties, but the latter is, at least in my view, the proper business where the competition is good and necessity, by the large-scale companies in any case is needed some control on the part of foreign to the business (i.e. of the state) instances, there such companies are not many, they can somehow reach agreement, make analyses of clients and act reasonably. In addition, as I think (if something has not changed in the recent years, but hardly), the companies are divided in two natural categories according to the paying of VAT (value added tax), in big, which return to the state the VAT from bought raw materials and other expenses, so that for them everything comes about 20 percent cheaper), and in small fry, which either must maintain their own cycles of buying and selling with companies like themselves, what wide away from always is easy to be achieved, or else they buy everything more expensive and their production becomes also more expensive; moreover, they apply also more manufacture production methods what hinders the competition with the big business even higher.

     But for the communists of the past there are some excuses, they have defended the monopoly of the state for otherwise, by the low prices of majority of goods and services taken to be necessary for the population, without this it was impossible, without this these goods would have not been offered at all. And in the current time I see no reason why people, who — to put it bluntly — are ready to lick the other people's bottoms with the purpose to receive more money, receive them really and exercise monopoly on decent homes, on rental prices, on education, if you want, of the young (because when there must be paid then surely not all who want are studying but mostly go immediately after school in the sales), and from here also on the moral of the whole population. The money mechanism is again badly used. And how it can be made so that it will be properly used I speak in my materials on moderate communism or on the social ministry, and in other places here and there (I have also a good idea about better provision of pensions and partially, so to say, retirement).

     3. Questions related with the property. Well, after the moment of writing of my first essay I have thought quite enough about the question of property and my views are expressed in other places where I speak about the future of the property. They are reduced mainly to this, that it has to be divided not on state owned or not, but on exploitative, which is used for exploitation of the others, and personal. If we approach so this question then there is no difference between the capitalism and the communism (only that by the latter was one exploiter, and now they are many); the only difficulty for mass application of this my view is expressed in psychological aspect, that people don't want to accept the existence of exploitation, but if one goes out of its inevitability in every society, then this view is very fitting, I think. So, and in this regard something is done, the various forms of property are more or less equalized, but this, nevertheless, does not significantly change the things.

     Why it does not change them? But because there exist large scale and small and medium-scale businesses, I have spoken above about this. If all forms of property are equal then, more than obvious, wins the bigger owner, and this that now in every area of production exist about 10 (rarely more, in one country, especially in not very big one like ours) instead of one universal owner-exploiter does not change the things essentially. About the living premises I have just spoken, that they are not bought by those in need of them, the same is the case also with the private cars, I suppose, because by us it isn't so (like in the USA), that one is able to buy a car for some pennies (say, for half of MMS) and it will work by him and the petrol will cost him almost nothing. By us even the fact that one ticket for city transport costs as much as a loaf (kilogram) of bread for the majority of people means that the transport by us has incredibly risen (and how it will not be expensive when the price of a ticket by us is only twice cheaper than in Europe, but there the salaries are from 10 to 20, and even more, times higher than by us, i.e. by us the situation is about 10 times worse). So that, again, it turns out that the old situation was much better than the correct (from the standpoint of the right capitalism) situation nowadays.

     Ah yes, it has remained the question with the agricultural land. But there we present, I suppose, an example of the worst possible decision compared with all former communist countries, we have given it in real borders after many years of meaningless debates, and who has received it just keeps it for himself (and even does nor admire it). Now, whole 25 years later, it continued to be bought (of course pretty cheap, that is why people don't want to sell it) by companies-resellers and we are going to form our new, democratic, kulaks (wealthy peasants), where in a worldwide scale the existence of family firms in agriculture is rejected (and, for example, in USA the quantity of all farmers is given as roughly 4%). Notwithstanding this wide away from all agricultural land is used, and I have told my readers that somewhere about 2013 I have seen that we have at last begun to plow our "democratic virgin lands".

