EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Anyone who claims that socialism has produced generally significant achievements is in fact saying that the realization of these achievements makes him relatively more satisfied than if they had not been realized, while at the same time trying to equalize his own subjective assessment with that of everyone else.
It is almost universally accepted that socialism, as a political system in which the state has total power, making it a monopolist in the role of the manager of social relations, is a bad thing because it contradicts the idea of a free society. At the same time, arguments for socialist production achievements are still found.
Precisely because the socialist state takes away the individual's freedom to self-govern and accordingly to dispose of his property according to his subjective assessment of which course of action will produce the most satisfactory results for him, socialist production cannot be qualified as an achievement in any economic sense.
First, it should be noted that the argument about alleged socialist production achievements makes two assumptions that complement each other: The first is that the decisions that a socialist state makes about the allocation of scarce resources to specific production goals reflect the preferences of society. The second is that the outcome of any production activity (or any resource) has absolute utility. Both assumptions, however, are wrong.
The first assumption stems from the holistic notion that what is considered society is a unit that has a life of its own, exists independently of individuals, and can think, evaluate, and act. As such, it is assumed that what society “thinks,” “evaluates,” and “does” is imperative to the preferences of individuals. This prioritization of “society” preferences over those of the individual is usually justified by vox populi. But the concept of “society” is only a metaphor for inter-subjective interaction and does not exist outside the actions of individuals.
The second assumption comes from the labor theory of objective value. According to it, a person values a resource in terms of the amount of labor expended in its production. It follows that as long as labor is expended in the production of something, it has absolute utility for everyone. In fact, value is subjective and is a process of assigning an ordinal rank to resources by the individual in terms of their marginal utility to him, as he perceives it in the context of satisfying his needs.
From what has been said so far, it is clear that whatever is produced can only receive an individual evaluation, arising from the heterogeneity of individuals' preferences and the corresponding marginal utility that they attach to it. Accordingly, regardless of what the result of production activity is, it can be evaluated as an "achievement" only in the context of an economized means that contributes to consumer satisfaction at the lowest opportunity cost.
Anyone who claims that socialism has produced generally significant achievements is in fact saying that the realization of these achievements makes him relatively more satisfied than if they had not been realized, while at the same time trying to equalize his own subjective assessment with that of everyone else.
What such a person forgets to ask is: what if the socialist state did not have a monopoly on the ownership of the scarce factors of production? And if that were the case, wouldn't society then be relatively better off, since each individual could prioritize the use of his private property in a way that made at least one person richer (himself) and no one poorer?
The comparison of the relative well-being of the individual in production carried out under the conditions of the institution of private property and vice versa - under the conditions of monopolized ownership of the factors of production - requires an analysis of the characteristics of the two modes of production and the accompanying institutionalized norms of interaction between individuals.
For an analysis that makes this comparison and demonstrates that the market is a more appropriate means of increasing wealth production, as subjectively assessed by the individual, and the inability of a socialist state to perform either an ex-ante or ex-post comparison of income and expenditure and accordingly economize resources, see here.
Wrong again. The crudest statistics. There are about 250 countries in the world. All with capitalism. Of these, the economically developed hardly exceed 70, leaving 180 so-called "developing" or in the old "Third World". And they were "Third World" because they were less developed than the socialist countries, about 20 in number. So it turns out that for about 160 countries capitalism is worse than socialism, and for only about 70 it is better. Which means that capitalism is better for only 30% of the countries in the world and worse for the remaining 70. Things get even worse, considering that only 15% of the people on the planet live in these 30% of the countries. So it turns out that for over 80% of the people socialism is the better option. And there is nothing surprising in that. Capitalism increases the wealth primarily of a small greedy minority, who pay for "economic and social research and theories," like the article I'm writing under.
I am not at all touching on the fact that the quality of life in the majority of the former socialist bloc deteriorated after the change of system.
There is no capitalism in these Third World countries - in most places it is dictatorial kleptocracy.
The socialist bloc had an absolutely unstable and unsustainable economy. The very fact that there are currently no communist countries (apart from the misery in Cuba and the DPRK) is good evidence of what socialism leads to. The data and economic history refute all the nonsense you have spread in your post.
