The Theory of the
----------
What is this "FAIRNESS" so many people have been striving to establish in the World for ages?
----------
Shall we learn to think
or become extinct like mammoths?
----------
About
the Author
|
|
Translation
into any language
is possible here
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The Theory of the Socio-Economic FormationsAnnouncement
Feudalism, slavery, capitalism, socialism, communism …What meaning really hides behind these hefty words? Where are we? This theory explains the history of many states; the cause of the collapse of the USSR; the post World War II jump in the economic development of the US, countries of Western Europe and Eastern Asia; the modern problems in the CIS states... It contains the key to modeling of the most expedient production relations in enterprises, countries, and unions of countries with the goal of eliminating public contradictions due to the resolution of economic problems.
«Find where it all started, and you will understand a lot» Kozma Prutkov (a fictional author in the Russian literature of 1850—60s whose pseudonym was used by a group of writers to publish aphorisms) Requires concentration
WHY DO WE LIVE THIS WAY,
MAIN PROVISIOUNS OF THE
THEORY OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRUCTURES
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Relations of Production |
Subjects of Basic (Fundamental) Relations |
|
|
1st subject |
2nd subject |
|
|
Primitive |
There is no steady system of production relations |
|
|
Feudal1) |
Ψ |
C + V |
|
Slaveholding2) |
C + V + Ψ |
- |
|
Capitalist |
C + Ψ |
V |
|
Socialist (Industrial Society) |
C |
θ |
|
Communist (Postindustrial Society or Social Capitalism) |
C and θ, |
|
Notes:
1) It is especially difficult to understand the essence of feudalism, as, outside of the system representations, the term ‘feudal’ was even applied to a landowner in Europe, who was receiving the rent from formally free peasants. However, in this case, when the 1st subject owns the land as the means of production (C) and withdraws the rent (Ì), we no longer have the feudal relations (see the table), but the primitive capitalist relations. For feudal relations, on the other hand, the main characteristic is that the feudal lord does not associate himself with the concept of property. He dictates the conditions, without regard for the rights. He raises the tribute (Ì) not for something, but because of the existence of the power of force. Ghengis Khan is a vivid example of a feudal lord from the point of view of this theory. While racketeering of entrepreneurs is an elementary example of feudal relations in modern times.
2) The slave receives means for existence (V) not in his property, but as working cattle.
We can draw the following conclusion from the carried out analysis:
THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESULTS OF PUBLIC PRODUCTION IN BASIC (FUNDAMENTAL) RELATIONS OF PEOPLE CHARACTERIZES THE ESSENCE OF ALL FORMS (STRUCTURES) OF THESE RELATIONS.
This conclusion is deemed serious and very important!
Let us analyze, in the view of the drawn conclusion, the specific economic relations, which had a place in recent times in the former Soviet Union and are still in the memories of the living generations.
“Society with unpredictable past.”
A publicist of the times of
the Soviet Perestrojka (“Reorganization” started in the USSR by Mikhail
Gorbachev in 1985 – O.D.)
“We are exclusive people, we belong to those nations which do not appear to be part of mankind, but exist only in order to give the world some scary lesson.”
Peter CHAADAEV
Let us consider a few examples of relations, which existed in the USSR between subjects at different levels of social production.
Relations: ENTERPRISE (ORGANIZATION) – WORKER
The 1st subject who determined the terms of relations was, certainly, the enterprise. The 2nd subject in these relations was the worker. The part of the made product (C+V+Ψ), which served for replenishing of the means of production (C), went to the enterprise. The remainder was shared:
V – to the worker, Ψ – to the enterprise.
What do we have? The 1st subject – (C + Ψ); The 2nd – V, ....?
Are these socialist relations? Refer to the table...
As we see, the enterprises and organizations of the country exhibited basic capitalist relations, with just one peculiarity that the role of the capitalists in these relations was carried out by legal entities.
Relations: STATE – STATE ENTERPRISE
The proprietor of all the enterprises in the country was the state. Plans, limits, funds, prices, tasks for shipments – all this, throughout the country, was determined and communicated to state enterprises from above, through the ministries, as state directives. Each ministry, as an authorized state representative, communicated to each of its jurisdictional enterprises the plan for production in all its parameters (C+V+Ψ). It had the right to take C (a shop, machinery, transport, material stocks, depreciation accounts, etc.) away from the enterprise or, on the contrary, transfer it to the enterprise from another one. The ministry also defined
- V for the enterprise (everything it was allowed to use for its operation: funds for development, wages, material incentives, social development). And it also drew up plans of all deductions to the state (Ψ).
