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?

     2001

      — — —

ABOUT THE TURN TO THE LEFT

(OR PULSE POLITICAL SCIENCE)

     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