The economic system "dictatorial kleptocracy" exists only in your heads. In the Third World countries there has been capitalism since they existed, you just prefer not to see it because it is profitable for you. And the Third World countries are lagging behind the developed ones because of your beloved free market.
I remember the economic system of socialism as much more stable than the capitalist one. It is ridiculous to even talk about the stability of the capitalist system. The socialist one, on the contrary, has every chance of being stable, since it eliminates the main destabilizing positive feedback loop - the accumulation of private capital.
There have never been communist countries and Cuba and North Korea are not communist. The fact that you call them communist only shows your ignorance regarding politics and economics. Two artificially isolated countries without any particular natural resources like North Korea and Cuba are hardly a yardstick by which to prove anything. You call yourself an "expert", but you use tavern arguments. The proof was the socialist bloc, which in an extremely short time achieved average prosperity, and not for 15% of its population but for 99%. And of course, socialism was between the more developed and the less developed, because in theory this is the meaning of socialism - to eliminate the extremes of capitalism. If socialism had imposed itself on the whole world in 50 years, it would have solved all the problems that capitalism now pretends to solve.
The data on economic history refutes your theories precisely, which is why you are falsifying them so hard. I have already written to you about this under the article on protectionism. The history of the socialist country is being falsified even more than that of the rest of the world. And it is true that if you look around you will see that despite the capitalist ruin, almost everything you see is the work of the socialist country! If it were not for the socialist country, it would be the third world here now. Well, with your policy we will become the third world. That must reassure you.
And speaking of Cuba, Cuba is the only country in the world that has a human development index of a developed country and a resource consumption per person compatible with sustainable development. So socialism is really the solution to almost all the problems that capitalism creates for humanity.
How long will my comment wait for approval? There's not a single link in it and not a single offensive or obscene word? You didn't have censorship, right?
Well, since socialism was so great to you, why didn't you keep it? It's true that no one asked you, but still? Do you now prefer to live in socialism, or are you just telling yourself how nice it was? Also, why do you consider all rich people dangerously greedy, aren't there other examples? And, is it fair for everyone to be equal, except for the most equal, who should equalize us? Here are 5 questions, you may answer me, or you may not answer me.
"Since socialism was so great to you, why didn't you keep it?"
Because no one imagined that it would get worse and that he would leave with a dick on his shoulder. Some false mantras were broadcast on some radios, which primarily misled the intelligent part of the population.
"Now do you prefer to live in socialism, or are you just saying how nice it would be?"
I would prefer to live in socialism, but there is definitely no way. Socialism provides the opportunity to work for society and be useful. That makes sense. Capitalism is a pathology, it is based on the lie that the capitalist, working for himself, was useful to society, and with elementary examples of conflict of interest it is shown that it is exactly the opposite. And imagine, I don't want to go to Cuba. It's a bit far for me. You can't "threaten" how nice it was, you can tell.
"Also, why do you consider all rich people dangerously greedy, aren't there other examples?"
There is, but so what? Should we change the rule for the exception?
"Is it fair that everyone should be equal, except for the most equal who should equalize us?"
Why do you constantly confuse socialism with equality? Socialism does not mean equality, but fair inequality. Capitalism leads to unfair inequality. I have developed this topic quite well under the article about healthcare https://ekipbg.com/2012/07/14/healthcare/, the last (so far) comment. Socialism is the one where a person works for himself, not capitalism. Under capitalism, a person usually works for a private individual. And this is its huge problem.
Well, I answered. I've answered more difficult questions.
continuation
"There have never been communist countries, and Cuba and North Korea are not communist. The fact that you call them communist only shows your ignorance regarding politics and economics. Two artificially isolated countries without any particular natural resources like North Korea and Cuba are hardly a yardstick by which to prove anything. You call yourself an "expert", but you use tavern arguments. The proof was the socialist bloc, which in an extremely short time achieved average prosperity, and not for 15% of its population, but for 99%. And of course, socialism was between the more developed and the less developed, because in theory, this is the point of socialism - to eliminate the extremes of capitalism. If socialism had imposed itself on the whole world in 50 years, it would have solved all the problems that capitalism now pretends to solve."
continues
continuation
"The data on economic history refutes your theories precisely, which is why you are falsifying them so vigorously. I have already written to you about this under the article on protectionism. The history of the Soviet Union is being falsified even more than that of the rest of the world. And it is true that if you look around you will see that despite the capitalist ruin, almost everything you see is the work of the Soviet Union! If it were not for the Soviet Union, it would be the third world here now. Well, with your policy, we will become the third world. That must reassure you."