     4. Questions related with the education. Here something is changed, but far from being for the better. Id est we have chosen the easiest (and silliest) method for solving of the problem and have introduced everywhere paid education, but without well thought system for paying it from aside, not from the pockets of the parents, because this method, naturally, means that the wealthy retain for themselves the right of monopoly on education; the only good nuance in this relation, in comparison with the situation in 18th - 20th centuries (on the West, what concerns the 20th century), is that nowadays, when there are left almost no families, the parents do not pay for the education of their children, they can not afford themselves this. This can hardly be called good moment, but maybe exactly because of this it will force a decision, which, I suppose, will consist in returning to the old system with distributions after the graduation, and complete financing from the part of the state or big companies. What concerns the level of our education in the present days I will not engage myself in asserting now that it is especially low, but when the prices by us for foreign students are equalized (nearly, I suppose) with those in Germany, for example, or France etc., then this will hardly contribute to the influx of students from abroad (this only restrains the migration of our students in those countries, but not much, I think). So that there is again nothing good; who of the young people can go abroad to study he goes, the selective emigration from Bulgaria continues, this explains to a great extent also why our population has decreased, as I said above, with roughly 15% (even I alone, no matter that I have a pair of tertiary educations, would have departed from here to study somewhere on the West, as I have done this for an year earlier, but at an age of 65 to receive a new tertiary education is at least unethically, isn't it?). Only the question with educational levels and their names is now solved, when we are part of European Union (although the very names do not sound very good to me)

     And what exactly must be done here, I think, is clear. Every citizen of the state must have the possibility (not just the bare right but for money) to study in the major universities of the country, when he (or she, surely) shows on the basis of entrance examinations, and further via his grades during the study, that he does not spend in vain the invested in him money. Only sums of the order of 10 to 20 percents of education costs can be required from the parents and this in accordance with their income (i.e. from the poorer less, and even nothing), in order that the students (as also their parents) do not remain with the impression that the education is of bad quality, when there is paid nothing for it. It is possible also, as an exception (though the exceptions are always fraught with various problems), to require payment for such kinds of education where a big influx exists (because of repaying later, after finishing the education), like, first of all, in the sphere of business, but also of law, maybe something else, too; and /or can exist paid education in the usual, people's so to say, universities, for the weak students (when their parents have superfluous money, then why not to take it from them?), as also for such from abroad. In one word, nearly to return to the well-tested system in the time of totalitarianism (which needed only some small reforms, not such revolutionary).

     5. Questions of financial policy. Earlier I have spoken here that the money gives good one-dimensional scale of values, about hard currency, about taxes and all kinds of contributions to the state, about updating of pensions, lower salaries for intelligence, stimulating of important industrial branches, and about different price discrepancies. Now many things have changed, but, alas, again not to the best (though, still, not to the worst — I am realist). In the present time we have hard currency, but under the conditions of Currency Board, which I have sharply criticized in various places, and now continue to criticize, because it has taken away our independence as a state, and this in the worst possible moment when our own currency has begun to grow stronger after spending of all totalitarian savings of the population. But in all cases in the current moment, more than 15 years after introducing of this Board, many things have stabilized (on the bottom, surely), and there are not such turbulent changes like in the first, not a pair, but 7-8 years, after the transition to democracy.

     The questions about updating of the pensions are always actual, so that there is no sense to dwell on them (they as if are updating, but this is not the radical decision, I have spoken about this, I think, somewhere; this, what is necessary to be done, is to establish the pensions not in absolute money units, but as coefficient to MMS, and update them even each quarter, or when the MMS is changed). That the salaries of intellectuals were pretty low earlier this is so, but I have never supposed that we can reach nearly to a state of genocide to the intelligence! And yet we have come to this, because it became necessary for the small business to support those people, and this was not it its abilities (and it has never intended to do this). We had, if I am not mistaken, about 30,000 scientific workers (including the professors and above, what out of nearly 9 mln people gives quite normal 3-4 per mil), from which, I think, at least 2/3 have simply disqualified themselves (like your author), and the new ones, who have emerged only there, where the students paid for them, are not of the same quality, because the creative worker works in his or her pleasure, not for money, as a rule (though I don't deny that there are exceptions here, but hardly more that 10%). How the situation is to be bettered, and not only for the intellectuals but also for the whole population, I have given a proposition (surely, what only I have not proposed?), and these are the elaborations on moderate communism, which are reduced roughly speaking to this, that the people must receive each month some minimal sum, and later, in the end of the month, it must be restored in most of the cases subtracting it from the received salary, and that if this is done via some bank then there are no special problems for realization of this.