What do we have? The 1st subject - (C+Ψ); the 2nd –
V, …again, capitalist relations. Relations: STATE – COLLECTIVE FARM
These relations in the country had important specificity. The matter is that the proprietor of the means of production in the collective farm was the collective farm. Here is how this principal position was explained by Joseph Stalin:
To the
beginning of Theory
3. WHAT SOCIAL ORDER WAS BUILT
IN THE SOVIET UNION?
“If we take, for example, a distinction between the agriculture and the industry, we draw it not only because the working conditions in agriculture differ from the working conditions in industry, but, first of all and mainly, because in industry we have public ownership over the means of production and the products of production, whereas in agriculture we don’t have public, but group, collective-farm property.”
Joseph STALIN “Economic problems of socialism in the USSR”, State publishing house of polit. literature, 1952, pg. 65.
And what did the state receive? This, too, was precisely explained by Joseph Stalin:
“During the bourgeois rule in our country, the industry, transport, etc. was developed usually due to loans… But these loans were enslaving. We have a completely different situation during the Soviet rule. We are building the Turkmenistan railway, which requires hundreds of millions of rubles. We are building Dneprostroj, which also requires hundreds of millions. Do we have here any enslaving loan? No, we do not. All this we are doing due to internal accumulation. But what are the primary sources of this accumulation? There are two of these sources... first, the working class creating valuables and moving the industry forward; second –the peasantry.
As far as the peasantry, we have it in the following way: it pays to the state not only the usual taxes, direct and indirect, but… it also over-pays on rather high prices for the goods of the industry - this is, first; and more or less under-receives on the prices for agricultural products – this is, second. This is the surtax on peasantry in the interests of raising the industry, which serves all the country, including the peasantry. It is something like a "tribute", something like a super tax, which we are compelled to take …
Why do I speak about it? Because some comrades seem to not understand this indisputable thing.”
Joseph STALIN, from his speech to the Central Committee of All-Russian Communist Party of Bolsheviks on July 4-12, 1928. “About industrialization and the grain problem” Mem., V.11, Pg. 159.
As we see in the “state – collective farm” relations, the state withdrew from the collective farm’s product (C+V+Ψ) “something like a tribute", that is a tribute (Ì). The other two parts of the product (C+V) were left to the collective farms.
The 1st subject - Ψ; the 2nd subject - (C+V) …feudal relations.
Therefore, agriculture in the USSR developed more slowly, than the industry.
It is necessary to emphasize, that these were the relations between the state and the collective farms, as legal entities; they did not spread directly to the people, who worked in collective farms and other organizations. Because the “state –person” relations in the country, for all the people, were qualitatively different. We shall analyze them below.
Relations: STATE –PERSON (CITIZEN OF THE COUNTRY)
“The first duty of those who want to search “the ways to human happiness” is not to fool themselves, but to have boldness to recognize frankly that, what it is.”
Vladimir LENIN
That the means of production in the USSR could not be the property of any individual citizens is all clear from the theory and practice of the former USSR. But what did the people receive for their work in state enterprises and collective farms? It was paper money, which, first of all, was not even accepted in any other country, as it was not convertible. On the other hand, taking this money abroad was strictly forbidden. Because it was intended only for the purposes of internal state distribution of the means of consumption, and, at times, it did not even mean anything without the attachment of cards, lists, coupons, etc. With this money it was possible to receive only products and consumer goods inside the country.
Could the person from the USSR, when going abroad, take with him anything from his valuable accumulation for selling, or even take sausages and vodka in quantities more than he was allowed to eat and drink there? Could anybody leave the boundaries of the country at all, if the agencies, which prepared the exit permits, had even the slightest doubt that he might not return from abroad? Or could he even take away his share from the collective farm and leave the village per his own desire? No, the person had no private property in the country, and he, too, was the property of the state.
The 1st subject - (C+V+Ψ); the 2nd subject - (-) ... slave-holding relations!
The essence of this unique political-economic phenomena is that in the country, which was considered socialist, instead of the state ownership over the means of production and the “conditions for free development of everyone, as a condition for the development of all” (according to the Communist and Socialist doctrine); there was a state ownership over all public product and all people as the labor force. All other relations involving people in the country were on top of this economic basis. In other words, with the most progressive aspirations in ideology, the economic basis of the society was built in the system of state slave holding.
4. LAWS OF DEVELOPMENT
IN THE HISTORY OF RUSSIA AND THE USSR
The history of Ancient Russia from the moments of the first mentioning of Slavic tribes up until the invasion of khan Batyj in 1237 is the period of unsystematic public relations and princely strives.
What followed next was almost 250 years of Mongol-Tatar occupation (Yoke), during which, in conditions of extremely precise feudalism, several generations of Russian people and their rulers changed. This period left a very deep trace on all the subsequent history of Russia.
