not at all want
splitting of Bulgaria and annexing of some part to Turkey (as many Bulgarians have thought earlier); they don't want such things because Bulgaria
is
in Europe, but Turkey isn't, and now we are even in European Union, so that — why should they be so silly to want to run away from this? They wanted to bear names like Ahmed and Mehmed (all men like, hmm, ...
med
-honey — what means mead, of course, where the root comes from the Sanskrit), or also Assans (like the Turkish lion called
aslan /arslan
), or
Gül
-something (i.e. roses), or Sedefs (pearls), Sevdas (beloved women), or, maybe even Aishas (what is a Gypsy name, but comes also from the Sanskrit, where
aksha
meant an eye, i.e. they cherish her like eye-pupil), and others. In the end — it's up to them, how they want, this shouldn't have become political question, but when the communists in totalitarian time have messed the things, so it serves us right.
4.
Social-Democrats and other left-wing
parties. This powers simply
can not come to power in Bulgaria
(they have tried once and might have succeeded but failed because of parts of percent less than the minimum), and this is very
bad
, I think. This is bad because, as you have heard, there is
no victory without fight
, and fight in the left political space we have not, yet in the right space we have, more than necessary. This, at least, does not balance good the left and the right, but it also hampers the left to evolve good. According to the meaning of quite many people, to which this time I join, the left are such mainly pro forma, as a trade mark, but are not at all such in reality (after the last "Mohican", Zhan Videnov). And there could have quietly existed several left-wing parties with influence, which could make coalitions for the elections, if they want, but otherwise remain separate parties. There is nothing bad also if we have one communist party with influence (like, for example, they have in Russia), because the ideas of communism are right — they, the ideas, are even ... divine, if you ask the Ancient Greeks (idea =
i + dea
, where the second, obviously, is a goddess) —, only their realization limps, but the realization of capitalism by us is at all "in wheelchair", so to say. For me the lack of some "significant" Social-Democratic party is a big omission, which surely can be mended, but the soc-communists, by their old habit, think that must exist only one power, for to be a real power. Well, we have touched this question, but something must be done in this regard, and this is work for the masses (when on the top they don't want), i.e. they must begin to want some other left party. OK, let it be so, I will propose to you some names (with implied platforms): New Left Force, Moderate Left Party, Capitalist Left Model, People's Left Party, Party of Left Ideas, Labor Party (like in England), Party of Social Capitalism, even SOCI, if you like, what can be decoded as "Social
Otnoshenia
-Relations and Civilized Institutions".
5.
Peasant parties.
The emergence of such parties was another misunderstanding
, yet they have emerged and have "muddied the political waters" for some time, but it is good that they have not succeeded to reach the Parliament. Now look, for one thing the peasants (or farmers, this sounds better) have never been, and will never be, united power, and for another thing they have decreased significantly in their numbers as a strata (I mean here exactly the farmers, those who produce agricultural things, not just live in the villages), where in Europe they are on the average about 10% of the population, but in some countries, in the United States, for example, they are even 4%. Well, we might have had some such parties for assortment (say, Farmers Party), but not to expect to have success with them. They have emerged, maybe, because of our former, from totalitarian times, Bulgarian Agrarian National Union (
BZNS
in Bulgarian), but this party was, more than obvious, subdivision of our communist party, with functions of a screen, for nobody could have said that we have single-party system. There, you see, not only the farmers have become less, but also the workers as such, i.e. those working in factories, are now not many (again roughly 10, maybe up to 15%, if they are correctly measured, from the employed population). The major part of those engaged with work, according to the author, are people of the sphere of
services
, if there enter, really, all those who provide for us some services, i.e.: transport, education, police, a heap of institutions (say, telephone operators and /or the Internet and /or cable TV), the classical services (like shops, hotels, restaurants), medical care, and possibly others. We all serve each other. The working class was one
momentary phenomenon
(of approximately half a century), when the capitalism was still very green and there were needed many workers (like it was before with the peasants, or the artisans, or, if you like, with the drivers of cars and earlier coachmen). We can divide us on spheres of activity, but not on workers and employees, because then the major part will be employees or servants (as far as they serve meekly to some boss, don't work for themselves, on their own account). But this was a small deviation from the theme of politics.
6.
Businessmen
. Such parties also have emerged by us, but
hastily and for opportunistic reasons
, not as real parties of businessmen, and due to this one such party (BBB, Bulgarian Business Block) just entered in our Parliament and disintegrated and gone out of it. Surely the businessmen are even less than the peasants or the workers. Can be spoken about party of
small
business, for example, but I
