Rules without regaining consciousness (18 photos). Viktor Pronin - without regaining consciousness Disruption of the nervous system as a cause of loss of consciousness

When the Dutch psychologist Ap Dyksterhouse received a professorship at the University of Amsterdam, he began looking for a house in Amsterdam. At that moment, the housing market was on the rise, and realtors came up with the most convenient way for themselves to sell apartments. On the appointed day, all potential buyers simultaneously came to the “browsing”, and the first one who agreed to pay the price named by the owners signed a contract on the same day and became the owner of the home. In conditions of such fierce competition between buyers, there was no time to think. Dycksterhouse made the decision to buy the house within 10 seconds while inspecting the bathroom. He stayed up all night after that, wondering if he had made the most expensive mistake of his life. Fortunately, the purchase turned out to be successful.

However, the researcher continued to think, there is something deeply wrong in making such important decisions at lightning speed, without thinking. The entire experience of previous generations rebels against this, cast in sayings like “Don’t cut from the shoulder” and “Measure twice, cut once.” Dycksterhouse decided to experimentally test which decisions would be the most successful - those made as a result of reflection, or those made intuitively, without thinking. The experiment involved three groups of students who had to choose their housing from four proposed options. The description of each apartment consisted of 12 attributes. The best option included 8 positive attributes (eg, low price, large area), and 4 negative attributes (eg, noisy area). The worst option included 4 positive and 8 negative attributes, and the two intermediate options included 6 positive and negative attributes each. They were included in the task as “noise” making it difficult to process information.

The first group of participants was asked to choose the best option after thinking about it for five minutes. Participants from the second group had to immediately name the option they liked best. And the third group, having read information about four apartments, received a distracting task. Five minutes later they had to choose the best accommodation, but they had no time to think - they were busy solving puzzles. The result of the experiment showed that thinking is still better than giving an answer immediately: among those who thought about the answer, 47% chose the optimal option, and among those who had to make a decision immediately - only 36%. But the best results were shown by those who solved puzzles that were in no way related to the task - among the subjects of the third group, 59% chose the optimal option.

The researcher explains this result by “unconscious thinking.” At the moment when our consciousness is occupied with extraneous tasks (solving puzzles, maneuvering through city traffic jams or washing dishes), we do not stop unconsciously thinking about a decision that is important to us. After some time, we unexpectedly come to the correct conclusion, although we did not even consciously evaluate possible options. The advantages of unconscious thinking over conscious thinking are explained by the fact that consciousness has a limited volume (only about 7 pieces of information at a time), while the resources of the unconscious are potentially limitless. In addition, the quality of conscious choice can be negatively affected by our interest in the outcome of the decision. When solving simple problems, this interest helps us, improving attention and reducing the likelihood of accidental errors. But when the task is complex and our future depends on its solution, we begin to worry, are afraid of making a mistake, and as a result, more often than not, we make one.

Popular wisdom, by the way, recognizes the advantages of “unconscious thinking,” arguing that the morning is wiser than the evening, that is, that the unconscious will develop the right decision while we sleep.

The apocryphal stories of the scientific discoveries of Archimedes, Newton and Mendeleev also confirm the power of the unconscious mind, which continues to work when we take a bath, indulge in an afternoon of relaxation in the garden, or sleep soundly at night. And the British mathematician and philosopher Alfred Whitehead even said: “The assertion that we should cultivate the habit of thinking about what we do is often repeated in textbooks and in the speeches of famous people and is an absolutely erroneous platitude. The exact opposite is true.”

To confirm the benefits of “unconscious thinking,” Dyksterhouse and his colleagues conducted another series of experiments in which participants had to choose one of forty products in an online store. Products were conditionally divided into three groups: simple, which were described by only four attributes (for example, shampoo or towel), products of medium complexity, whose descriptions included 8 attributes (shoes, CD), and complex, whose descriptions consisted of 12 attributes (camera , Furniture for kitchen). Participants had to either spend 4 minutes thinking about their choices or spend 4 minutes solving puzzles. As expected, in the case of a simple choice, conscious thinking led to a more successful outcome, and in the case of a complex choice, unconscious thinking was more effective. For tasks of moderate difficulty, no difference was found between conscious and unconscious thinking.

It turns out that conscious reflection is only necessary when buying soap and socks, and when buying a car and an apartment it is much more useful to trust your intuition. But does this mean that reason and logic are not needed at all in life? The authors of the theory of unconscious thinking admit that intuition is powerless when solving those problems where it is necessary to follow strict rules (for example, mathematical ones). In addition, new research has recently emerged that questions Dycksterhouse's methodology. John Pine and his colleagues from Duke University (USA) note that Dycksterhouse's experiments have two significant limitations. First, the time participants were given to think was strictly specified and may have exceeded the time that would normally be required to make a decision in a real situation.

This could lead to the famous effect that folk psychology calls “overdoing it.” All school teachers are well aware that thinking too long about a correctly solved problem leads to unfounded doubts and “correction” of the correct answer to the wrong one. Secondly, the tasks themselves, which were given to participants in Dycksterhouse's experiments, consisted of comparing positive and negative attributes and choosing the option with the maximum number of positive and minimum number of negative attributes. In real-life situations, each attribute has a different weight. For example, a car may have many positive attributes and only one negative one. But if this attribute is an unaffordable price, then all further comparisons are meaningless.