"Your comment is awaiting approval"
End
What exactly has made things worse, comrade? Have you read economic statistics?
Cuba is a huge failure. Take a trip there to see what the place is like and how your favorite regime has reduced the people to utter misery.
And I won't even comment on the jokes that under socialism you work for yourself. When you can't own your own labor, you can't work for yourself.
Bozi, write Quijano, as usual.
by TEAM July 21, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Yes, there was complete misery in Cuba, and why is their HDI like that of a developed country? Higher than that of "modern Bulgaria" 🙂 Besides, I already wrote. Cuba is a small country with limited resources subject to an embargo. It cannot be a measure of the possibilities of socialism.
I quote: "When you can't own your labor, you can't work for yourself."
Could you, gentlemen experts, clarify what it means to be "the owner of your labor"? Since labor is an activity, it is done, not owned, so you are its owner. The result of labor can be owned, and this is precisely the problem of capitalism, that a small number of private owners (under 10% at best) appropriate the product of the labor of the remaining over 90%. What do you own? The right to choose who will rob you of your labor?
Look, the state is not a person. When you work for the state, you work for society. The state is an organization of society and it is more than natural for it to distribute some or all of the goods produced.
By the way, there is censorship here on this site. One of my comments has been waiting for approval for four days now. Let me try one way.
Well, it shifted a bit, but it passed. Today, censorship is sleeping 🙂
And Kosyo has shown much more specifically and well that you are talking complete fantasy.
What is the specific point of Kosyo's comment? He said almost nothing specific. He just shows ignorance of history and economics. Let's go back to the tavern argument about bananas. 🙂
(Stoyan)
You're showing ignorance 🙂 I only read socialist fiction from you
And because you talked about Cuba being sustainably developed, with a high human development index and low resource consumption per person. The consumption of a non-biological resource that I understand to be unsustainable is that of energy resources, because it can be argued that all metals, for example, are more useful outside the reachable depths of the earth than inside them, and their extraction is not unsustainable because they can be recycled at a later stage as well. Having made this clarification, Cuba's consumption of energy resources in oil equivalent is 1022 tons per person for the year 2009. The data is freely available from the World Bank website ( http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE?order=wbapi_data_value_2009+wbapi_data_value&sort=asc ). This puts them between Egypt and Botswana.
Their human development index is 0.776, for comparison we are 0.771. They are strong in two of the three categories - health, thanks to their relatively high life expectancy (79.1 years) and education with an index of 0.876 due to the duration of learning and its accessibility. Their weak point is income - 5416 USD per person, equal to their value in 2005.
Another country that we can compare to Cuba is Costa Rica. They have 1067 tons of oil equivalent consumption per year, a life expectancy of 79.3 years, an education ratio of 0.659 and a GNI per capita of 10500 USD as of 2005. Their overall human development index is 0.744, mainly due to their poor education, and how much worse it is than Cuba's, I don't think you or I know. As far as I know, Intel processors are manufactured in Costa Rica.
And finally, I will give an example of Uruguay, which is significantly further south than Costa Rica and Cuba (which in this case increases their energy consumption) and they consume 1224 tons of oil equivalent per year. Their GNI (Gross National Income) is 13242 USD as of 2005, that is, the US dollars themselves are equal to their value as of 2005. There, life expectancy is 77 years, their education has a coefficient of 0.763 and the overall human development index is 0.783. This puts them ahead of Cuba and in 48th place in the world.
You can view all of this HDI data on the website http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/.
I suppose you could argue that Cuba is a better place to live because there is less inequality. Okay, is that fair? Should everyone share with everyone else what they have produced with their own labor? Is that our idea of morality? Why should someone pay for someone else's education or healthcare just because they have a higher income and can do it? But of course under state coercion. That's my question to socialism.