“Traditions of all the dead generations gravitate, as a nightmare, above the minds of the alive.”
Karl MARX
During all the subsequent years, up until 1917, Russia reproduced a feudal form of state system with insufficient ferocity of its governors. And the entire history of Russia during this period is a history of revolts, uprisings and riots, as a result of the people’s soulful rejection of the relations of feudalism and their constant aspiration to liberation. The relative calming of national uprisings in Russia and the jumps in its economy took place only during the times of the most severe despotism of Ivan the Terrible and some other rulers of the country when their behavior had a closer correspondence to the necessary role of the 1st subject of feudal relations.
And, finally, the last of the Russian emperors ascended to the throne - Nicholas II. The person who was not ready to be the Tsar, who was weighed upon the necessity to govern, and was inconsistent in actions. He allowed for Rasputin phenomena, executed strikes and manifestations without analyzing their causes. Yet, at the same time, he showed certain tolerance to freethinking and democracy. The exit of national energy, not being completely suppressed, gave a certain splash in industrial - economic development of the country. But it also weakened the imperial feudal authority in Russia, leading to its defeat in the Russian-Japanese war of 1904 – 1905 and to the revolutionary events of 1905, which, resulted in adoption of the imperial Manifest on October 17, 1905, allowing for the formation of political parties and the foundation of the State Duma, which the Tsar kept disbanding and re-assembling, announcing it to be either a consulting or legislative body. What turned out was democracy in the conditions of feudalism. The country got flooded with meetings, strikes, elections and mutinies. By 1917 the February revolution has ripened as a result of which the Tsar renounced his throne and the country found itself in the conditions of unsystematic public relations.
It is easy to argue and condemn today… But we ought to keep in mind that:
“Reasonable argumentation is possible and perspective only until the emotional intensity of a situation has not stepped over a certain limit. However, as soon as this emotional intensity reaches past a critical level, the possibilities for reasonable influence disappear. In their place there come slogans and chimerical images, which, developing, conduct to mental epidemic. In such conditions the associative elements of the population, which during the domination of common sense would hardly be tolerated, are put forward.”
Carl JUNG, Swiss psychologist and psychiatrist.
Wouldn't it be better to imagine what was then happening in the big country which was at war with more than ten states and which had famine, epidemics, robbery, civil war, illiteracy and revolution.
A Russian philosopher Nikolaj Berdjaev, historian, emigrant, who suffered a lot through the Bolsheviks, but who kept his objectivity as a scientist, as a result of his research came to the opinion that “ Russian communism is a transformation and deformation of the old Russian messianic idea. The communism in Western Europe would have been an entirely different phenomenon”.
“I was convinced that the fault and responsibility for the horrors of the revolution laid, first of all, on the people from the old regime and that they were not to be the judges of these horrors.”
Nikolaj BERDJAEV
He also thought, that the Tsarism, as a matter of fact, was not overthrown by anybody, the Tsarism simply decayed and fell by itself because nobody wanted to support it. After this, Russia found itself in unsystematic conditions; it was in danger of full chaotic disintegration. A historical merit of Bolsheviks was, if we are to put emotions aside, that they found the slogans, which many believed in, and the methods, which people obeyed. Bolsheviks rescued Russia as a state, having paid much for its sake as a sacrifice.
As a result of the revolution, the people who came to power in the country had neither the knowledge in the subjects of micro or macroeconomics, nor the experience in state management.
The first five years of their management (1918 - 1923) is the period of chaos and the most polar swaying in economy from communes, military "communism”, forced hard labor and up to NEP (New Economic Politics - O.D.). At last, Lenin, during his grave illness, may have had “enlightenment". Hear out what he said in his last works on economic subjects “About cooperation” and “Better less, but better”, which he dictated shortly before his death:
“… I was already then proving, that the state capitalism would be higher than our modern economy; …our apparatus is no good, it is borrowed by us entirely from a former epoch; and at the same time we are compelled to recognize a radical change of our entire point of view on socialism;
Before us … there is a task of alteration of our state apparatus, which has been borrowed by us entirely from a former epoch.”
“It is necessary to take to mind in time …It would be most harmful here to assume that we know something or that we have some significant number of elements for constructing a really new apparatus which would really deserve the name of socialist, Soviet and so forth… Here nothing can be done with impudence or push, vigor or energy, or any best human quality in general. And here we should not forget, that … we are still too often inclined to compensate knowledge (or to think, that it can be compensated) with diligence, haste and so forth… It is necessary, at last, to begin approaching it differently… In essence, the issue here is as follows: either we show now, that we have seriously learned something in the business of state building (it is not a sin to learn something in five years), or - that we have not ripened for this purpose; and then we should not take on this business.
