Basis of New philosophy

Let us start with a small analysis, to review the New philosophy basis.

The process of a decent civil society formation, apart from a clear purpose, requires something else. Generally speaking, the purpose itself may be rather abstract, for example ‘good living’. So, in addition to clear understanding of the ‘good living’ objective, i.e. seeing tangible boundaries of the purpose in view, one should have the methods of how to reach this purpose, i.e. to understand, what should be done exactly for provision of such ‘good living’.

Let's try to understand the root of our problem, let us cast a light on the core of the subject.


Kozma Prutkov once said: ‘See for the root’.

Has someone reflected on the fact of 3000 automobile factories operating all over the World? And each of them produces several models and each model offers a number of options. Try to recall at least 10 !fundamental! differences, say, between Lexus LX570 and Lincoln Navigator? The more so this group may be added with two dozens cars differentiating solely in design. How many car factories would the mankind need really? No more than 3-4, or it might be even less.

How many models of washing machines, TVs, let alone such trifles, as, for example, ball pens are there in the World?

So, looking for the very root of our society problems, we’ll see it in the following: we live in a consumer society. This society has existed in the world for app. 500 years by now. It does not depend in any way on a political system, a religious trend or any other parameters of the country.

For the man in the street it means that everyone of us tries to make his personal living more comfortable, and, consequently, tries to buy, i.e. to consume as much as possible various goods. Moreover, trying to look out ‘adequately’ in this society, every one of us tries to show up from the crowd with obtained special goods, for example, a vacuum cleaner with a built-in radio receiver and an oven. That is why in the World there are offered thousand variants of mobile phones, home appliances, motor vehicles, etc. Why do we need all these things? After all, we, instead of being engaged in real affairs, frequently spend our time searching for the things we do not need. The Earth resources are extracted for production of such a junk, which after being manufactured and consumed, produces new huge mountains of non-processed wastes thus cluttering up and fouling our planet.

At the upper level the consumer society looks a little bit different: the most important would be considered the one, who has a possibility to control a greatest volume of resources. For this reason we may conclude that under no conditions our World will get rid of economic or even physical wars. Resources are limited enough, and there always will be conflicts for their command in our society: someone will always be trying to take them away from somebody.

By the way, it ought to be noted that every financial crisis serves for redistribution of resources. The volume of resources remains invariable, but after the crisis someone somehow may always afford himself to possess and reallocate greater volumes of resources than earlier at the expense of the majority.

Our major problem is that we live in a consumer society.

It is necessary to renounce this society and to build up a new one - a society of development, where other goals and objectives would be achieved, other values would be shared.

To understand, what we are talking about, let’s take an example. We all live our separate individual lives, and with all that we belong to our society as its constituent parts. To be developed, the society should have 3 clear objectives: the nation-wide goal, the public purpose of a person and the personal purpose of a person. The state purpose is an objective, where the whole entire country aspires to and where its three main resources are aggregated: finances, scientific and technical potential, and people. For example, for the USA its state purpose – is the World domination, for Russia of 1917 – the construction of the Workers' and Peasants' state, for the USSR in 1941-1945 – the victory at any cost. The public purpose - is what the person in a society aspires, and when he reaches this goal, he is considered by the society as a successful and happy, at least in part, person. The personal goal is what a person aspires to reach by the end of his life.

Judging from the fact that science and technology have not been much applied in any sector, meanwhile it is known that the major funds are circulating in the raw materials sector, and the main public purpose of a person today is a symbiosis of power and money, today we live in a society similar to the primitive communal system: once you’ve got a big cave and a big club, a lot of rootlets and meat, and a lot of women - you are successful and happy, and you care not about the rest. Make a note, please, already in the days of the Athenian democracy, which by nature was a system of the next step – a slave-owning formation, the interests were absolutely different: people were discovering new lands, have created Olympic games that we play till now, have created objects of arts that we admire till now, and have brought up a whole galaxy of the most prominent philosophers.

The main state priority shall be a stable development of mankind without wars and financial crises, taking into account ecology and refusal of philosophy of permissiveness in the face of the universal laws of nature.

The main public purpose of a person should be doing maximum good for the society, as best one can, i.e. trying to work well and fair, according to your lights in order to acquire a good reputation. And it is not important, who you are by trade or service, what position you have.