Pine and his colleagues conducted another series of similar experiments in which they modified the instructions to the participants. The first group of participants had to think about the task for a fixed amount of time, the second group had to think as long as necessary to make a decision, and the third group received a distracting task, as in the Dycksterhouse experiments. The second important change concerned the task itself. Instead of positive and negative attributes having equal weight, participants were asked to choose from the same number of attributes that had not only different consequences (winning or losing), but also different amounts of winning or losing. Participants chose one of four lotteries they would like to play. Each game was described by twelve events that could occur with equal probability as a result of the balls falling out (for example, winning $2 or winning $13). That is, the attributes had not only different signs, but also different weights. As in Dycksterhouse's experiments, participants who thought for a fixed time performed worse (21% correct answers) than participants in the "unconscious thinking" condition (37%). However, participants whose time to think was not limited in any way showed the best result (52%). Their thinking time ranged from 8 seconds to 5 minutes. The average time to think was 17 seconds. Moreover, those who made a decision faster than the average time gave 74% correct answers, and those who thought longer gave only 30%.

The authors of the experiment explain their results not so much by the advantage of intuition over reason, but by the detrimental effect of too much thinking on the quality of decisions. In addition, intuition works worse than conscious thinking if the value of each attribute is added to the enumeration of attributes. The “mindless mind” easily distinguishes between winning and losing, but has trouble seeing the difference between winning $2 and winning $13.

Should we rely on intuition and unconscious thinking to make difficult decisions? The question is still open. But one thing is clear: if you really think, then quickly, otherwise you begin to doubt and change the right decision to the wrong one. And second: if the solution concerns mathematical or legal issues, that is, it involves following strict rules, intuition alone cannot be done. At a minimum, a calculator and the Criminal Code are required.

Review

Fainting is a sudden temporary loss of consciousness, usually accompanied by a fall.

Doctors often refer to fainting as syncope to distinguish it from other conditions involving temporary loss of consciousness, such as a seizure or concussion.

Fainting is very common, with up to 40% of people losing consciousness at least once in their lives. The first fainting episode usually occurs before the age of 40. If the first episode of loss of consciousness occurs after age 40, this may indicate a severe chronic illness. The most common neurogenic syncope is most often observed during adolescence in girls.

The immediate cause of syncope is a disruption in the flow of oxygen-rich blood to the brain. Its functions are temporarily impaired, and the person loses consciousness. This usually happens in a stuffy room, on an empty stomach, with fear, severe emotional shock, and in some people, with the sight of blood or a sudden change in body position. A person may faint from coughing, sneezing, or even while emptying the bladder.

First aid for fainting should be to prevent the person from falling and protect him from injury. If someone feels bad, support them and gently lay them down, raising their legs up, or sit them down. Provide fresh air by opening windows and unbuttoning your collar. Try not to create panic in order to avoid large crowds of people, crowding and stuffiness. When fainting, consciousness usually returns within a few seconds, less often within 1-2 minutes, but some types of fainting require emergency medical attention.

If a person does not regain consciousness within 2 minutes, you should call an ambulance by calling 03 from a landline phone, 112 or 911 from a mobile phone.

Symptoms of fainting

Fainting is usually preceded by sudden weakness and dizziness, followed by a brief loss of consciousness, usually lasting a few seconds. This can happen when a person is sitting, standing, or standing up too quickly.

Sometimes loss of consciousness may be preceded by other short-term symptoms:

yawn;
sudden sticky sweat;
nausea;
frequent deep breathing;
disorientation in space and time;
blurred vision or spots before the eyes;
tinnitus.

After a fall, the head and heart are at the same level, so blood reaches the brain more easily. Consciousness should return in about 20 seconds; less often, fainting lasts for 1-2 minutes. A longer absence of consciousness is an alarming signal. In this case, you need to call an ambulance.

After fainting, you may feel weak and confused for 20 to 30 minutes. The person may also feel tired, drowsy, nauseated, and have abdominal discomfort, and may not remember what happened just before the fall.

Fainting or stroke?

Loss of consciousness can occur during a stroke - a cerebrovascular accident. A stroke, unlike fainting, always requires emergency medical attention and is life-threatening. A stroke can be suspected if a person does not regain consciousness for more than 2 minutes or if after fainting the victim has the following symptoms:

the face is skewed to one side, the person cannot smile, his lip has drooped or his eyelid has drooped;
the person is unable to lift one or both arms and keep them upright due to weakness or numbness;
speech becomes unintelligible.

Causes of fainting (loss of consciousness)

Loss of consciousness during syncope is associated with a temporary reduction in blood flow to the brain. The causes of this type of circulatory disorder are very diverse.

Disruption of the nervous system as a cause of loss of consciousness

Most often, loss of consciousness is associated with a temporary malfunction of the autonomic nervous system. This type of fainting is called neurogenic or vegetative syncope.

The autonomic nervous system is responsible for unconscious body functions, including heartbeat and blood pressure regulation. Various external stimuli, for example, fear, the sight of blood, heat, pain and others, can temporarily disrupt the functioning of the autonomic nervous system, which leads to a drop in blood pressure and fainting.

The work of the autonomic nervous system is also associated with a slowdown of the heart, which leads to a short-term decrease in blood pressure and impaired blood supply to the brain. This is called vasovagal syncope.

Sometimes the autonomic nervous system becomes overloaded during coughing, sneezing or laughing and loss of consciousness occurs. This kind of fainting is called situational.

In addition, fainting may be associated with prolonged standing in an upright position. Typically, when a person stands or sits, gravity causes some of the blood to flow downward and pool in the arms and legs. To maintain normal blood circulation, the heart begins to work a little harder, the blood vessels narrow slightly, maintaining sufficient blood pressure in the body.

In some people, this mechanism is disrupted, and the blood supply to the heart and brain is temporarily interrupted. In response, the heart begins to beat too fast, and the body produces norepinephrine, a stress hormone. This phenomenon is called postural tachycardia and can cause symptoms such as dizziness, nausea, sweating, rapid heartbeat and fainting.