     Well, I have touched earlier also questions about stimulating of important industrial sectors, as well of many price discrepancies due to our "soft" in that time currency. It is clear that earlier these questions were badly solved, but on the other hand nowadays they are ... not at all solving! There is no sense to stimulate sectors that are unprofitable, at least under conditions of severe capitalist competition this is in no way necessary. And the price discrepancies continue to exist, only now they are between the established by market mechanisms prices (on foodstuffs, but also on manufactured goods etc.) and the communal expenses (like central heating, electricity, homes, transport, etc.). I do not want to repeat myself but here I also have expressed my view, which is reduced to this, that by us, Bulgarians, there is no social feeling at all, no awareness of the injustice to apply the same prices for communal expenses for people which personal income differs at least 10 times; more than this, we have now the most right-wing from all possible views on taxation, no matter that we are officially recognized as the most poor in Euro Union state (we were before on nearly the same level with Romania, but now I think we are left in the very end). But, by God, the West will not teach us how to live in a well organized state, the social measures are work of each particular nation, if we are so unfeeling to our neighbour nobody is guilty that we stumble at every our step.

     6. Attitude to the nature. Well, here was dealt with the environmental pollution, the bad planning of towns, and the same type of high panel houses. Here something is changed and for the best, now the pollution is less, and the towns look better, this is so. Only that this has happened as if by itself, because we have begun to use better means of transport, or have closed unprofitable productions, although we have also strengthen the control of environmental pollution, but nowadays this is just fashionable. I mean that in old times it was accepted that if it goes about industry then there a dust has to rise high (what is exactly the root of your word industry), but the times change and we would have come to this also under the ruling of "Party and Government". Only about the better houses is clear that the private initiative helps, it is more flexible than the centralized ruling, this is obvious, though with the time here, too, the centralized ruling would have come to the right decision, everything depends on the priority of tasks, so that here also are no special merits of democracy.

     7. About political life. Well, we have now multi-party system, legal opposition, and competition, but this has led to so many new problems, that now, on the basis of real democracy, I am not convinced that "the game was worth the candles", as is said. Because when there exists opposition the people (and the parties, too) think that they are obliged (or, then, compelled) to show the opposite meaning even when there is no special necessity in this, just in order to show off with something, to be different. I personally, in the conditions of our totalitarian "greenhouse", have never supposed that people can be to such extent ... amoral, maybe, impudent, brutal, et cetera. So that I continue to think that the democratic requirements are necessary in a decent state, but now I simply see well why the communists have not allowed the opposition, because people must be restrained somehow, they have no provided by nature restraints, they come to incredible extremes with the only purpose later on to reject them and ... again come to the other extreme! I have dwelt on this human phenomenon in various places, so that I will not digress here, but I like to stress that the presence of right to vote presupposes at least a good upbringing, as also obligation not to misuse this right in the name of bare egoism.

     Ah, I have said further something original, that every dictatorship expresses weakness (of the government), what is so, surely, but the democracy is a weak ruling at all, for it there is no necessity to express this! And with the fact that the communism, still, dared to perform such radical changes, the perestroika, it deserves any laudations; the perestroika-change might not have succeeded everywhere (like, for example in Bulgaria), but it was necessary for to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, and it (in Russian it is "she", ends on "a") has succeeded in this. The communists were not at all simpletons, as many people (especially between the young ones) may now think, and where the communists have done errors are guilty the very people, they would have done even more errors without the communism, believe me! Nothing will convince me that the centralized ruling is worse than the decentralized (to what we will return in the end), everything depends on the correct stating of questions and on the collecting of return information from the public. The compulsory communism, as I call it for to distinguish it from prognosticated by Marx natural communism, which long ago exists in many Western countries (say, in the Scandinavian), has arisen as temporary ruling in conditions of war, and because of this, being a strong ruling, it could have not so easy quit the scene, this must be taken in consideration. And later has come the Second World War, which, obviously has required strong centralized ruling, then has come the cold war, which has not allowed to "loosen the belt", the arms race, the danger of nuclear war, and so on. Please, don't forget these things.