… Declare competition right away for drawing up two or more textbooks on the subject of organization of work in general and special administrative work… Send several competent and diligent persons to Germany or to England for gathering literature and studying of this issue… to America or to Canada…”
However, it was already too late for Lenin, and not very clear for his colleagues.
“It is impossible to completely understand Marx's "capital" … not having studied and understood ALL the Logic of Hegel. Hence, none of the Marxists understood Marx half a century later!!”
Vladimir LENIN
And in the mean time, the post-revolutionary country was suffering from famine, cold and ruins; the peasantry was rising on riots, workers – on strikes …already against the new authority. And here, in due place and due historical moment, appeared the one who was capable, as nobody else, to fit the representations of the revolutionary proletariat, rebellious soldiers and the poorest peasants about the order, discipline and “fairness” in relation to the exploiters. Stalin, a person with steel will, but without any production experience or economic education, who had been hardened by his personal life, executed, as well as he could, “Lenin's political testament” and "Marxism", having understood them in his own way.
Stalin "shook up", with a steel fist, the apparatus of the state, which was “borrowed entirely from a former epoch”, clearing it from "the harmful elements"; established dictatorship in the country, carried out Bolshevik’s cooperation of peasantry, etc. He used the Communist party of Bolsheviks as an instrument for the construction of a new, unbeknown to the world, system of socioeconomic organization.
“The party is needed by the proletariat to win the authority and to hold the dictatorship. The party is the instrument of dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Joseph STALIN. “Questions of Leninism”. Publ. 11, OGIZ. State publishing house of polit. literature, 1947, pg. 72.
Private property, instead of its development and removal of its negative features, with preservation and multiplication of the positive ones, was violently "abolished", at times, with physical destruction of its owners; and replaced with primitive-general nationalization. Marx had only sharp critical regard for this type of a society as “rough communism” or “barrack communism”.
“That such abolition of private property is not at all the real mastery of it, is visible right from the abstract denial of all the world of culture and civilization, from the return to the unnatural … to simplicity of poor, rough person, who has no needs and who has not only failed to rise above the level of private property, but who has not even grown up to it.”
Karl MARX, Friedrich ENGELS.
Mem. V. 42, P. 115
After only a few years of Stalin's efforts, the first ‘five year’ plan was adopted in the country. Tasks were established for everyone along with the evaluation for their performance. A real evaluation! If one was 10 minutes late to work - three years of camps. Took a stem of grains from a collective-farm field - 10 years of camps. It was directed to ensure the fulfillment of the state plan, but if one failed – to the wall for execution! That is, the basic (production) relations that were built in the country corresponded precisely to the relations where the 1st subject (state) got C+V+Ψ, and the 2nd subject (-), i.e. only what was allocated to him for a controlled restoration of his labor force. And the business went up!
Stalin managed to lift the country from a primitive chaos in which it found itself after the revolution. And he managed to construct a HIGHER SOCIAL ORDER, than the canned Ghengis Khan-style feudalism in which Russia had been for ALMOST SEVEN CENTURIES prior to the February revolution of 1917. And at the same time, the state cared for the workers. The improvement of the life of workers was declared to be the main objective of the state. The standards of life began to improve; people became accustomed to the discipline and hypocrisy, and started singing songs. Those who obeyed the authority and were of more use to the state, received extra food allotments in special distribution facilities and better medical care.
And who, at that time, knew anything better than that? It was the time when the whole world experienced deep crisis and wreckage of out-of-date socioeconomic systems. In the beginning of the 1930’s, for example, in the USA, the industrial production fell down by 48 percent; a third of the farmers went bankrupt. Because of insolvency, 5 thousand banks closed. Almost 14 million workers and clerks found themselves without jobs and financial aid. Revolution there seemed inevitable.
At the same time, Stalin's propagation was broadcasting to the world about the formerly unseen high rates of growth of "communist" industry in the USSR. Successes, for sure, were real. For example, in Belarus, according to the official statistics (which likely means, with some exaggeration), during the first five-year plan (1928 - 1932) the worth of fixed assets increased 4 times, the capacity of electric power stations – 4.2 times, the total volume of production – 4.7 times. 27 hospitals and 40 ambulance stations and clinics were built; the number of offices of public health services at enterprises increased 5 times; 1492 village and regional club houses, 151 clubs and 931 stationary libraries opened up; the number of film projectors almost tripled. The salary of workers and employees more than doubled, commodity circulation increased 4 times. Throughout the country, in a counterbalance to the “decaying bourgeoisies”, the prices on produce were getting lowered not once but even several times per year, the introduction of the world’s shortest 7-hour working day began without the reduction of wages, the obligatory free-of-charge elementary education for children of school age was introduced. The first five-year plan was executed in four years, the second one (1932 - 1937) – in three years. Including, unfortunately, the plan for “catching rogues and enemies”. A lot of innocent people were lost, and that, of course, cannot be justified.
