Written by Alexander Elitsur.

I am trying in every way to get through to our OLs with my idea of the PRB, but it’s not going very well. I specifically went to the Adam Smith readings, which you commented on so wonderfully, in order to meet someone at the afterparty. No one but Topolev was there, and even he was in a hurry, so we couldn’t really talk. I caught Kyneva after his speech, but it was also useless—a petty, spiteful, stubborn little shit. I’m not great with donations, but I hope you will read this and answer something. About the electoral system and about the concept of the PRB (Beautiful Republic of the Future😉) in general.

Read it. Answering something.

The author of the question proposes a rather detailed blueprint for the constitutional structure of Russia, asserting that something along these lines could quite well be implemented as soon as Putin kicks the bucket. In some ways, this echoes a recently published article for “Fronda” about democracy, where I point out that power must be carefully broken into small pieces, without granting anyone full authority, and the boundaries of powers must be made as clear as possible; however, this still won’t help, and a democratic republic is doomed to slide into tyranny—well, you all know these further banalities about watering the tree of Liberty and similar high agrarian technologies of the Ancients.

And now I want to talk about something else. It is possible and necessary to disagree with one another. It is foolish and unworthy to refuse to understand others. It is dangerous to oversimplify one’s understanding of others, although this certainly saves mental effort. Call Kyneva a spiteful shit, Bitarch a schizo-fascist, Svetov a pedophile—and the world becomes simple and orderly, except that such a picture of the world will be irrelevant. In it, all of a person’s actions end up subordinated to the label that has been slapped on them. One can also slap labels on entire nations; this is just frighteningly convenient. Let the Russians be orcs, the Ukrainians stupid peasants, the Serbs orcs, the Montenegrins stupid peasants, the Croats orcs, the Americans stupid peasants, the Chinese orcs… Well, in general, we have a huge wealth of labels; there is enough for everyone.

If a label has been slapped on you, it can be useful to turn to the other side so that another label is slapped on you; then at least some stereo appears, some volume, some space for discussion. If you are presenting your beautiful model of the Beautiful Mordor of the Future, and the listeners for some reason are not impressed, you can, for example, ask your interlocutor how they envision the desired structure of the future global concentration camp, and what they prefer on the menu: freedom of immigration or universal basic income? And if both, then what will we season it with: commodity shortages or hyperinflation? Or you could even avoid mocking the obvious flaws of the proposed model and, instead, speak of the overall picture respectfully, emphasizing that there is something in common between your visions of the world order, and why not start building a productive interaction around this common ground. For example, one could find some kinship between the proposed model of a federative Russian republic according to Elitsur and the Hoppean model of a thousand Liechtensteins, and, having highlighted the commonalities, start considering whether there are any fundamental disagreements between the models, or if it’s basically a matter of taste and one shouldn’t cling too tightly to the details.

In general, if one were to take an example of how a certain complex of ideas is spread, I like the experience of the Jesuits: those guys learned languages and learned to convey their concepts using the local cultural code. I love syncretism.

I apologize to the wide circle of readers for the somewhat rambling nature of this post—I simply do not understand the person I am answering well enough, so I am just sighting in.