Well, with the data you provided, you confirm the fact about Cuba that I wrote. Cuba, with one of the lowest oil consumptions, reaches the HDI of a developed country. But the examples you chose are close and can hardly prove anything. When you see all the countries on one graph, as in "the spirit level" p. 217, it is already clearer to you what we are talking about. The data there is for 2003.
And how many dollars their income or GDP is... that doesn't matter at all. What matters is what you can buy.
When arguing about equality, it makes sense to argue about what fair inequality is, not whether there is or is not equality. And the point is that inequality under capitalism is hypertrophied and does not correspond to a person's contribution to society. In other words, some receive undeservedly a lot, and others undeservedly a little. Or as they used to say, some people exploit others. This does not exist under socialism. It is immoral to receive income that you did not deserve and that is not the result of your labor. That is exactly what you who defend capitalism are doing - you defend the appropriation of someone else's labor.
Nobody pays for anyone's healthcare and education under social security. Understand education and healthcare as basic things included in everyone's minimum income. Under social security, there were no unemployed, so everyone paid for their own education and healthcare. You simply have no idea how confused your concepts are and what a misfortune selfishness is (or rather, what a happiness the lack of it is). 🙂
Come on, come on, weren't we part of the third world before socialism? Bulgaria was still a poor country, but a European country, with many of the achievements of technological progress that took place in Europe. Unfortunately, we have waged wars for the unification of all the historical territories of our people, and unfortunately they were too long and unsuccessful. This has definitely slowed down the speed of our economic development.
After the 9th of the 9th, a mass transfer from the Soviet Union of tractors, technologies, and all sorts of other achievements of the fraternal Soviet people began. This is how our development was. And our nuclear power plant is like that, and construction, and the army, and more or less everything. I doubt that we had an original idea for production. And it is no coincidence, since the entire elite of that time went into exile in Belene and other places, or alternatively went silent. Not to mention that some of the achievements of the Soviet Union were purchased or stolen technologies from the West. True, a lot was built, but how, and what, also matters. Finally, how will you explain the empty stores in recent years? With the intergalactic conspiracy against the progressive part of humanity, that is, the socialist bloc, as you call it? This is it, if you care about stability, tell him hello. We have been talking about a crisis here for 4 years, have you seen an empty store?
So, socialism socialized all the economic losses accumulated in the economy, until in the end the system could not stand it and collapsed due to its clumsiness in dealing with the changed conjuncture in the Eastern Bloc. And naturally, it got worse. Such a miracle that you will recover in 1 year was told to you just to maintain some calm in the face of changes. Even if you were 100 years old, it is still not clear how much you will recover, because you have clearly distorted ideas about capitalism, as you demonstrate to us, which obviously could not be harnessed in serious productive efforts working in a capitalist way.
Because there is a difference between working in a way that is "useful to others" and also "for yourself" in a socialist economy and doing something competitive in the global economy in a capitalist and generally whatever way you want.
With respect,
Konstantin Arestov
Konstantin, what you wrote is a modern legend that has as much to do with reality as Snow White and Aladdin. Your post shows two things. You don't know the history of Bulgaria. Especially after September 9th, and you don't know either the socialist or capitalist way of economic organization (a diploma in "economics", "political science" and the like only mean that you have passed a course of indoctrination). In other words, you don't know anything about economics at all. Which is not surprising. Capitalism, and especially its neoliberal extreme, can only be defended by economically ignorant people. The "world conspiracy" against socialism was a fact. It was called the "Cold War". Now the same practices were used against Iraq and Libya and are being used against Syria, Iran, Russia, Belarus and almost every Arab country. So it seems you have not lived and do not live on this planet. You live in some fictional legend that allows you to lull your conscience.
(Stoyan)
The "world conspiracy" is being spread from no where you got to conspiracy theories. Socialism doesn't work because of inherent defects in the system. The only reason socialism will disappear (despite the mass delusion of people like you) is because it is bankrupt.
Not to mention his moral bankruptcy.
@Kihano - the only good thing about socialism is that you would eat dog food and throw stones in a labor camp because you dared to express an opinion that differed from the collective.
What has your favorite socialism proven to be? Is it planned production that deprives people of basic products like clothing and food? Didn't people stand in lines for a banana and use personal connections just to arrange a chocolate bar for their children? Didn't they wait ten or twenty years for a car?