Carotid sinus syndrome

The carotid sinus is a symmetrical area on the lateral surface of the middle part of the neck. This is an important area, rich in sensitive cells - receptors, which is necessary to maintain normal blood pressure, heart function and blood gas composition. In some people, syncope (fainting) can occur when there is an accidental mechanical impact on the carotid sinus - this is called carotid sinus syndrome.

Orthostatic hypotension is a cause of fainting in the elderly

The second most common cause of fainting can be a drop in blood pressure when a person stands up suddenly - orthostatic hypotension. This phenomenon is more common in older people, especially after 65 years of age.

A sudden change in body position from horizontal to vertical leads to the outflow of blood to the lower parts of the body under the influence of gravity, causing blood pressure in the central vessels to drop. Typically the nervous system regulates this by increasing the heart rate, constricting blood vessels and thus stabilizing blood pressure.

With orthostatic hypotension, the regulatory mechanism is disrupted. Therefore, rapid pressure restoration does not occur, and blood circulation in the brain is disrupted for some period. This is enough to cause fainting.

Possible causes of orthostatic hypotension:

dehydration is a condition in which the body's fluid content decreases and blood pressure decreases, making it harder for the heart to stabilize, increasing the risk of fainting;
diabetes mellitus - accompanied by frequent urination, which can lead to dehydration; in addition, high blood sugar levels damage the nerves responsible for regulating blood pressure;
medications - any medications for hypertension, as well as any antidepressants, can cause orthostatic hypotension;
Neurological diseases - diseases affecting the nervous system (for example, Parkinson's disease) can cause orthostatic hypotension.

Heart disease - the cause of cardiac syncope

Heart disease can also cause disruption of the blood supply to the brain and lead to temporary loss of consciousness. This type of fainting is called cardiac syncope. Its risk increases with age. Other risk factors:

pain in the heart cell (angina);
suffered a heart attack;
pathology of the structure of the heart muscle (cardiomyopathy);
abnormalities on the electrocardiogram (ECG);
repeated sudden fainting without warning symptoms.

If you suspect that fainting is caused by heart disease, you should consult a physician as soon as possible.

Reflex anoxic spasms

Reflex anoxic convulsions are a type of fainting that develops after a short-term cardiac arrest due to overload of the vagus nerve. It is one of 12 cranial nerves that runs down from the head into the neck, chest and abdomen. Reflex anoxic seizures are more common in young children, especially when the child is upset.

Diagnosis of the causes of fainting

Most often, fainting is not dangerous and does not require treatment. But in some cases, after fainting, you should consult a doctor to find out whether the loss of consciousness was caused by any disease. Contact a neurologist if:

fainting occurred for the first time;
you regularly lose consciousness;
injury due to loss of consciousness;
you have diabetes or heart disease (such as angina);
fainting occurred during pregnancy;
before fainting, you felt chest pain, irregular, rapid or strong heartbeat;
during blackout, urination or defecation occurred involuntarily;
you were unconscious for several minutes.

During the diagnosis, the doctor will ask about the circumstances of the fainting and recent illnesses, and may also measure your blood pressure and listen to your heartbeat with a stethoscope. In addition, additional research will be required to diagnose the causes of loss of consciousness.

Electrocardiogram (ECG) is prescribed when it is suspected that fainting was caused by heart disease. An electrocardiogram (ECG) records the heart rhythms and electrical activity of the heart. Electrodes (small sticky discs) are attached to the arms, legs and chest and are connected to the ECG machine using wires. Each heartbeat creates an electrical signal. The ECG notes these signals on paper, recording any abnormalities. The procedure is painless and takes about five minutes.

Carotid sinus massage performed by a doctor to rule out carotid sinus syndrome as a cause of fainting. If the massage causes dizziness, heart rhythm disturbances or other symptoms, the test is considered positive.

Blood tests allow you to exclude diseases such as diabetes and anemia (anemia).

Blood pressure measurement in the supine and standing positions to detect orthostatic hypotension. In orthostatic hypotension, blood pressure drops sharply when a person stands up. If the test results reveal a medical condition, such as heart disease or orthostatic hypotension, your doctor may prescribe treatment.

First aid for fainting

There are certain measures that should be taken when someone is fainting. It is necessary to position the person in such a way as to increase blood flow to the head. To do this, just put something under your feet, bend them at the knees or lift them up. If you have nowhere to lie down, you need to sit down and put your head between your knees. Doing this will usually help prevent fainting.

If a person does not regain consciousness within 1-2 minutes, you need to do the following:

lay it on its side, supported by one leg and one arm;
tilt your head back and lift your chin to open
Airways;
Continuously monitor your breathing and pulse.

Then you should call an ambulance by calling 03 from a landline phone, 112 or 911 from a mobile phone and stay with the person until doctors arrive.

Treatment after fainting

Most fainting episodes do not require treatment, but it is important for your doctor to rule out possible medical conditions that may have caused the loss of consciousness. If the latter are detected during examination, you will need treatment. For example, if you are diagnosed with diabetes, diet, exercise, and medications can help lower your blood sugar levels. Treatment of cardiovascular diseases associated with fluctuations in blood pressure, rhythm disturbances or atherosclerosis also minimizes the likelihood of recurrent syncope.

If fainting is of a neurogenic nature or is situational, then you need to avoid those causes that usually lead to loss of consciousness: stuffy and hot rooms, excitement, fear. Try to spend less time standing on your feet. If you faint at the sight of blood or medical procedures, tell your doctor or nurse so they can do the procedure while you lie down. When it is difficult to determine what situations cause you to faint, your doctor may recommend keeping a symptom diary to record the circumstances surrounding your fainting spells.