The main personal goals of a person should be giving birth, upbringing, education and helping the children in life; as well as personal own spiritual and moral development, i.e. it is a matter of social importance, what your children have become, what spiritual background you have: how many good books you’ve read, the volume of knowledge you’ve gained, how many places you’ve visited and seen.

So, to stop waging wars and suffering from financial crises, it is necessary to solve the most important task - to pass from the consumer society to a development society. For reaching this goal yet much to be done, but first of all it is necessary to change the target destination of our society and state, i.e. to explain to people that they could have an absolutely different living.


Today, many see a solution in coming back to old political formations.

It is obvious that monarchy as a political system has a number of system disadvantages. The monarchy provides a chance for persons, politically frankly weak, to hold the throne, but even if a worthy one rules the state, no one would guarantee that after a while, as, for example, Ivan the Terrible, his mentality would not deviate.

However, in 1917 millions of people have given their lives for the monarchy. Against them there were fighting and dying in a greater number those, who believed in rightfulness of the communistic idea. The history has put everything into perspective having proved the communism as an idea, has a number of system disadvantages, which leads to state corrupting sooner or later all the same.

Today, our statesmen and legal experts assure us the present system of democracy - is the only true. Let’s have a closer look – this system demonstrates no less system errors. In the state - stronghold of the present democracy, i.e. in America, the democracy brings to the power real ignorames: George Bush Jr. had no idea, what continents the half of countries of the World were located on, Barrack Обама has no experience of state government at all – he had never been elected even for a mayor office. In Europe, in France, this system has allowed the former president of France at first to take a $50 million bribe from Libya for his own elections, which is essentially impossible for truly lawful state, and later to launch a war, while the true objects of that war were far from the purposes of protection of interests of France and Frenchmen, and were more likely close to the personal purposes of the President of France. By and large, the democracy system based on the American principles has been applied in our country. No one would dare to deny that every citizen has the right to cast his ballot in elections the way he wants. The strange thing is that this system of democracy, when applied to the Russian reality, has acquired monstrous forms. There is no sense to go deep into the situation analysis to find out that the system of present democracy has rotten because almost everywhere it allows to manipulate the elections, to buy the presidential chair, never fulfill pre-election promises, to launch wars, etc.

A long time back, political ideas of Socrates, who lived in the V century B.C., were based on belief that the power in the state should belong to ‘the best’, i.e. experienced, fair, rightful and decent men, who certainly possessed the art of government. He had subjected to a sharp criticism the disadvantages of the contemporary to him Athenian democracy. From his point of view: ‘The majority were the worst!’ After all, not every man electing the governors clearly understands political or government matters and can assess the degree ­of professionalism of elected persons, their moral and intellectual level. Socrates stood for professionalism in affairs of governance, in making decision, who could elect and who should be elected for the ruling positions.

The universal history experience shows that the strongest basis of all states is formed up with material and moral well-being of their people. If common citizens are required to show a high level of morals and culture of legal conscience, a much higher level should constitute the substance of the government, as the power is a force authorized by the people to govern the others, which assumes an educating effect, as well. Surprisingly, but for almost 2500 years the mankind has found no time to listen to a brilliant galaxy of the most outstanding philosophers and has drawn no lesson from the history.

It’s a certain fact, the state would be developing the best and fastest way being led solely by a competent, well-educated, intelligent and possessing the art of the government person, who sincerely aspires to the well-being of people more than he cares of his own personal interests.

However, such persons are not only small in number, they are hardly can be met at all. To the contrary, as soon as there is an uncontrollable power of a single ruler, in most cases it leads to usurpation of power and people impoverishment.

For this reason, we will repeat after Churchill that democracy is ‘the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time’ with three branches of power equal in rights: executive, legislative and judicial.


Today, in the consumer society, as it was already noted, ‘the one with more power and money is right’. Obviously, this basis is rather unstable, as it contradicts to the norms of civil society, and apart from other things, even if the base itself is strong and durable, there wars and fighting are waged for these very power and money constantly, which leads to permanent shocks.

