Among the contemporaries, russians also frequently meet prototypes of Sasha Beliy from the TV series "Brigada" (18%), the Afonya of the eponymous film (16%)..." (http://www.newsru.com/cinema/29dec2010/kinogeroi_print.html).
What is the regime of the "great combinator" in its pure form in practice — the "dashing 1990s" showed.
Regime of the "great combinator" does not guarantee anything to anyone, since even the "great combinator" inevitably will be attacked by "even more great combinator"[13] or he will face brutal violence of the envious, not capable for "noble combining"[14], — it's a matter of time. And especially those, who creates the wealth of society by their own labour, and on whose life "combinators" of different ranks are parasitizing, under the power of the regime of the "great combinator" are devoid of any warranties, except for guarantee for poverty, because they are busy with labour and they have neither time nor energy for "combining".
Therefore from the point of view of a simple worker, living on one salary, regime of the "grand inquisitor" is more preferable, because it — if certain social norms, prescribed by the "grand inquisitor", are followed, — ensures to the basic statistical population some well-being and growing of welfare.
The complaint of the majority to the "grand inquisitor" may be only that he is badly supporting that quality of life based on the four above mentioned factors: 1) quite effective management of labour in the scale of society, 2) distribution of wealthby justice in its historicaly-established understanding, 3) self-discipline and honesty of the ruling "elite" in the line with the conception of organization of society, which the "grand inquisitor" follows, 4) suppression of anti-systemic minorities, among them community of "combinators", but first of all — of anti-systemic elements in the "elite" itself.
This difference in the relation of a worker to the regimes of the "grand inquisitor" and of the "great combinator" explains the failures of attempts of "de-Stalinization" of the society both in past and in present. Khrushchev and CО were unable to carry out de-Stalinization, because, wrote off the vices of the regime on Stalin, did not establish themselves as the more effective "grand inquisitor" or as the true liberators. In the Brezhnev era KAMAZ trucks on the roads of the country went with the portraits of Stalin on the windscreens without any compulsion to the drivers by the "totalitarian" state. This can be seen as folksy hint to the regime, personified by Leonid Brezhnev, that it is not only not democratic, but even badly cope with duties of the "grand inquisitor". The attempt of "de-Stalinization", which was started by M.S. Gorbachev and A.N. Yakovlev, recruited by CIA, also was not successful, but led to the replacement of the regime of ineffective "grand inquisitor" by the regime of the "great combinator", about whose managerial efficiency and public usefulness it is not necessary to speak at all. Another attempt of "de-Stalinization", started in the 2000s, is also not achieving success, and the reason for this is that it is carrying out by henchmen of the regime of the "great combinator", trying to present themselves as true freedom-lovers[15].
In fact freedom as the property of personality and "combinatoring" as the character of its activity are incompatible with each other: in Russian language the word "freedom" objectively is the abbreviation — God-Given Leadership of Conscience (СВОБОДА — С-овестью ВО-дительство БО-гом ДА-нное). But F.M. Dostoyevsky was understanding freedom somehow differently, and so Dostoyevsky's Christ did not find objections to the grand inquisitor. And accordingly the propensity or at least the moral readiness of the individual to "combinatoring" is depriving him of liberty, and a society, in which "combinators" are free to do what they want, "honouring the criminal code", can not be free.
And that is why the TV program "Court of time" of N.K. Svanidze — illustrative example of "combinatoring" in the field of study and forming of public opinion. 10.11.2010 there were discussed the topic of industrialization of the USSR, led by Stalin in the 1930s. N.K. Svanidze not quite at the right time remembered the fragment from Joseph Brodsky: "a thief is dearer to me than a bloodsucker"[16]. Having bickered a little about the accuracy of the citation of J.A. Brodsky, S.E. Kurginyan and N.K. Svanidze had moved to another question. But none of the parties (S.E. Kurginyan against L.M. Mlechin, under the control over discussion by N.K. Svanidze) did not begin delving deeper into the consideration of the place of the Brodsky's thesis in the real life.
In our opinion, for the morally healthy man, a thief cannot be DEARER than a bloodsucker, because both a thief and a bloodsucker are enslaved by vice, and vice arouse not tenderness, but disgust. That is, the thesis "a thief is dearer than a bloodsucker" — "Freudian slip", expressing solidarity with the thieves, including "great combinators". And accepting this thesis without objections — the same expression of solidarity with thieves, as the proclamation of the thesis itself.
But for us in this case it is important not that all participants in the program, not having objected to the lyrical hero of J.A. Brodsky, admitted by default their solidarity with the regime of the "great combinator"; for us the important is the other: from the point of view of a thief — the one who punishes thieves and protects workers from various types of parasitism, especially systematically organized parasitism under the authority of the regime of the "great combinator"[17], — is a tyrant, a despot, a bloodsucker.
However, the one who eradicates parasitism, including suppressing parasites, not necessarily is the tyrant, despot, bloodsucker, "grand inquisitor". The fact is that real democracy is not boiling down to elective procedures and observance of their periodicity: history knows many tyrannies, received ruling mandates by the organization of exactly formally democratic procedures of voting on certain questions. Real, not formal, democracy — is the first and foremost the freedom (at least of most people) in the previously defined sense of the word, but not only those or other procedures of nominating by the people their representatives into authorities. Therefore its main characteristic property— responsiveness of authorities to the aspirations of the people, which finds its expression in practical politics, as well as protecting the future of the people from their own vices, inherited from the past. Responsiveness to the aspirations and protecting the future of the people from vices requires discipline in the state apparatus, and accordingly — the ruthless removal from the state apparatus of those who violate this discipline. That is, we can agree with the view, expressed by G.A. Yavlinsky in one of the telecasts in the Soviet times: if I want to have a democracy in the society, in the state apparatus I must have a dictatorship.
And in doing so real democracy must solve the same problems in relation to the production and distribution of "earthly bread", self-protection of the system and its reproduction in the succession of generations, which "grand inquisitor" laid on himself, though on the principles of differently understood justice.