To prevent fainting caused by carotid sinus syndrome, you should avoid putting pressure on the neck area - for example, not wearing shirts with a high, tight collar. Sometimes, to treat carotid sinus syndrome, a pacemaker, a small electronic device that helps maintain a regular heart rhythm, is placed under the skin.

To avoid orthostatic hypotension, try not to change your body position suddenly. Before getting out of bed, sit up, stretch, and take a few calm, deep breaths. In summer, you should increase your water consumption. The doctor may also recommend eating smaller meals in small portions and increasing salt intake. Some medications may lower blood pressure, but you should stop taking prescribed medications only with your doctor's approval.

To stop the drop in blood pressure and prevent fainting, there are special movements:

crossing legs;
muscle tension in the lower body;
clenching your hands into fists;
arm muscle tension.

The technique of correctly performing these movements needs to be learned. In the future, these movements can be performed after noticing symptoms of impending fainting, for example, dizziness.

Sometimes medications are used to treat after fainting. However, drug therapy must be prescribed by a doctor.

Additionally, syncope can create a dangerous situation in the workplace. For example, when handling heavy equipment or dangerous mechanisms, when working at height, etc. Issues of work ability are resolved on a case-by-case basis with the attending physician after completion of the diagnosis.

Which doctor should I contact after fainting?

Using the NaPopravka service, you can find a good neurologist who will diagnose the possible causes of fainting and offer treatment, if necessary.

If your episodes of loss of consciousness are accompanied by other symptoms not described in this article, use the “Who Treats It” section to choose the right specialist.

Localization and translation prepared by Napopravku.ru. NHS Choices provided the original content for free. It is available from www.nhs.uk. NHS Choices has not reviewed, and takes no responsibility for, the localization or translation of its original content

All site materials have been checked by doctors. However, even the most reliable article does not allow us to take into account all the features of the disease in a particular person. Therefore, the information posted on our website cannot replace a visit to the doctor, but only complements it. The articles have been prepared for informational purposes and are advisory in nature.

Dear surgeons. This is not even my question, but a cry for help. I ask you, if you know, then write me an HONEST answer to this question. And I ask HONESTLY, because both the attending physician and the surgeon who performed the operation on my mother on January 17, 2012, probably cannot tell me the BITTER TRUTH. But the fact is, on January 17, my poor, sick mother had an operation to replace the aortic valve and 3 shunts were replaced. Only something went wrong, the operation went on for 14 hours. Afterwards, the doctors said that everything had been replaced, but the mother was supposedly in a coma. And the next morning they began to look for donor blood. Because the mother’s own blood was supposedly very liquid and did not clot well .And that same morning they performed a second 7-hour operation. They explained to me why, but I didn’t understand anything. And since that time, the mother has been in intensive care. She seems to have blood leaking somewhere in her heart. Now 10 different tubes have been removed from the mother’s body, and one of them, the one that is removed from under the heart, is constantly blood drips. About half a glass per day. She also doesn’t breathe on her own, but through a tube in her mouth. 3 days ago I took her hand, it was very sweaty, and my poor mother’s body was very swollen. I now remember how I saw her, and I didn’t recognize my mother, and now the tears are flowing from the eyes. I called her mom, mom, but she opened her eyes for a second and closed them. Of course, she doesn’t realize what’s happening to her. Then why do the doctors say that mom’s brain seems to be fine. And the doctors explain to me that now there is one main problem. The fact that THEY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO RETURN MOM'S CONSCIOUSNESS. And yesterday the temperature suddenly rose to 40 DEGREES. Mom was immediately covered with pieces of ice, and by the morning they were told that there was supposedly some kind of infection. Today the temperature was brought down to 35-36. And the doctors keep saying that they cannot bring mom to consciousness, but they still don’t understand why this is so. And here’s something else I didn’t say. It’s like my mother had a “carnography” procedure before the main operation, and they did it too with unsuccessful consequences. They did it somehow through the inguinal vein. But then this vein also did not heal well. Blood oozed from it all the time into the body, and therefore the leg became swollen. The doctor who did it explained that it was because the blood vessels were already brittle due to age. Mom is 74 years old.
And now the 17th day has passed since the operation, and all this time my mother has been in intensive care. The doctor’s condition says “stable and serious.” The poor mother has tubes inserted from everywhere. She is breathing from a machine, but her heart is working on its own. Her blood pressure is normal. Doctors say that the brain is working, AND HERE IS MY MAIN QUESTION FOR YOU. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO MOM. I HAVE NO TEARS LEFT TO CRY. DO YOU THINK MOM WILL RETURN CONSCIOUSNESS OR MOM WILL BE SO QUIET IN SLEEP AND WILL LEAVE. Thank you in advance for your honest answer. Best regards, Nestor....

I am grateful to all the people who are taking part in my trouble. This is my mother’s condition today. I also want to remind all kind-hearted people and doctors that my mother had the operation already on January 17, 2012. Today, February 2, the attending doctors say that what for Initially, the operation was performed, i.e. replacement of the aortic valve and, in the process, 3 shunts were installed. In general, all this is already working normally. The heart is already working on its own. We started feeding the mother liquid, through a tube, directly into the stomach. She pees normally too. But she only breathes with the help of a device, for example, at 5%, and 1% herself. She still doesn’t have the strength to breathe completely on her own or I don’t know what. The tube from under the heart was removed, it is now used to suction blood from the lungs. The air from the device tears some veins in the lungs, hence the blood. They say that the heart is already working normally. But the temperature today is again 38%. And the doctors also say that my mother has some kind of “brittle” vessels and veins. Tomorrow morning I’ll take the chicken broth again. BUT THAT’S THE MAIN THING I’M WAITING FOR, and the doctors are trying to do, IS TO RESTORE HER CONSCIOUSNESS, THE MAIN TROUBLE IS THAT the doctors themselves are not they know how to bring mom back to this world. I ask the Lord to return my mother to me, because he knows that she lives all her life as a kind, honest person, and a wonderful mother......