     I even dare affirm that if the capitalists (chiefly the Americans) had not so persistently wielded the battle hatchet in the 50ies and 60ies (and maybe also in the 70ies, too), then they would have dethroned the communism about 20 years earlier, I have hinted at this moment, so that guilty for the so prolonged existence of the communism are first of all the well developed Western states, in the same way as they are, in outline, guilty also for its emergence! Instead of this, to make efforts to support with what they can and as much as this is possible this great social experiment (surely not less great than the democracy in Ancient Greece, because it has bettered the world capitalism — only look how differs the fight with contemporary economic crisis from those "measures" that were taken in the times of World War One and Two), the wealthy capitalist countries have succumbed to the foolish desire to see the enemy defeated, or at least begging to them on their knees, and such naivety I can't agree to forgive to intelligent or reasonable rulers. But where from will come these intelligent rulers under democratic conditions, ah? They, surely, are bound to "dance" so as the people beg them to, and to the people (i.e. to all nations) you just let to gloat. But at the same time the clever people long ago know (although I personally have not known this earlier) the English rule how to make a horse to trot — either with a whip, or with a carrot. You will persist only with the whip, you will achieve nothing, as also with the carrot only (I will come soon to this, too, though I have discussed this question in other materials).

     So that, however you turn it, by the totalitarianism was done this, what was possible to be done, this was not a real democracy, but under the particular international conditions this was the best, what could have been done. I have whitened the communism as much as I could, I wait applauses.

     Though, hold them a bit, it is a bit early now, I have not yet ended entirely. I have finished with what have written 25 years ago in the spirit of perestroika, and now follow some new (and more mature, I would add) moments.

     8. Each form of ruling is supported by the popular masses. If one begins to think (and not I have first come to the conclusion that the important thing is to raise the question, and then the answer will be found), then this is so, every ruling, not only the democracy, is supported by the masses. Id est the dictatorship is supported by the very population not necessarily directly, but indirectly, with their unspoken approval. After all, the humankind leads sedentary civilized (well, as much as this is possible) life at least for 10 thousand years, some date back to this time the development of ... wine making (because it is not possible to lead nomadic way of life and to keep wine or beer or mead to age, this is clear), and from all this time democratic ruling has existed only a pair of centuries in Ancient Greece, and a pair of centuries nowadays, and in the whole left time has existed some centralized ruling, another variant is impossible, ergo, the people like and support the power! Democratic elements have existed, they say, even in the primitive communities, where the leaders were chosen by the very fighters, but these are elements, this is not real choice, this is fight between competitors, often real, in duels, like also amidst the animals. In any case this is reasonable. But for ruling of big masses of people are needed strong rulers, like: kings, sultans, tyrants, pharaohs, cardinals and popes, or at least heads of bandits. I think there is no need to convince ourselves in this now.

     Good, and if this is so then the people have just tried to take somehow part in this strong centralized ruling and to serve the strong rulers. So that the dictatorship is such, which the population makes it, people like or not a given dictator, and if they don't like him then, in the end, they find ways to change him. The dictatorship is the real, strong, masculine ruling, and because of this also nowadays at the first opportunity people try to choose strong "fists", and on this is based, in general, the right-wing, i.e. of the strong hand, politics. Similarly the democracy is also supported by the people, what today is quite natural for us, but in Ancient Greece, when it was introduced, it turned out that was necessary to show a lot of efforts in order to convince the people that this is (also) in their own interest (not only of the rulers, by the way). The end poles, they always touch one another in some other aspect, and here also happens that the democracy and dictatorship are alike in this, that the people approve of them, as well also ... not approves of them, of course — the masses are always a little dissatisfied (just like the women, usually, isn't it so?). For this reason the simultaneous presence of these both poles is necessary, what also exists in some extent, but it also can be improved in different ways, about what I have also dwelt in other places (in my "Manifestos").