The first to understand is that every one of us will never more be living by oneself. We are a society, and the major part of what we have or will have, will depend on the society solely, not on ourselves. It means, the public interests and social development, not a personal one, as today, should make a basis of everything. A simple example: if you live in a primitive communal society, you never get to know, what the hot water from tap is like, however for sure you’ll have to be fighting for the cave. If you live in a developed society, most likely, you learn what a war is like from books only, and being a simple clerk you’ll have a chance to go for holydays somewhere to the Alpha Centauri constellation.

Once we try to draw up a base of a society model, today we shall proceed from the goals and objectives of society, i.e. the significance of society interests should prevail over the interests of individual person.

Now, let’s see the way it could be realized.

Certainly, the quality of life and generally all key parameters of life of the country depend on the individuals who rule the state. It means that to have a chance of living in a decent civil society, we shall be governed by decent leaders, i.e. a certain system, which would bring the decent persons to power and separate the unworthy ones, is needed.

However, the major issue of the state government is the elections, because the person we are going to select will be governing us in his own discretion all through the elective period.

Generally, the today's system offers no criterion, which would help us to define, whether a person is capable to make a conscious choice. The voting right is granted to everybody upon reaching the age of majority. Most people coming to polling districts have no idea about government systems, feel no responsibility for the choice they make, and frequently they do not understand the significance of this process. For this reason today elections is a process manipulated by dishonest politicians.

How to make the overwhelming majority of persons coming to polling districts understand, what for they have come there, make a competent informed choice, and understand the responsibility for the vote they cast?

Strange, as it may seem, it is not difficult at all! Since long the mankind has got to know the right way.

Not everyone can drive a car. If you want to drive a car, you should pass a driving examination, i.e. prove to a society that you are capable of it.

Not everyone can be a surgeon. If you wish to treat people, you should study for some years, to obtain an education diploma and only after that you may get a surgeon position in hospital.

If you wish to build houses you’ll have both, to get education and to obtain a license from the authority body for the right to build houses.

Everything is very simple. The person himself selects what he’d like to be engaged with in his life. As soon as this process acquires not individual, but a mass character (eg. driving, treatment, building) and in this sort of activity the society requires responsibility from people, there and then the state puts an educational barrier and draws up a system of deprivation of the right a person has acquired for some offenses the person committed: one may lose a driving license for drunken driving, lose a medical position for mistreatment, lose a building license for low-quality works.

The system of state government should be organized the same way!

The basis of New philosophy, i.e. the basis of the proposed society consists in the following: everyone shall have the right of state government, however not everyone can obtain it, but only those who personally wish to be engaged in it and are eager to study for the purpose. This right should not only be honourable, but it shall grant the person certain advantages before those who possess no such right. A person may lose the right of state government for certain offenses.

The New philosophy is based on understanding that the right of state government, i.e. the right to vote, shall be granted to a person not by the right of succession, neither upon reaching certain age, nor by any other parameters. The whole New philosophy is based on understanding that the society shall apply a certain procedure accessible to any person, which would allow him at his own discretion voluntarily, not depending on anybody, to pass a process of education and to pass examinations for the right of state government.

Generally, so far as the citizenship, besides the right to vote, supposes many other things, it would be correct to divide these two categories of people to ‘citizens’ and ‘citizens having the right of state government’. Still, as we talk here about the building a model of a new civil society, and we say that notion ‘Citizen’ should be treated with respect, the New philosophy should style these two categories of people as: ‘resident’ and ‘citizen’.

Principle 1: Resident is any person living in the state. Any resident has the right to obtain civil rights. Citizen is a resident, who has obtained the right of state government.

Principle 1.1: The right to become a citizen shall not to be granted to a person simply on reaching certain age or by the right of succession.

Hereby proposed: any resident of state who has reached lawful age and acquired a special additional education and passed examinations, at least including the disciplines: fundamentals of political science, fundamentals of philosophy, fundamentals of history of the state and the right, fundamentals of jurisprudence, fundamentals of economics, fundamentals of state government, fundamentals of conducting election campaigns, can become a citizen. The second part of examination for citizenship should include an examination for the knowledge of no less than 80 % from the approved list of musical, literary and art works pertaining to the world culture treasury.