And - not a single communist. Why are there communists? In general, there is not a single candidate for successor from the left flank. Some are right. And the people are silent. Nobody is indignant. True, most people don’t care about this game of succession, but even those who are interested do not think about the ideological essence of the candidates, but discuss who is better: Ivanov or Medvedev, Sechin or Shuvalov... And only very few realize that each of them is Putin 2, Putin 3, Putin 4, and maybe even Yeltsin 2.

So, at first glance, liberals really have no reason to doubt the strength of their power. But they doubt it! How else can we explain that during the pre-election year anti-Soviet and anti-communist propaganda on television sharply increased? Moreover, along with the real shortcomings of the Soviet government and the criminal acts of individual Soviet leaders, a lot of lies, slander, and idiotic inventions are being spread. Everything is like in 1996.

Why? But precisely because their confidence in their positions is feigned. Because they understand: no matter how much the rope twists, the end will come. The end is retribution for what was done to the country. This is retribution. This is a trial of criminals.

But why, one might ask, lie so shamelessly? After all, there was a lot of real negativity in Soviet history. And then, for every negative fact from the seventy-year Soviet history, there are a dozen negative facts from their ten-year Yeltsin history. So they invent, so they compose a bunch of all sorts of fables, hoping to win, if not by the reliability of the facts, then at least by their quantity.

So, both future judges and future defendants are busy collecting documents on the eve of the upcoming trial. But this is not enough! We also need arguments. After all, the trial is a competition between the prosecution and the defense. And in such a competition, the winner is the one who not only has more serious and reliable documents, but also more convincing arguments.

Meanwhile, the criminal clique has already begun in earnest to prepare arguments in its defense. I want to draw your attention to one of these arguments, because this argument is quite serious: it, of course, is unlikely to push the judges to accept an acquittal, but it may well mitigate the punishment. What kind of argument is this?

The argument is this. Yes, they admit, the reforms failed. Yes, the country is plunged into disaster. Yes... Well, and so on. That is. Liberals admit that the results of the reforms are terrible. But, they say, no one could have foreseen this result. They, you see, wanted the best. Their intentions, you see, were very, very noble. But that's how it happened. Like, don't judge them harshly.

Well, what's it like? In my opinion, it's quite stupid. In any case, such a position may make some people feel sorry for it. Well, what can you do, noble people decided to introduce democracy, freedom and many other good things into the country. Yes, they didn’t calculate it. And no one warned: they say, you are going the wrong way, comrades!

And here I want to offer future judges our argument, a counter-argument, so to speak. And if the court preparers take my argument seriously and orchestrate it with enough examples, then it will be a killer argument.

My argument is this. I maintain that all the democrats’ lamentations that they did not foresee such results are a vile lie. I argue that several years before the reforms began, liberals were warned about all the negative consequences of such reforms.

They have been warned!!!

Warned by whom? First of all, of course, by the communists. Here I can clearly hear the loud laughter of the readers. And really, what did the warnings of the communists mean to the liberals when it was the communists and communism that the liberals fought against?

In addition, the communists based their forecasts in accordance with Marxism. But Marxism was then declared an empty utopia, a pseudoscience. Now all those predictions have come true completely. The communists insisted that capitalism was not the future, but the country's past. Today, even many Democrats admit that the country has been set back decades, or even a century.

The communists recalled the views of Marx and Lenin on private property. Lenin directly said that private property divides people, that private property is war. So what do we have? Because of this very private property, for the past decade and a half, streams of blood have been flowing throughout the country, and there is no end in sight.

Today, some democrats are beginning to cautiously quote both Marx and Engels, and Lenin. But in those pre-reform years, the democrats, of course, could not and did not want to listen to the opinion of the communists. Moreover, the Democrats had strong support in this regard among a significant part of the population. Yes, we must admit that by the end of the 80s, irritation against the communists had already arisen in society.

And there were reasons for this. On the one hand, powerful anti-communist propaganda put pressure on people’s consciousness. On the other hand, the communists themselves tried a lot to discredit the ideas of communism and Marxist teaching in general in the eyes of the population.

So let us not be surprised that the Democrats did not heed the warnings of the Communists then. This was entirely within the logic of the political and ideological struggle, and the Democrats can hardly be blamed for this.

Go ahead. Okay, they didn’t listen to the opinion of the communists. But they did not listen to the opinion of Orthodox ideologists! Which may seem strange: after all, the democrats, in defiance of the communists, have all become devout. Let me make a reservation right away: I personally am an atheist. I don't believe in God. But from the point of view of the general history of mankind, it cannot be denied that all world religions contain large layers of information about history, culture, and art. That every religion carries within itself the essential features of the mentality of the people who have accepted this religion as their spiritual basis.

Let me note that, when speaking about Orthodox people, I do not at all mean priests. For us, and not only for us, the church is a kind of business. With all the inherent vices of business. No, I mean sincerely believing people. Among them there are many very educated writers and historians.

So they warned that capitalism is incompatible with the foundations of Orthodoxy, they warned about the harmful consequences of the forced capitalization of Russian society. This position was most clearly expressed in the magazine “Our Contemporary”. This magazine was known for its anti-Sovietism, anti-communism, which seemed to appeal to the democrats.

