During a period of development of capitalism and relative democracy, satisfaction of the ambitions of the strong and venturesome began to occur more thanks to the natural rivalry between people. Strong and capable people naturally occupied the highest economic and social positions in the society. The social structure came into congruence with the social-psychological one.
History teaches us that if the government and the elite cannot attain a social order that would bring the social and sociopsychological structure of the society into harmony (stronger, smarter, more capable individuals occupy higher places in the social hierarchy), they are swept away and replaced by others. There’s no other choice.
Either mass executions and mass repression with obligatory excommunication of the strongest, most ambitious of their immediate social environment were needed, or else the social environment will react to those signs of power that provide evidence of who the actual leader is. This is an innate system of reactions and reflexes. It is analogous to similar reflexes in a herd of animals that acknowledge the right to leadership of the strongest. This reflex cannot be reformed. It is either necessary to step forth and hand over part of the power to the stronger and more capable, the more assertive, or else be dethroned.
After the privatization of the 1990s, in the absence of an effective mechanism of accumulation that naturally would reconcile, in a period of capitalism, the social and sociopsychological structure of the society with the replenishment of the elite by around at least 1% per year, measures are desperately needed for creating social elevators, for creating the means of elevating stronger and more capable individuals through their natural escalation on the social ladder.
Importantly, in history such means were connected to the separation of strong, active individuals capable of warlike actions from the milieu they inhabited – sending them to war in other countries (while preserving the values of that culture that they offered) engaging them in active, creative, commercial or military activity at long distances, etc. Thus, now such measures might be those at governmental scale such as conquering the North, constructing roads, massive involvement in developing water resources or facilities of utmost government importance, service in the army ( and giving those who served a land allotment or cottage in a place where the government deems necessary), participation in construction works far from one’s hometown, etc. The facilities built can and must be secured for the best of those who participated in the construction works. It is just those people who administer property, especially that created by their own labor, who are most active in social, sociopsychological and military affairs. History attests to this. Having a large number of people in the society’s structure who are situated at levels that are lower than their sociopsychological features, their strength of personality, and their aptitudes, is potentially explosive.
But the number of such people grows cumulatively, gradually, unnoticeably. At first the explosive nature of such a situation may simply not be seen. But then the measures performed by the government to maintain order start to falter. It seems like only yesterday they were effective, but today they lead to contrary, negative results. The number of emotionally negatively inclined people in the society has crossed the critical line and these protests begin to be seen tangibly.