But it is also important to listen to the following opinions:
“What kinds of interviews do some former members of the Political Bureau give and what kind of memoirs do they write. Nonsense type, petty… Give ideas. Ideas! Essence! Contents! ... We have been having Reorganization all the time. I am for reorganization, for innovation, for new introduction. But it is necessary to go in stages… Joseph Vissarionovich (Stalin – OD) was a very cautious person. Very cautious. He saw far out. Saw a lot. He saw… If you only take one question: war with fascism. What would have happened with Russia, with the USSR if we had not carried out in 10 years a struggle, which would have normally required 50 - 60 years? What would have been with Russia? It would have been crushed for 500 years, worse than under the Tatar yoke. That's what would have been with Russia. And now they criticize: that, another, fifth, tenth…”
Lazar KAGANOVICH, close colleague of Stalin, one of the active organizers of reprisals of 1930- early 50s, shortly before his death (1991ã.), in an interview to N.Leontjev
Really, what would have been with Russia, Europe, the world, if the outcome of the Second World War had turned out differently? Nobody knows the answers to these questions. And consequently, it is necessary to ascertain, that Stalin played his role in the history of the country not worse than any other of the rulers prior to him, for example, Ivan the Terrible. His country managed to deflect the aggression of the greatest force of global terrorism of all times and won the Great Patriotic War of 1941 - 1945.
It is nowadays that we talk about democracy, rights and freedoms of persons. But back then very different ideas dominated the minds of politicians of the most powerful country of Europe and its allies:
“The strong one is obliged to dominate over the world and to press the weak one… there is no common right for everybody, Germany will either reign above the world - or will become nothing”.
Adolf HITLER
The
world shuddered, when these ideas went to practical realization.5. DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM AFTER
THE CRISIS AND THE SECOND WORLD WAR
Perhaps, of the most importance to the world was that the lessons of the Russian revolutions were useful for other countries. It made them seek reasonable solutions for public contradictions so as not to force workers towards the overthrow of public foundations.
"It is necessary to condemn capitalism … It is also necessary to condemn totalitarian communism. It is necessary to find the third way - participation … through "the association of the capital and work", by associating the workers to the shared capital and the profit of enterprises."
Charles Då GAULLE,
President of France, 1968.
"The person of labor is not simply an instrument of production, but also a person, who in the production process has a priority over the invested capital. By the very act of his work the person becomes the master in his workplace, the owner of products of his work and their distribution."
Pope JOHN PAUL II, 1983.
These are, truly, great ideas! High production efficiency is achieved when there is sufficient motivation for working and developing the means of production. As a result of a civilized realization of these ideas, many countries are already enjoying qualitatively high basic relations.
The first attribute of such progressive relations is the taxation of property (real estate) and land (further referred to as property), which was a major tool of a well-known Marshall’s plan and which is used now in the most advanced countries. The essence of these taxes is the de-facto recognition of the status of public property on all the material assets in the country. That is, the society (the state) has taken on the role of the 1st subject and, via the laws of the country, has determined (delegated) the rights of the citizens and organizations to certain assets. It has also established reasonable limits to these rights as well as the protection of the rights and the limits by special institutions.
These “intelligent” taxes, by means of market mechanisms, without force, in a socially favorable way, redistribute the means of production for the benefit of those who can ensure their most effective usage (with the highest profit). Those, who are not capable of achieving a due level of effectiveness of the property in their usage, face the need to transfer (sell or give) this property to more effective business executives. Under these conditions, small business automatically gets a privilege: the enterprises with small property have small taxes, too. Also, these conditions motivate all the subjects of production to get rid of their immobilized resources and strive to increase the rate of return from their means of production. In fact, this tax can even be declared as voluntary, with a condition: the one, who does not pay the tax necessary for the society to maintain the state, does not get protection of the property by the state. While those, who do pay the property tax, have the right to their property guaranteed by the state; and in case of their property’s destruction or damage can get certain compensation.