Why didn’t the democrats listen to the opinion of the ideologists of Orthodoxy? Yes, because Orthodoxy for democrats was just a masquerade costume covering their essence. The Democrats were not interested in Orthodoxy as such, but in the church. On the one hand, the church was destined to serve, along with the media, as an instrument for fooling the population. On the other hand, believers, whose number always increases during periods of unrest, were a good addition to the democratic electorate.

And yet, at least for appearances, the Democrats could support the position of “Our Contemporary”? No, they couldn't. Judge for yourself. The magazine introduced the column “The Market: Panacea or Trap?”, where it argued that it was a trap. Could the Democrats tolerate this when for them the market was father, son and holy spirit all rolled into one? They did not argue with the magazine, but simply did not notice his position.

Personally, I was interested in the article by Yu. Borodai with a very eloquent title - “Why Protestant capitalism is not suitable for the Orthodox.” (“Our Contemporary” No. 10, 1990) So why? Therefore, the author explains, Orthodoxy is based on the ethics of equality, community, and compassion.

And capitalism is mixed with the Calvinist doctrine of the chosenness of a separate category of people. According to Calvin, God predestined some people to eternal life and others to eternal death. According to Calvin, God's chosen ones, for the sake of achieving personal success, are allowed everything, even crimes. And those who are not admitted into the circle of the chosen ones will not be saved by piety, prayers, or deeds. They are the rejected ones.

So, the ideologists of Orthodoxy warned that the intention to plunge Russia into capitalism would cause a split in society. Did reformers heed these warnings? Of course not. Orthodox writers were concerned about the fate of the country, the fate of the people, while the reformers thought only about their personal fate.

The reformers saw themselves, of course, not in the camp of the outcasts, but in the camp of God’s chosen ones. Well, in fact, look at the faces of Yeltsin, Chubais, Gaidar, Nemtsov, Berezovsky, Abramovich and so on. and so on. Don't you see divine halos above their heads? Don't their gazes radiate divine light? True, their God is different, not the same as that of believers. Their god is the golden calf.

So it was in vain that Orthodox authors frightened future reformers with the horrors of Calvinist doctrine. It was this doctrine that was right for the reformers. It was in full accordance with this doctrine that they divided society into a handful of God’s chosen ones, who are allowed everything, including the naked plunder of the country. And to the rest of the people, to the outcasts, who, according to Calvin, are doomed to eternal death, which the reformers accepted for execution, killing a million Russians a year.

However, the fact that the reformers ignored the warnings of the ideologists of Orthodoxy also cannot be a serious argument in the court of History. Russia is a secular state, and a person’s adherence to one or another religious doctrine is still a matter of every person’s conscience.

But now I will reveal the main trump card, that is, the main argument against the reformers. An argument that Democrats are powerless to counter. The fact is that the reformers also did not listen to the warnings of those people to whom they could not, had no right not to listen. These were warnings from their camp, from their like-minded people.

The Democrats were warned...by the Democrats!

If you remember, one of my articles was called “Not All Democrats Are Equally Mean.” In that article, I divided Democrats into different categories, but the main divide was between honest and dishonest Democrats. Honest democrats, in the sense of theory, were complete like-minded people of Yeltsin and his team.

They were also sure that socialism, and even more so communism, was a utopia. They too became disillusioned with Marxism. They also believed in the saving role of the market, in the need to turn Russia onto the capitalist path of development.

Of course, I do not share the views of this category of democrats, but, nevertheless, I cannot deny them respect. They wanted the best for their country. They sincerely believed that they were right and wanted to help the authorities carry out reforms as painlessly as possible for the people. The main thing is that they did not pursue selfish goals.

There are many well-known names among honest democrats: Shmelev, Lisichkin, Pinsker, Piyasheva, Sakharov, Selyunin... Nowadays newspapers and magazines of the pre-reform era are read with particular interest. If you remember, these were the years of the newspaper and magazine boom. I personally subscribed to a dozen newspapers and the same number of magazines.

Articles by Shmelev “Advances and Debts”, Piyasheva “Where are the more magnificent pies?” were discussed in society, like the next episode of “Seventeen Moments of Spring” once was. And not only in society, but also in the press. Before Tsipko had time to publish his anti-Marxist articles in the journal Science and Life, he was immediately convicted of scientific dishonesty by O. Latsis (democrat) and R. Kosolapov (communist).

Shmelev argued with Abalkin, Piyasheva with Shmelev... In general, the discussions were in full swing, but what were they in full swing for? It seemed that people were simply reveling in freedom of speech, and no one was interested in whether their words affected real life. In fact, why are discussions on political and economic topics being held? To influence the policy of the authorities, to point out to the authorities the error of a particular step. This is how, for example, discussions took place about the NEP under Lenin.

We often say: Lenin introduced the NEP. But this is not entirely correct. Read the newspapers of that time. Lenin spoke to different audiences, convinced, proved, and answered questions. He listened to objections. Some of them he refuted, some he agreed with. He invited peasants to his place to find out their opinion.

As a result of such multilateral discussions, the NEP became such a well-developed program that politicians and economists are still surprised: how it was possible to achieve such success in the economy in a couple of years. But there is nothing to be surprised at, because scientists, and advisers, as they say, from the plow, and officials, and people's commissars, and the Predovnarkom itself - all worked for the interests of the country. Everything useful and positive that was developed during the discussions went into action and therefore gave good results.

But it is not clear why the perestroika discussions were held. The discussions were on their own, and the activities of the reformers were on their own. Scientists said: we cannot rush, reforms must be carried out very carefully. The reformers were in a hurry as if they were on fire.