     But the poles also differ (first of all) and when the people support the dictatorship they often overdo the things, "twist" them, go too far, what oft leads to unnecessary cruelties, but, mark, that the major part of the cruelties during the strong centralized governing are result of actions of the very people, not of the dictator alone (he couldn't have managed to be present everywhere, but I stress that often he does not require big extremities). And in the other case, by the democracy, when the people again overdo, often is come to usual ... chaos, in result of what by the democracy is not at all diminished the number of police force. And now I personally can not say what is better! The big majority of people (say, 90%) think (and are even convinced) that the dictatorship is worse, but I allow myself to doubt in this. People think that the dictatorship is worse because there exists a concrete person, he stays before all the others, who always (as if there are no exceptions here) later on becomes a scapegoat, while the "demos" is impersonal. It is true that the parties have leaders, and they often suffer afterwards, but with the changing of parties everything is pacified and people forget about vengeance, but the thing is that, after all, the people have chosen these leaders, the latter have danced according to the flute of the public, so that if one looks unbiased here then the very democracy is to be blamed; the very dictatorship as form of ruling also is sometimes to be blamed (for its inborn drawbacks), but under different dictators it is different, it corresponds more closely to the dictator, than the democracy to the demos, isn't it so? And the chaos which comes then can be much worse than the crimes of the dictatorship!

     Now, I have no intention to dig in this direction, but it is worth reminding, as I have indicated it many times, that the necessity of strong compulsion (or violence) is in this to avoid in this way the necessity of ... even bigger violence! And the dictators usually succeed in this respect. And the chaos generated by the democracy can be regulated as if only with subsequent dictatorship, although it happens also vice versa, the processes are cyclical. In any case the fascism in Germany has come in its time in quite peaceful democratic way, and this, that the communism in Russia has come after the October Revolution, but this revolution was only named so, on a small ship, and the tsarist Government has surrendered at once (it, maybe, would have surrendered even earlier, yet there was no one to whom to do this), but the people, if they were asked, almost surely would have chosen the communists. What does not mean that the people wouldn't have made error, exactly on the contrary, people very often make errors, and because of this they are not to be asked in crucial moments. With what I want to say that the dictatorship may very often be just (to call it good would hardly be suitable), but even when it makes severe errors, even then it is more effective than the democracy, but this is obvious.

     9. What is this "common sense"? Well, this, surely, is basic notion which is not defined (like God, for example), but even in such case it is worth to give some explanations, in order to avoid further contradictions, and this, on what I want to stress now, is that the common sense is not an averaged view of the population to the things, because the big masses simply "noise" (or suppress) the voice of the reason. No, this is the view of more wiser of the people, i.e. usually of the old ones, so that it is expressed more often in folk sayings and religious teachings. The common people usually know these things, they are thought to the masses, but the latter, or rather the young ones, don't pay much attention to them, they want to make their own ... errors, and they do them, don't doubt in this. In philosophical sense this is right, the young are not to listen to the old, but the old are to teach them, here simply exist struggle between the opposites, as the communist dialectics said.

     And now I want (again, for this is not a new topic for me) turn your attention to the fact that there exist chiefly two effective ways to force the people to listen to the commandments of common sense, or, generally, to do something what they don't want to, and these are the compulsion and the delusion (equivalent to the whip and carrot, about which we have spoken above); the first is the main trump of the dictatorship, and the second — of the democracy, but, as I have said earlier, it is better to use both these ways. In theory there are also other ways, I have made them once to be exactly five, for I have needed this number, but they are simply weak for the masses. They are, say, the genetic code, education, logical reasoning, personal example, our sense organs, and maybe others, they are used from time to time in various places, but they are not so effective. For me personally the reason is the most convincing argument, but I am an exception, don't look at me. The people, as a result of evolution (or God's creation — as you like it, this isn't essential), are first of all animals, and as such they obey the instincts, and the reason is only an addition (a whim of God in the last moment to improve His creation, if you like), it is quite often dubious and does not bring emotions to the people. Where the power is another thing; or the self-conceit, that if they ask me then I am considered very clever. The common sense, as if, stays maximally close to the scientific views, and at the same time is accessible for everybody — say, that the Sun "runs" around the Earth, we see it every day, after all, and although this contradicts to the contemporary scientific conceptions for the everyday life on Earth this contradiction isn't essential. So also my explanations in the majority of cases are based on the common sense, they may sometimes not correspond strictly to the scientific views, but they seem convincing.