No one would object the fact that tax reduction not always leads to improvement of economic situation, sometimes it is a populist method of coming to power. It means that the person participating in voting should understand the fundamentals of economics, as a minimum. To distinguish, where the voter is offered a primitive PR and where the candidate speaks the naked truth – one should know the fundamentals of conducting election campaigns. If one candidate suggests to construct a Moscow-Kostroma high-speed railway, while another offers a Moscow-Irkutsk project, the citizen should know the geography, in order to have at least a little idea of the country scales and possible construction projects. Similarly, the citizen should have at least a minimum understanding of fundamentals of other sciences required for knowledgeable voting.

The planet history is written in two paths: the first path is a politico-economical history with histories of wars, assassinations, changes of political systems, technical progress, etc. The second part of history makes its culture and art. The person participating in voting, i.e. coming to govern the state, shall understand the value of historical heritage, the significance of museums and theaters.

Principle 2: The citizen should have more rights compared to common residents:

  • Only the citizen shall have the right to be elected.
  • Only the citizen shall have the right to hold public posts above the defined ones, for example, the head of department. (The system similar to the USSR system, where members of the party only had the right to occupy posts above the defined ones)
  • Only the citizen shall have the right to be the head of any public institution (including schools, polyclinics, etc.)
  • Irrespective of form of ownership and business type, only the citizen shall have the right to hold office with number of subordinates more than 50 or a post with the right of disposition of money resources more than the defined sum.
  • At that, all other rights, such as the right to work, the right of education, the right of defense, the right to medical care, for the resident and the citizen should be absolutely equal.
  • As absolutely mandatory there shall be applied a provision stating that the former citizens shall have no additional rights and/or obligations in comparison with a common resident.

Principle 3: Apart from additional rights the citizen shall have additional obligations.

Similar to the state, which is obliged to execute certain functions, the citizen shall cast his ballot in elections. For systematic absence at elections, for example, failure to attend 3 of 4 voting procedures successively, the citizen shall be deprived of civil rights with all the consequences that come with it (for example, dismissal from a post). The person may resign his civil rights himself or can be deprived under court decision.

When realized, this principle will provide the percent of active voters close to 100 %, thus possible manipulations of elections will come practically to naught.

Principle 4: The society shall treat obtaining of citizenship as an honourable act, and its deprivation - shameful for a person.

This principle is intended to guarantee the responsibility of person for the civil rights. It should not be simple to deserve the ‘citizen’ rank, to lose it - quite probable, while the respect for the ‘citizen’ notion should be brought up from the very childhood. To raise higher the significance of the ‘citizen’ notion, it is possible to introduce, for example, a norm under which the government can award a person with citizenship to for some special merits.

Principle 5: 5 years after service termination (in 99 % cases from 100 it is 5 years after retirement) the person should lose civil rights automatically.

There’s no such technology today, and it is unlikely to appear in the future, which would guarantee a separation of those incapable to think and vote adequately, or who is already got weak owing to the age. Two statements seem to be obvious: 1) human brains work well only being trained permanently; 2) any elderly or not very adequate old person, most likely, will be off pensioned. Therefore we would propose the following: to deprive of civil rights those who has retired 5 years ago, i.e. the working pensioner, who in due time has received citizenship, even if he is over 100 years old, for example a high school professor - has the right to vote. A pensioner not working anywhere for 5 years should honourably transfer his right to the young ones.

Obviously, the career-oriented persons will have to obtain citizenship. It means, the percent of citizens in ratio to non-citizens will be high enough - no less than 20 %. As a matter of fact, here we observe a formation of a new supervising layer – a new elite, which will define the development of mankind. These will be the persons of education, mainly of age ranging from 22 to 65, i.e. the most active age. Besides, these people will have good background in culture and art. Since long it is known that for educated and cultural persons the system of values is shifted from monetary priorities towards spiritual ones.

On top of that, this model has solved one more fundamental problem: the elite, once formed up, as time goes on always tries to barrier itself from ingress of ‘undesired’ people. As a result, the elite at first ‘preserves itself’, and later it degenerates. In the proposed model the elite is a mass of people being constantly replaced, each one of them makes an independent solution on joining the elite, and nobody can prohibit him from that, and in the decline of years he leaves the elite automatically.