Or when you talk about equality? That someone who doesn't inform on their relatives to the State Security Service, what kind of equality does he get? But you were clearly one of the cops. Oh, democracy has bitten you badly, how quickly the swindling and nepotism have affected you. I guess it has hurt you a lot?
Socialism creates much greater inequality than capitalism. A small group of privileged "comrades" grip the state and society so tightly that the average citizen has neither opportunities for development nor the right to think. Is that the more effective system for you?
And don't argue with me about Cuba and North Korea... We all know how fake this data is. If you like these countries so much - get on a plane and go live there. Believe me, modern Bulgaria won't miss you at all.
I'm just not interested in commenting on your comment. Of all that you wrote, the only thing that's true is that you waited years for cars. And only for some brands. The rest is completely false. Especially about the greater inequality. This is complete nonsense, perpetrated by our Western "friends" during the Cold War, by the way. There are relevant statistics for this. And if you show me a villa of "privileged comrades" from 1989 and compare it with the villas of the current privileged, you will see for yourself the stupidity of your statement. The desire to believe lies is one thing, reality is another. People lived better under the socialist regime. Fact! Life is not just bananas all year round.
"modern Bulgaria" is here, I'm already tired of laughing. What is modern about Bulgaria? The garbage cans? The peeling apartment buildings, the potholes on the roads, the bums or the prostitutes? Todor Zhivkov told you right - "What we built, you can't paint."
Albert Einstein (1949)
Is it worth speaking out about socialism for someone who is not an expert on economic and social issues? For a number of reasons, I believe the answer to this question is “Yes, it is worth it!”
Let us first consider this question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. At first glance, it may seem that there are no significant methodological differences between astronomy and economics, for example. In both astronomy and economics, scientists strive to discover general laws for a certain group of phenomena in order to understand more clearly the relationship between them. But in fact, such methodological differences exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is complicated by the fact that the observed economic phenomena are subject to the influence of many factors. For this reason, the assessment of each of them is very difficult.
Moreover, it is well known that the experience accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history was to a considerable extent limited and subject to the influence of reasons that had nothing to do with the economy in essence. For example, most great states came into being as a result of conquests. The conquering peoples declared themselves legally and economically the ruling classes of the conquered country. They appropriated for themselves the monopoly right to possess the land and elected rulers and priests only from among their own people. And they - thanks to the control over education concentrated in their hands - ensured the preservation of the class division over time and created a system of values that shaped the behavior of people in society, in most cases without their realizing it.
This historical tradition remains in force today. We have nowhere yet overcome what the sociologist Thorsten Veblen called the “predatory phase” of human development. The facts available today originate from it, and the laws that we can deduce from these facts are inapplicable to other phases. But since the goal of socialism is precisely to overcome this predatory phase of human development for the sake of the next, higher stage of development, today's economic science is not capable of clarifying the characteristic features of the future socialist society.
Socialism is aimed at a certain socio-ethical goal. Science, in its private understanding, is not capable of creating goals. Moreover, it itself is not capable of educating them in man. At best, science can provide the means to achieve a certain goal. However, the goals themselves are born in people with high ethical ideals. And if these goals are not stillborn, but have vital force, then they are accepted and implemented by those masses of people who semi-consciously determine the slow evolution of society.
That is why, when it comes to problems affecting humans, we must be careful not to exaggerate the importance of exact science and private scientific methods. And we should not assume that only experts have the right to express opinions on phenomena affecting society.
In our time, there are more and more voices claiming that human society is in a state of crisis and lacks stability. Characteristic of such a situation is that people feel indifference or even hostility towards the groups to which they belong, be they large or small.
Recently, for example, I was talking to a really smart and kind person about the problem of the danger of another war. I noted that this time it could pose a real danger to the very existence of humanity, and I shared the opinion that to avoid it, it would be necessary to mobilize all nations and the existence of an appropriate international organization dedicated to this purpose. * To my great surprise, my interlocutor's reaction to all this was: "And why, in fact, are you so worried about the possibility of the extinction of the human race?"