     10. The reasonable ruling is utopia. But, after so many explanations, if some of you thinks that when both things, the dictatorship and the democracy, are bad and also good, and when there are better variants, then in the near future we will come to more reasonable look at the ruling and then will reign, as I call it in one of my science fiction stories, "reasonocracy", then I must disappoint him or her because this will happen not soon. In any case not before one millennium, I suppose, but it might as well make five or ten such time chunks. Because we are people and, up to some extent, we even have no rights to be very reasonable! For, from the viewpoint of the God-Nature, what is reasonable, ah? Well, reasonable selection of better species, surviving of most fittest, what is reduced to this, that the "unfittest" must die, there is, after all, enough proteinaceous matter on Earth, and to make children is easy (to give birth is a bit more difficult, but the women still manage). And in the name of this selection were carried out, come to think of this, the First and Second World Wars, because they, the wars, to what are reduced, ah? They are reduced to this that "we will show now them, to these Germans, of Frenchmen, or Russians, or Japaneses, etc. etc."! For the people is much more reasonable that there were no wars but for the nature this is not so, and because of this something as if pushes us from within to fight and there were wars even from the time when the monkey came down from the tree, and still earlier. But in the previous times there was some reason in such selection, while nowadays, by all these weapons for mass destruction, this is not a selection anymore. Nonetheless, name me some state in which there is no army, or in which the young children are not brought up in a spirit of patriotism, but the latter means, after all, that we, our nation, is better than the others, isn't it so? Well, the defense is one thing and the offense is another, but when the best defense is the offense, then what to do, ah?

     Or also: what forces us (except some religions and habits) to give and give birth? A pair of children nowadays, surely, suffices, but only look, in China they are already milliard and a third, and in India they are not much less. But it turns out that something in us just pushes us to procreate like flies. And the religions welcome this, because wasn't it said somewhere in the Christianity: "Be fruitful and multiply"? Now my last hope is on ... the homosexuals, for they even if they wish it they can't (well, for the moment, but it might be possible some cloning or mixing of chromosomes, how can I know?) give birth to a child. And generally, taking into account the wars and the overpopulation, I think that somewhere from the times of ... Babylon, not to say earlier (but I have not a well known benchmark) people suffer most of all not from the nature but from their own human nature! What is a massive earthquake in comparison with a "decent" war? Or what is a swarm of locusts in comparison with a "swarm" of people, especially looking in the long run? The locusts can't, after all, make themselves artificial meat, or cheese, or butter, and so on, but we can, and produce. And now you count alone, what will happen by period of doubling of the population of 35 years, or three times in a century (i.e. 8-fold increase, "only"), after some centuries. We will settle on the bottom of oceans, I suppose, because the cosmos, anyway, will be much expensive.

     Or further: all religions state that it is not worth living for material benefits, but we, nevertheless, do exactly this. And we are doing this, mark, not when it is hard for us to find enough food, or clothes, or roof above the heads, not at all. In each country begin to be accumulated regions with unpopulated apartments, and people now often buy themselves a pair of homes — simply because they can afford this, have extra money. And from all sides they are trumpeting that you have to compete with the others, no matter in baseball, rugby, with personal car, home, haircut, dog, boy- or girl- friend, and so on. But not with something really personal, what can't be bought or taken ready, isn't it so? Be different, but with what the busyness offers to you, and that these are differences at the level of psyche of the kindergarten — but who comes to realizing of this? Let us select ourselves, don't stop competing, for otherwise you are just not living! It is not enough that one aims at this by himself, but the busyness and upbringing, too, and this in the developed Western countries, push him (or her) in this direction. And do you know why? I will reveal this "secret" to you: because this contributes to the strengthening of exploitation, and, from this, to the increasing of (unnecessary for them, frankly speaking) capitals of the wealthy. And here I even do not defend the thesis that the wealthy people are bad, no, they are just partaking in the game, they can't go out of it, the capitals must be used, multiplied, like the people.