Scientists said: we need to think through the order of steps. Indeed, due to confusion in the order alone, unexpected breakdowns can occur. The reformers sneezed at any order. They invented the expression “shock therapy,” which meant: break everything at once, destroy it, and the market itself, my dear, will put everything in its place.

Well, okay, we decided to abandon socialism and build capitalism. What should have been done? Convene a conference of scientists - supporters of capitalism. And hold this conference for a month, two, three - in a word, until each step of the reform is comprehensively thought out, until all options for possible consequences are considered.

What was done? Nothing. Scientists - Abalkin, Sukhotin, Latsis, Shmelev, Shatalin, Piyasheva (note: these are all marketers!) developed methods, ways to overcome difficulties, argued with each other, wrote appeals to the government, Yeltsin, warning about the consequences of an anti-scientific and hasty approach to reforms. The answer is zero attention.

And now, when all the most alarming and gloomy forecasts have come true, when only the mentally ill can deny the fact of the complete failure of liberal reforms, the Democrats, foreseeing the inevitability of retribution, are urgently hiring lawyers. It is up to them, the lawyers, to prove that the reformers wanted the best, but it didn’t work out.

Perhaps the most eloquent lawyer is Tsipko. You, of course, have seen him on TV more than once at all kinds of political parties and reality shows. He acts as an angry denouncer of the Yeltsin regime, and many take his denunciations at face value.

But this is nothing more than a fancy dress. In fact, his goal is exactly the opposite: to whitewash the Yeltsin regime, to justify Yeltsin’s thug reformers. Here in front of me is “Literary Newspaper” No. 21 for 2001. The newspaper opened the column “Ten years that shocked...”. It was opened three months before the ten-year anniversary of the August 1991 events, so that by the round date everyone would have time to speak out.

The column opens with Tsipko’s article “Blinding and Punishment.” As you might guess, this is an allusion to Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment. Only in Dostoevsky the criminal is a specific person, Raskolnikov, and he suffered the punishment.

But Tsipko has no specific criminals. There are some blind people who commit crimes out of ignorance. True, the punishment, as depicted by Tsipko, is quite real, but for some reason it fell not on those who committed crimes, but on millions of innocent people. Let's see how Tsipko sees the outcome of Yeltsin's rule.

“Our privatization was a steal, for next to nothing, and sometimes they simply took away the people’s property for free.”

“During the reforms, a significant part of national sovereignty was lost, and the military and economic security of the country was significantly undermined.”

“It is difficult, while remaining in harmony with conscience, with an elementary moral sense and being in sound mind, not to admit that, at least for today, our anti-communist revolution has taken much more real benefits from the people than it has given.”

"Our anti-Soviet revolution caused enormous destruction of public life."

“We must admit that the communist regime we hated was a more humane system than the one that, with our help, was created on its ruins.”

As a great schemer would say, “explains it well, dog”!

However, I foresee a question: how can you call Tsipko a defender of the Yeltsin regime if he criticizes it so mercilessly? I answer. Yes, Tsipko’s attacks against the Yeltsin regime look quite sincere, this is something like public repentance.

But this, I assure you, is not repentance, but just a lawyer’s trick. The main task of Tsipkov’s article was different, namely: to relieve the criminals of their personal guilt. Show that their plans were noble, but they were unable to realize these plans, since they were unable to foresee all the consequences.

Tsipko’s article is replete with such words and turns of phrase: “as it turned out, the time has come to understand, we did not see the obvious, now it is obvious, then it seemed to many why it was not visible, now it has become clear...”. And so on. The words are all genuine, so I, slightly deviating from the rules of quotation, put them all in quotation marks.

In the meantime, the following question arises: if you, democrats, theorists and practitioners of liberalism, could not foresee anything, then this means that you are stupid and uneducated people. So why did they take on such a serious matter, which even outstanding figures are not always capable of?

Now the question is: why did Tsipko need to make himself and all the leaders of the Yeltsin period, to put it simply, look like fools? And then, they don’t judge people for stupidity. Of course, the very fact of the frivolity with which unprepared people took on the radical reform of the economy of a great country can be considered a crime. But it is difficult, almost impossible, to prove this in court.

Tsipko reasoned: it was better to be branded a fool than to be convicted of the most terrible crime - the destruction of one’s country. And Tsipko was not the last spoke in the wheel in the matter of destruction. He wrote one article after another, in which he distorted Marx and Lenin, undermining the roots of the ideology familiar to the people and thereby weakening their will to resist.

The book consists of a novel and two stories. The novel “And the Pipe Sang with a Human Voice...” tells the story of a young man who finds himself involved in a serious crime. The more we understand the moral essence of the criminal, the more obvious his defeat becomes to us. The action of the story “Typhoon” takes place on a passenger train covered in snow. In one of the carriages there is a dangerous criminal who has robbed the cash register of a large store. Finding him, recognizing him, detaining him is a difficult task. In the documentary story “Without Recovering Consciousness,” the main thing is the psychological struggle, the exposure not so much of the crime as of the inner world of the person who committed this crime.

Novel

In the house where Demin lived, not many people had telephones - the head of the construction department, the designer shoe maker, and he, Demin. Hearing the call, he picked up the phone.

Yes, Ivan Konstantinovich, I’m listening to you attentively.

I want to sleep... It's twelve o'clock, thank God. This is not the first time normal people have had dreams. Excuse me, Ivan Konstantinovich, someone is ringing at the door, I’ll go and open it.

The driver has arrived. According to my estimates, the car should already be at your entrance.

Even so... What happened?

