LITMIR.BIZ

      How so? Today, the property is also managed by former officials, but this is not socialism at all, readers will object. Really. Under socialism, private property is abolished. But only in terms of the appropriation of wage labor. In fact, the property remains. But this property was called «personal property» for convenience. It, they say, can be inherited. The underdevelopment of socialism is attributed to the shortcomings of the classics. The classics of marxism here acted as gods (perhaps the life span was not enough for them, Lenin still fell ill at the wrong time). But in general, the whole problem revolves around the property. Although everyone wants to spin it around the Russophobe Lenin and his Jewish gang.

      In fact, once again, Lenin had nothing to do with it. And Marxism has nothing to do with it. In order for Marxism to germinate in Russia, contrary to Marx by the way, the soil must be «unabated» by something else. No left-wing patriot, aka Stalinist, will ever give an answer. Why Marxism, or its parody, started playing in Russia. Usually, there is a quote from Marx on the topic of production forces and relations. Or just sounds like the answer to your question «you is fool himself». This means they don’t have an answer to the question. Well, if you have already heard about Salic law, then we will continue. Usually, monarchists are considered to be on the right, on the spectrum of political activity. This does not seem to concern the disposal of property.

      The right also includes fascists. Officials are also present here. They also talk about the people, the nation. But they set priorities. The property belongs to the people, to the nation, hence to the state, hence to the officials. Do the Fascists have a Salic principle of inheritance transfer? No. The Fascists already have a majorate. The ruling center shifts away from the center, the will of the monarch and his relatives, towards the people (to be more precise, towards the bourgeoisie). During the years of the European revolutions, the European revolutionaries took away the distribution function from the sacred figure and handed it over to themselves. Hence, the same disposition of property, but on the surface, the rights are reserved exclusively to the eldest sons. The Fascists do not abolish property, everyone knows this (Please remember this point about the eldest sons)

      Why is it that in Russia there was no transfer of inheritance from the father state to the eldest sons in the same way? First, because Lenin advocated his doctrine of expropriation of expropriators. Ah, so Lenin and Marx still have something to do with it! Yes, Lenin and Marx are still at it. In Russia, there was no institution of private property. In the bourgeois sense, to convey it exclusively in the traditional sense. As a people’s community, the Russian world was decided, and so it was.

      The main principle of rural communities is not Salic. The community is based on patriarchal laws. But for the community, for the village elders, the main principle is justice. This means that they could pass it to both the senior and the junior. With a large «turnover», mortality, perturbations, and other anarchism, everyone could inherit. After all, what is anarchy? Why it appeared in agricultural communities. Anarchy, although this is a distraction from the topic, is just the most communist principle of distribution. Anarchy is the work of the young, it is the right of the people to abolish the self-will of the old. Marx is also a kind of Jewish anarchist. He was deprived of property, and all his life he was engaged in the promotion of democracy. Yes, by the way, the promotion of democracy does not imply the abolition of property. That’s why everyone likes it. Including the eldest sons – the main contenders for property in Europe.