This is a manifestation of reasonable socialist production relations. But they
can be manifested in other forms as well, for example, in the enterprise’s usage of loan capital, which is characteristic for the Japanese economy. The means of production together with the part of the product, that serves as their replenishment, (C) are the property of the bank; while the consumed part of the product (θ) is left for the manufacturers: managers and workers. In such relations nobody aspires to collect the means of production just to have them in stock. On the contrary, everybody tries to get away with the minimum of the necessary assets and to raise the efficiency of production. And consequently, the Japanese economy has a high rate of return.Another,
even more widely seen, example of socialist relations is the renting and leasing of property in free relations: the 1st subject is the proprietor of the means of production (C), and the 2nd subject – the proprietor of the produced product (θ).In major spheres of p
ublic production of the industrially advanced countries, the private-capitalist property has long ago succumbed the dominating place to the joint-stock property, and, as a rule, with participation of many workers. This is an even higher form of nationalization of the means of production. As noted by Marx, the capital in joint-stock companies attains:"…direct form of the public capital (the capital of directly associated individuals) as opposed to the private capital … It is the abolition of the private capital as private property within the very framework of the capitalist way of production".
Karl MARX, Friedrich ENGELS.
Mem., Vol. 25, Part.1, Pg. 479.
With the development
of forms of labor participation of workers in the profit sharing of their enterprises (in addition to the salary payouts) we already get the "enterprise - worker" production relations of the highest level, i.e., communistic in theory. Such relations are no longer rare in developed countries. Here are some facts.In 1952, under the
initiative of Konrad Adenauer, the Bundestag of Germany passed the law "About organization of enterprises", in 1953 - the law "About cartels", then a number of other statutory acts. This empowered workers to become co-owners of enterprises and their representatives -- to receive the right of participation in management of the enterprises.In France, the
ordinance of August 17, 1967 (the supreme statutory act of the state; became effective as of January 1, 1969) made it obligatory for the personnel to participate in the results of their company's activity if the number of employees exceeded 100 persons; other companies were encouraged to do it on a voluntary basis.Between 1973 and 1989,
the Congress of the USA approved 17 federal acts, which resulted in an active growth of the number of companies with the shared property of workers. There are already tens of thousands of such companies in the USA; and millions of people own shares in enterprises and banks.Japan has very
advanced forms of calculating workers' welfare based upon their labor contribution, years of service, level of qualifications, quality of work and the general result of the company's activity. At the same time, the right to private possession of the capital has an ever-decreasing value. In addition, a major principle is getting implemented and developed there: separation of the property right from the management functions. As a result, the decisive role in managing the production is getting transferred to a layer of experts - managers. Another well-known specific feature of Japan is the system of lifelong employment, which has a very important social value. Not of lesser importance are the systems of relations between the managing personnel and other workers, the so-called systems of "communication and consultation" or "managing systems on the basis of cooperation".Taxation of enterprises’ profits minus the part which "serves again as the means of production", and taxation of physical persons’ incomes minus the part which is necessary for replenishment of their labor (a tax-free minimum living wage) is an element of
production relations of the highest level already in the relations between the state and its enterprises/citizens.So, as surprising
as it may be for both, "capitalists" and "communists", to read the conclusion here, it is necessary to ascertain that: capitalism in the economically advanced countries today is only a traditional word used as a tribute to the irrevocably gone history. In reality, however unnoticeably for the public awareness, in the countries with the highest levels of production efficiency and standards of living (the USA, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland, Germany, Canada, France, Japan, etc.), capitalism has in many ways already transformed itself into socialist and communist relations."I saw the "slaves of capitalism", they live well.”
Nikita KHRUSHCHEV,
former head of the USSR
As far as the USSR
is concerned, applying the definition of a socialist country to it was unsubstantiated."Culture and law cannot be higher, than the economic formation, on which they are based."
Karl MARX
6. THE REASON FOR DISINTEGRATION
OF THE SOVIET UNION
The USA together with NATO, SEATO, CENTO, etc., were probably making various "perfidious" plans against the USSR (as well as the USSR did, together with its allies under the Warsaw Pact, against the former); but that was not the reason for the disintegration of the country.
What happened in the history of the Soviet Union was similar to what had taken place in Russia in 1905 - 1917. Because of the inconsistencies between the ideology (communism, social justice, freedom, equality) and the slaveholding socioeconomic basis in the country, by the time of Stalin's death, there was no person in his environment who could adopt his methods of state management and become and adequate 1st subject in the system of state slavery. This led to the economic, political and ideological crisis in the USSR.
"I reject these terms - capitalism, socialism, I deem them to be very conditional. I do not know, what capitalism is, I do not know its basic principles and attributes. I don't think, anybody knows what socialism is, either. It is still only an idea.”
À.N. YAKOVLEV in 1992, former member of the Political Bureau, Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for Ideology, one of the main initiators and ideologists of Gorbachev's Reorganization.