You can tell me yourself in the morning. Fire. Victims. It seems someone is dead or close to it. It's supposed to be an investigator. If you're lucky, you'll be in your own bed by two in the morning.

And if not? - Demin asked.

Then blame yourself. Go open the door, it’s not good to keep a person waiting. He's still on duty. We'll talk more in the morning. No fluff.

To hell! - Demin said with feeling, hanging up.

The city was already asleep. The deserted streets seemed unusually spacious; the streetlights stretching into the distance made them long, almost endless. From the car, Demin occasionally noticed late passers-by. For some reason, it is generally accepted that they are in a hurry to get home quickly. Not at all, these were in no hurry. Obviously, only those who have no need to rush remained on the streets. A couple near the illuminated window of a cinema is looking at footage of a future film. A man with a thick briefcase walks with an uncertain gait. Immediately around the bend, the driver had to almost stop the car so as not to collide with singing, dancing young people - the revelry group was walking along the very middle of the roadway. Naughty girlish eyes flashed before Demin. Someone tried to look into the car, the guys shouted something after them.

“And the mothers are looking out the windows, calling their friends, the validol-corvalols are whipping,” the driver grumbled. - And they, you see, are having fun, their souls are asking for adventures!

Let it be,” Demin generously allowed.

Certainly! Let them walk, what do I care... But you and I, Valya, will not be left without work. We're also going for a party. - The elderly driver glanced sideways at Demin.

“It’s all true,” Demin said with a sigh. - All this is true, Vladimir Grigorievich... But only the girl who looked into the car from my side... A very beautiful girl.

I see you wouldn't mind spending this evening with them? - asked the driver with a smile.

Do not mind. But there are walls and walls between us... From my job responsibilities, from my age, from the rules of decency, from certain conventions that are called moral principles. It would seem like a mere trifle! Spend an evening in such company... But no! A lot of the things you live with, breathe with, eat with, are at risk... By the way, where is this car going?

“To the fire,” the driver said briefly.

Yes, it seems like that,” Demin agreed with a sigh.

Having passed the center of the city, the car seemed to burst into a dim part of it. There were fewer lanterns here, and the traffic lights sent only blinking yellow flashes into the darkness, they say, drive, but be careful, which does not happen on night roads. The tires loudly split the spring puddles covered with thin ice, the cold air rushed into the car like a sharp stream, but did not burn with frost, the smells of spring were already felt in it - wet snow, thawed tree bark, the first city clearings... But suddenly the smell of smoke entered the car .

“It smelled,” the driver said. - I have already brought here a photographer, a medical expert, and the operatives are here. An hour ago it was much brighter here.

Serious fire?

There was no time to look. He turned around and immediately followed you.

The alley was jammed with cars. In their glass, on the shiny metal surfaces, the reflections of a dying fire played. By the license plates, Demin recognized the car of the city prosecutor, the head of the Internal Affairs Directorate, and Rozhnov’s car was also parked here.

Noticing Rozhnov among the authorities, Demin did not approach. If necessary, they will call you. He decided to try to find out what happened. There were plenty of people, there was someone to ask questions, someone to double-check the answers with. Everyone unanimously said that the fire first appeared in the windows and caught fire inside the house. Then the flames gained strength, broke out, and engulfed the attic. And when the roof burst into flames, real gunfire was heard - the red-hot slate fired deafeningly and frequently. Even now, when the fire was generally extinguished, from time to time single shots were heard.

It was not difficult to imagine how, quite recently, in the dry rooms, in the spacious attic, in the drafty corridors, the fire hummed loudly and confidently, as if busy with important and urgent work. The reddish reflections penetrating into neighboring houses through windows and curtains were alarming. In a hurry, throwing something over their shoulders, people went out into the street, looking to see if the flames had spread over the fences, if the lights were running along the branches of the trees, to the attics filled with dry hay. The gates were smoking from the heat, the snow was melting in the yard, the apple trees under the windows were bending and dying. The snow around the house melted, flowed down in streams, withered, dead grass appeared, mud formed and immediately dried up.

It was not easy to understand all this confusion, people's screams, flashing headlights, when the burning rafters were still hissing and smoking and, not paying attention to anyone, the firemen were dragging hoses. Here and there flames still flared up, the walls gleamed with ashen-black scales, burnt paper floated in puddles, the yard was covered with fragments of broken dishes, steam mixed with smoke, and it was almost impossible to breathe near the house.

Demin walked around the entire house, looked into the smoking windows, and listened to the neighbors’ conversation. It was dark in the garden, and the burning roof did not burn your face or blind you. Between the trees in the snow there was a path to the fence. Taking a closer look, Demin saw that one board had been torn out. Squeezing through the gap, he found himself on the next street. Obviously, the owners used this hole to shorten the path.

Rozhnov was already waiting at Demin’s house.

Well, have you examined everything? - he asked. - Have you been everywhere?

I haven't been to the house yet.

You'll have time, it'll cool down a little... Come on, I'll show you what concerns you.

Outside the gate, four people were lying right in the snow. People stood around, silently watching, some with horror, some with compassion.

Alive? - Demin asked.

“Three are alive,” answered the medical examiner, a tall, thin guy with a bag on a long belt. - But they are bad. They called an ambulance. And this one is dead. It looks like everyone was drinking heavily.

Looks like it or for real?

Ask tomorrow, Valentin Sergeevich. However, tomorrow I will answer without waiting for your questions. In the meantime, you can lean over and smell. As for me, I can smell it without bending over.

Firefighters say that there are bottles in the house like at a collection point,” Rozhnov added. - This, of course, should not mislead us. - He looked at Demin meaningfully.