To me, a MAF is like an economic child. You open a kiosk, then a small shop, then a store, then a shopping center or some other serious business—this is a fairly typical Kyiv story of a person who brings benefit to those around them, and this story begins with a “child,” that is, with a MAF. That is why enthusiastic reports about dismantled kiosks strike me as reports about mass murder of children, in which various bloody details are savored.
But, they will tell me, these are your incomprehensible emotions for us. And what can you say on the merits? What is wrong with dismantling ugly kiosks that block passages? On the merits, two things can be said. The first and obvious one is the circumstance that a “MAF,” understood as freedom of trade, is a necessary element of economic growth, especially in a country as poor as Ukraine. Without this freedom, nothing will work here. The second point, on which I will dwell in more detail, is that the fight against MAFs is a very troubling symptom of a dangerous illness.
The discussion here will concern the following. Each of us is, without a doubt, a “source of law” for our own property. In your own home, you are the law, and no one can tell you what to do here. Therefore, for instance, a fight against MAFs or “illegal trading” or “illegal advertising” in your apartment, on your street (the one that belongs to you), or in your river, or in your forest is a legitimate and sacred cause, the same as allowing these very MAFs or trading to exist, for money or just for free. Who is the owner—who sets the rules.
In the case of the city, the owner (that is, the one who sets the rules and gives orders) is the official. The fact that he acts on behalf of the mythical “hromada” changes absolutely nothing here, just as divine anointing does not change the autocratic essence of a king. And, of course, the official has the right to permit or not permit MAFs, to install them and demolish them. There is no problem here; people like me may lament that the demolition of MAFs is irrational, because without small business there is no economic growth and so on, but this circumstance in itself does not provoke anger and special indignation. Well, so what, idiots. Everything as usual. As long as officials own the streets, they remain within their rights, however we may evaluate their activities.
What provokes indignation, anger, and the desire to take up a shotgun is the joyful whimpering and yelping of the progressive public that accompanies this frenzied official activity. This very circumstance is the symptom of a dangerous illness. And it is not the usual idiocy of people who do not realize that they are simply being used in the interests of the same officials and the “business” connected with them. This is much worse. The illness I am talking about can be called the “syndrome of forced equality.” This is when everyone must be like me. And if I don’t have a kiosk, then you shouldn’t have one either. And if the opportunity arises to deprive you of your kiosk, I will do everything so that you are left without it, because I don’t like you. And I don’t like you because you are not like me.
This illness is the result of prolonged selection carried out by the state. For the state, uniformity in everything is very convenient. This is, in fact, a guarantee of success. It is manageability and predictability, “accounting and control.” It is not by chance that the more state-like a state is, the more effort it expends to achieve uniformity in ideas, thoughts, behavior, tastes, clothing, and so on. Totalitarian super-states are an excellent example of this.
Society is the opposite of the state. Society is based on inequality. The more diversity, the more spread in assessments, the more spectrum of goals and means to achieve them, the richer the society and the brighter and more interesting life in it. Two identical people have nothing to exchange, they cannot do anything for each other. Only the difference in assessments, goals, and means sets in motion what we call the “economy.” If everyone around you is like you, that is, always strives for the same goals by the same means, then a society made up of such “yous” will simply die out. A society consisting of identical people is not viable.
Therefore, the war, famine, and poverty that always accompany totalitarianism are not simply companions of uniformity; they are its direct consequence.
And the saddest thing here is that totalitarian states fall apart, but totalitarian consciousness with the acquired “syndrome of forced equality” remains. The state always finds bearers of such consciousness and uses them for its own purposes. What comes of this we see in Russia. Many and many Russians are not fond of others’ otherness, and they constitute the environment that fuels the aggressive Russian state. We call these people “vatniks.” But, as we can see, they live not only in Russia.