Армянская «революция» в контексте солидарологии

Abstract

The article considers logical and historical links between the develop- ment of solidary relations investigated by solidarology and revolutionary processes that took place in the Republic of Armenia in the spring of 2018. These connections are due to the fact that the quintessence of studies of the theory of solidarology is the conclusion that, in opposition to conflicts, the priority development of solidary elements in public relations and ensuring their transformation by peaceful means; so-called “revolutionary” processes in Armenia had a peaceful, non-violent character, so in essence they were not revolutionary in the proper sense of this concept, but a moment of progressive evolutionary transformations in the country according to the laws of solidarology. The main argument in favor of such a statement is that not a single drop of blood was shed in these events, no violence against the personality and no collapse of public life as a whole were noticed, most decisions were made on a compromise, mutually satisfactory basis, and no one was subjected to political repression neither by “prerevolutionary” authorities, nor by “winners” in the confrontation. Therefore, the Armenian “revolution”, due to its specificity, requires a special scientific and philosophical analysis and artistic interpretation. The new scientific and philosophical discipline of solidarology believes that in solidary relations the personal interests of the subjects of relations are transformed into a single, universal interest in the striving of everyone towards a common goal, good and harmony. This phenomenon in the Armenian “revolution” found practical expression in the fact that the single idea of “everyone and all” of its participants was a change in the current situation, and so there was a need to change power in the country peacefully, without any violence. One of the leaders of the movement, N. Pashinyan, understood it in time and came forward with the goal of uniting all for joint actions. The social thrust of this movement, the ability to provide effective social progress, the cultural and civilizational consistency of the goals and tasks of the “revolution” must become the subject of a special analysis as its consequences and further developments become clear.