Having rejected the Stalin’s system which was in the economic basis of the country, and not imagining any other system to replace it, the ideology brought the country to the “free market”, the union agreement, “socialism with a human face”, etc., thus expediting the society towards an unsystematic condition.
“If the thinking collapses, the order also collapses.”
CONFUCIUS
“Each human business goes successfully only when it is guided by the mind and knowledge.”
Nikolay CHERNYSHEVSKY
Many have already forgotten the enthusiasm, which almost everyone felt when listening to Mikhail Gorbachev's speeches in 1985 - 1988. Now he is seen as the originator of the breakdown of the USSR. And rightly so. But what exactly was his fault? Was it that, having learned the secrets of NKVD (People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs - O.D.) and GULAG (Chief Administration of Corrective Labor Camps - O.D.), and having realized the essence of Stalinism, he felt the need to liberate his people in his country, and by that broke the laws of the Stalin’s SYSTEM? The admission of democracy into slavery brought about the explosion of the creativity of the people, prompted meetings, debates, elections and strikes. People started to reject and perfect the system; thousands of laws, rules and stipulations were passed.
“Who undertakes individual issues without the preliminary resolution of the general ones, will inevitably continue to unconsciously "stumble" against these general issues. And to stumble against them blindly in each individual case means to doom the policy to the worst swaying and unscrupulousness.”
Vladimir LENIN
“The result of the opposite creative actions is chaos.”
Ron HUBBARD
As a result, there was a sharp fall in production volumes, followed by the issuance of "empty" credit money, their inflation and destruction of the public basis of the country with disintegration of the state.
7. WHERE ARE WE? WHAT PRODUCTION SYSTEM
ARE WE OPERATING IN TODAY?
Naturally, after an unsystematic public state (which, for example, happened after the collapse of the Soviet Union), as a result of a spontaneous course of development, when the laws of this development are still not understood, the relations of the state and its subjects can only transition to feudalism, when the public product in relations of production is distributed per formula:
The 1st subject – Ψ; the 2nd subject – (C +V),
Feudal relations prevail in many modern states of the world. They are, certainly, at higher levels than in the days of Tutankhamen, Ghengis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Hitler, etc.; with greater or smaller degree of adequacy of the 1st subject to the character and essence of these relations.
Feudalism in the relations of the state and its economic entities is the main reason for the economic problems in many present-day countries. It is evidently shown in the tax systems of these countries, where taxes are taken solely with a fiscal purpose; and where the extremely powerful taxation tools are not used with the intention of activating the economy and influencing the subjects' activity. By means of such taxes, the enterprises are deprived of their share of amortization, and the workers – of the necessary wages; the competitiveness of products is reduced; the need for turnaround means is increased; producers lose the ability to flexibly adjust the prices, that is, to bargain in the markets in relation to their competitors from more advanced countries.
Such taxation renders adverse effects on these countries’ economy: manufacturers experience decrease in sales volumes and production profitability, and increase in losses and non-payments, including against their tax liabilities. As a result, a budgetary deficit is created, which these countries then try to beat with extra emissions of national currency, creating inflation and demonetization of national economies, giving rise to the primitive barter and inducing their population, enterprises and banks to accumulate foreign currency.
The basic (underlying) relations in each of modern states are still far from perfection.
ABOUT THE PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE GIVEN THEORY OF SOCIOECONOMIC STRUCTURES
One of the best-known Western Public Science concepts, which were criticized during the days of the Soviet Union, was the theory of convergence. Its representatives (J. Helbreit, U.Rostow, J.Tinbergen and others) asserted that the most determining feature of the social development was the tendency towards the rapprochement of "socialism and capitalism", smoothing of economic, political and ideological distinctions between them and gradual synthesis into a more perfect "mixed society". It seems that, ultimately, convergence will manifest itself: the world is gradually moving towards new levels of public organization based on the principles of freedom of the individual and respect for his rights. The key to making this organization a reality, in our opinion, is the above-presented Theory of Socio-economic Structures. It allows to comprehend the reasons for the crises of the fallen states and to explain the major problems of the modern ones; to foresee new serious problems in some of the largest modern states and to offer rational ways of their resolution in the interests of the planetary stability, eradication of primary causes of animosity between peoples, terrorism, narcotics and new revolutions.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Those who have understood the essence of this work, naturally, have a question: "And how practically is it to rise from an existing level of public conditions in the country to a level with the best efficiency of production relations?"
It should be noted that revolutions cannot be a rational method for transforming production relations in the country. Because they destroy the existing system of relations and impede the development of the society, throwing it back to the unsystematic state. We do not need new revolutions.
