With whom and against whom we will be friends?

First, you have to be friends. And I do not even know - unfortunately it is or fortunately. Spontaneous manifestations of friendship among the masses have already poured onto the streets of Greece, some countries of Eastern Europe, and even South Korea. In Russia, fortunately, the friendship of peoples has long been under the reliable and wise control of the state. After all, other than wisdom can not be called these carefully verified gas PR campaigns and other coercive friendship activities. This is me without irony - everything is very calm, neat and beautiful, as our old friend Alexander G. Lukashenko said. And indeed, at the level of a single Russia, we have everything according to plan. We believe our prime minister by 77% (although earlier - by 81%), the president - by about 73%, the government - did not find statistics, but also, probably, we believe. Let it be so - after all, you need to trust someone.
Let's go back to the friendship. The key to understanding the role of conflicts in the development of harmony in society can be a brief acquaintance with the basic ideas of political conflict management. Historically, the concept of a paradoxical combination of the notions “struggle for life”, that is, conflict and “the development of an integral closed system” in the natural science context, we encounter in the 19th century in Charles Robert Darwin. Everything is very simple: the existence of a conflict between interacting subjects is the driving force leading the system to a new, more perfect state. That is, this force ruthlessly pushes the participants of the system among themselves, and the strongest survives. This concept was first introduced to political science by the German philosopher of Jewish origin, Karl Marx. Everything is also very simple: an integral part of the existence of society is class conflict, it explains the process of historical development and improvement of socio-economic formations. That is, as claimed by other researchers (M. Weber, G. Zimbel, P. Sorokin, and others), the conflict is something that is given to us from above, and we can only rationalize it, we can rise above it unable. Only T. Parsons tried to define conflict as a social pathology, but he was looked at as a heretic.
All this led to the rejection of attempts to "resolve" the conflict as the complete and final elimination of contradictions. Instead, the notion of "settlement", that is, the streamlining of power interactions of the opposing sides - in fact, the introduction of some "rules of war".
But the theory is theory, but in practice everything happens the same way every time. How the conflict originates, nobody knows. The first stage is characterized by a hidden increase in discomfort - some desires develop independently among the participants. If the desires of the animal level (food, shelter, sex, family), then very quickly it turns out that if you unite in a pack, it will be easier to provide yourself with resources that, with a reasonable approach, are more than enough for everyone. That is, the problems of immediate life support always just unite. But as soon as a society of people is formed, the very nature of the human community leads to the development of “relative” mutual desires, which ultimately boil down to the desire to possess what the other has. It manifests itself as a desire to be the richest, most famous, most important, and, in the end, the most intelligent - to control the thoughts of others. At this level of development, all desires are unconscious desires of conflict. It is their unawareness that usually leads to an increase in incomprehensible tension, which, reaching a certain level, leads to an abrupt uncontrollable collision. And what pacifists profess is simply the fear of experiencing aggression.
What is it that wars are inevitable due to our inner nature? To answer this question, let us consider what changes qualitatively in the state of an integral closed system after the end of the open conflict stage. The main thing that catches the eye is, if not the increased feeling of love for each other, then at least peace of mind. This is accompanied by the emergence of joint interests of development and the dumping of the aggregate level of imaginary "relative" social desires. Such is the dialectic - the potential energy of opposition is transformed into a qualitative forward movement. And as long as we remain at the level of “social animals”, Nature treats us precisely as animals, the number of the livestock of which needs to be optimized, leading us in this way to some kind of unknown goal ...
The only thing that can save us from the upcoming massacre is just unification. But the union at a new level. And with a new goal. Not for imaginary social needs, not for the sake of physical survival as a species. Not just a new National Idea is needed. We need a new goal of the existence of human civilization.
Because today the problem is that we can no longer define the subject of a global conflict, and even identify the opposing sides - that is, somehow rationalize, direct the confrontation in a constructive direction. Globalization reveals such deep-seated root causes of conflicts and their number that it is impossible to see the full picture. Hatred becomes causeless. Today it is impossible to win - there are too many enemies and at the same time we cannot reach them. We also have no right to lose.
But let's remember from what we abstracted in due time, having taken the conflict as objectivity. Let us recall the force that mercilessly incites in us hatred towards each other. It's time to be friends against God.