     But, on the other hand, scratching your head, you are bound to come to the conclusion that to work for money this is ... debasing of human dignity! Look at the dog, for example, it is an intelligent animal, but it does not want money — and there is no money in the world of animals, right? — it (or he or she) wants to make something good for its (or his etc.) owner, to be liked by the humans. For it is one thing to live decently (as it is written in Arab fairy tales, at least in translation, of course, I don't understand Arabic: "they ate till were satiated"), and it is another thing to want 5 and 10 times more than one needs. The animals don't behave so, they are moderate, but the humans are not! The humans try to toil, usually doing some services to the others (in order not to say being servile or licking like lackeys), with the purpose to be in position after this to require from the others in their turn to serve to them! Because it is so, the majority of activities nowadays are such that everyone can alone perform them, but it is far more beneficial and prestigious if other people are doing this for him or her. Think a little about this, I am not exaggerating, our civilization has evolved to such an extent, that now one can live more or less so like earlier the crowned heads have lived, we can alone do at home nearly everything (wash clothes or kitchen plates, cook, even bake bread, automated and easy, do the work, of maybe five home helpers or slaves), but all this is nothing for us, we want that the others swirled around us, and in this case we, in our turn, must gyrate around the others; and the wealthy on this world gyrate around their money.

     It is everything a question of moderation, id est of our immoderation. Naturally there are needed specialists like: physicians, policemen, construction workers, teachers, and so on, but approximately half (I have done some rough estimations) of the activities are absolutely superfluous, and the people could have done them alone if they have had time for them, but it is something that they haven't — now, with all these home appliances, means of transport, et cetera (but before our era they have had time). And about the money: I don't say that it must be taken away, but each one of us should be able to satisfy his (or her) own needs, and work only for acquiring of luxury goods, if he wants; and the salary must be fixed, with possibility to have about 30 to 50% bonuses, as it is long ago in the whole world at least for the high qualified and creative workers; id est there may exist stimulus for receiving of something more, but not only on the basis of piecework, and who wants to stay idle and laze then let him do this, but without luxury things he will soon get bored by this, or if he will not get bored by doing nothing then he has his own ambitions, which must be allowed to him to evolve.

     And so on. From what follows that for the presence of this reasonocracy: must exist a single world state; in it must live approximately so many people like in one medium-large state, i.e. roughly speaking from 50 to 100 millions (not -ards); all must have the right not to work and receive sufficient means for reasonable life; children must be allowed not more than three on a pair of parents, but be assumed as right till two, and even better if each child is attached to one of the parents, and then each parent must be allowed to have one living child (else there must be fines and other punishments); the governing must be divided in three major directions, where the proper or tactical must be performed by highly qualified persons, with the necessary education, chosen somehow from above, by competent commissions, then in it must be present also a representative sample from the population for assessment of its decisions, and also some body of moralizers or sages, who must set tasks to the rulers and do the strategy and who exactly must be chosen by national (but better one, iterative from the very bottom) choice; and maybe also something else. And at the same time our contemporary society (how I have explained in another place) is at the level of organization of ... simpler organisms (say, amoebas), without whatever specialization of the individuals in it, and this isn't freedom, as it is popularized en mass, because the real freedom consist in this, that each one has the possibility to develop fully these qualities, which the God or chance have put in him.

     And do you know what will happen if we succeed to establish the reasonocracy? Well, it will happen that we will begin to live so reasonable, that for the majority of people this will become uninteresting and they will be simply bored by it! Or that till those times — several thousand years isn't a short time — will arise a new, really reasonable man, who will find pleasure not in some actions and thrillers, but in his own evolvement and improvement, as also in the very reason in general. So that, all things considered, we wholly deserve this social organization that we have.

     This is reasoning in the style of ancient Eastern philosophy, that our world is the only possible, and if there was possible something else then it should have happened (and that, to give an example, was necessary that the kamikaze-"lads" of Bin Laden have blown up the twin-towers in New York, for, if it wasn't necessary, it wouldn't have happened). It may be so, in general, and if you like the contemporary democracy, then so much the better, the important thing is to minimize the bloodshed. But don't forget that these talks about nationwide democracy, or genuine one, and so on, are simply the regular catches of those in power (i.e. bathing in money), these are not essential novelties, which must occur in the democracy, and the improvement measures must be complex, as I have hinted.

     June 2015



END of this volume







Signaler ce texte