“A gradual abolition of slavery is better than sudden”
HEGELTo transform a state in a rational way is only possible by means of the state itself. It is necessary to perfect the laws of the state, with a realization and a clear vision of the ultimate goal – the optimal system of relations, which needs to be intentionally strived towards.
The algorithm of practical decisions will have certain peculiarities for different countries, but at the basic level these decisions, in many respects, will be similar, as predetermined by the theoretically unequivocal end result.
On the basis of the above Theory of Socio-economic Structures, and with regard to the world's experience in the fields of economics and public relations, an ECONOMIC CONCEPT has been developed, which offers explanation of the main problems in the economic systems of the CIS (Commonwealth of the Independent States, part of the former Soviet Union – OD) and recommendations for their resolution by means of national monetary-credit and taxation instruments. The main provisions of this Concept are presented on the site http://dovgel.com in the article «ECONOMIC PROBLEMS IN THE COUNTRIES OF THE CIS AND THE WAYS FOR THEIR RESOLUTION” (yet to be translated from Russian into English – OD).
The Concept is suitable for application in any country. It includes the following blocks - concepts of subsystems:
Emissions of national currency as a powerful source of effective state investments and the means for satisfying the needs of the national economy in money without inflation (an extremely important and urgent scientific solution based on the analysis of the problems with dollar, mistakes with euro and a miracle-experience of Japan, which has, long ago and unnoticed, become the primary investor in the world);
Taxes as an instrument of stimulation and optimization of production while maintaining the least necessity in producers’ turnaround means, the best efficiency in the use of resources, restrained consumption in favor of investments, the maximum competitiveness of products and a zero-deficit of the state budget (demonstration of tax solutions in the states with the most competitive national economies against the problem taxes in Russia, Belarus and other countries);
The system of motivations for workers, investors and state administration agencies as a way of increasing the overall effectiveness and accelerating the development of public economy (analysis of the world experience with a substantiation of the best solution for the state, the proprietor and the worker).
The examples in the existing world economy give evidence to the validity of the drawn conclusions. The following framework has also been developed to support implementation of this knowledge:
A concept for a system of laws needed for the optimization of production relations, up to their theoretical highest level, and elimination of economic reasons for criminality in any country (about 15 laws are necessary);
A program for an educational course for managers (20 hours long) and a methodical manual for specialists of organizations;
A unique practical experience in designing a system of commercial accounting for enterprise and its units as well as for the employee’s ownership in the property of their enterprise out of its profits (over 100 contracts have been fulfilled).
The understanding of the laws of social development and the experience of the mankind contains everything necessary for modeling, in any country, the relations of the highest level from the point of view of economic efficiency as well as the rates of public progress. The country, which will build its economy in accordance with the above-mentioned concepts, will achieve the maximum of its opportunities in terms of the growth rates of the national income and well being of the population, with the harmonious coexisting of interests of all the members of the society and their social security.
What is currently most urgent for Belarus, Russia and all the states of the CIS, is the proposition on the subject of joint currency of Belarus and Russia with substantiation of an alternative approach – for the interstate currency of the CIS with preservation of the national currencies. The idea behind the mechanism for launching of the CIS currency has principal novelty. Its realization will create a break-through in the CIS economy and allow achieving the highest rates of rational development in all of its states in a short period of time.
As long as it is done before the time runs out.This knowledge is a very important achievement on the Scale of the Planet. The problem is that it requires the 1st subject of the state to penetrate the essence of the Theory of Socio-Economic Structures and understand the laws of movement of public systems.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To the reader
Dear reader, thank You for Your attention.
If the essence and importance of this work is clear to You, I ask for Your help in promoting it for the public awareness and realization.
For other publications, see http://dovgel.com.
The Word-file for printing may be copied here: theory-e.(zip)
Evgenij Dovgel,
September 2006
Translation by Olga Dovgel,
October 2006
"There will come a time when our descendants will be amazed that we did not know things that are so plain to them". Lucius Annaeus Seneca,
|
Shall we learn to think
or become extinct like mammoths?
-------
A new theory
of the origin of the Universe...
THEORY
FOR THE ORIGIN OF
THE UNIVERSE
Analysis of CERN’s
Final Report on
Safety of its Large
Hadron Collider
LHC Kritik /
|
|
We ask for your help promoting the below announcement in your subscriptions and on your sites: |
|
The developed theory (http://dovgel.com/engl/e-r.htm) explains in an easy to read format the appearance of matter, the effect of gravitation, the nature of black holes and proves that experiments of the European center for nuclear researches (CERN), are capable of destroying the planet. It is urgently needed to have an independent safety study of the planned experiments. Please ask people to read the article "About the New Theory of the Origin of the Universe and the dangers of extreme experiments with matter", http://dovgel.com/engl/ontve.htm |