In the conditions of the nuclear monopoly and the still existing superiority of the United States in this area, even the expression of such reasoning was assessed as a manifestation of "disloyalty", "betrayal of national interests" and complicity in an "international communist conspiracy. - Additional. pr.
I am convinced that a hundred years ago, hardly anyone would have been able to say such a thing. This could only be done by a person who has lost all hope of building within himself some kind of system of inner equilibrium and balance. So many people suffer from such excruciating loneliness and isolation in our time that it is right to ask ourselves: “What, in fact, is the reason for such a situation and what can be the way out of it?”
As difficult as the answers to such questions may seem, in my opinion they should be sought in the very complex and contradictory nature of man. By his very nature he is a being who strives for solitude, but who is also social, realizing himself in a society of his own kind. In his solitude, man tries to ensure protection for himself and the possibility of existence for the people closest to him, to satisfy his own desires and to develop the abilities given to him by birth.
As a social being, he seeks the love and recognition of other people. He strives to share their joys and pleasures, sorrows or misfortunes, and makes efforts to do something to improve their lives.
The presence of these two types of diverse, and often even contradictory, aspirations and inclinations ultimately determine the specific and peculiar character of human nature. The specific dimensions and fluctuations of the various ratios between them determine both the degree of personal inner balance and stability that he can achieve, and the magnitude of his personal contribution to the general well-being and development of the entire society.
It is not impossible that a large part of these two basic types of driving forces and aspirations of human nature and the various combinations and relationships between them are determined and transmitted by inheritance. However, the personal development of a person is to a decisive extent shaped primarily by the influence of the immediate environment in which he grows and develops. Thus, the existing structure of society and its traditions, through the assessments they give to one or another variety of human behavior, most significantly influence and determine both its final appearance and its further functioning and development.
For the individual, the abstract concept of "society" means, above all, the sum of his direct and indirect relations both to his immediate contemporaries and to people from past generations. Each individual person has certain inclinations and abilities to feel and perceive, to desire, to think and to work.
In his physical, mental and emotional existence, however, he is so dependent on society that outside of it it is practically impossible to understand or even think about man. It is through society and through it that man receives the food, clothing, shelter and tools he needs. It is within society that language, forms of thought and most of their content develop and acquire their meaning. Moreover, the very life of man appears and becomes possible thanks to the work, contribution and achievements of many millions of other people both today and in the past. In their totality, after all, they represent what is hidden behind the otherwise so short word “society”.
Therefore, it becomes obvious that over time, man's dependence on society has acquired the character and strength of almost a natural factor, which can neither be canceled nor belittled. At first glance, something very similar to the life of ants and bees is obtained.
However, while their life processes are largely predetermined and governed by firmly established hereditary instincts, the types of social behavior and relationships between people are extremely diverse and subject to significant changes.
Such human qualities as the presence of memory, the ability to communicate through speech and to create numerous and new combinations of already known and accessible conditions and facts, have enabled humanity to develop such forms of life activity that are not dictated simply by immediate biological necessity. They find expression in diverse traditions, public institutions and organizations, in literature, scientific and engineering achievements, in works of art.
All of this provides a key to understanding the ways in which a person, to a certain extent – with the help of his conscious thoughts and desires – is able to influence his life through his behavior and actions.
At the moment of birth, a person inherits a certain BIOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTION, properties and capabilities. They are the results and consequences of the natural driving forces inherent in the human race, and as such, in general terms, remain fixed and practically unchangeable. However, along with them, in the process of his life, a person also acquires a certain CULTURAL CONSTRUCTION, qualities, properties and capabilities. He receives and develops them in the course of his communication, as well as as a result of numerous other influences and impacts. These properties and qualities, this CULTURAL CONSTRUCTION, on the one hand, are much more subject to changes and modifications, on the other hand – they decisively influence and determine the processes and nature of the relationships between man and society.
The results of comparative studies of modern discoveries in the field of so-called "primitive cultures" convincingly show that the types of SOCIAL BEHAVIOR in humans can be extremely diverse, and they depend to a great extent on the dominant type of cultural model of internal organization in a given society. It is on this that the hopes of those who strive to alleviate and improve the fate of man are built.
Humans and humanity are not limited by their very biological construction and nature of mutual destruction. Nor are they IRREVERSIBLY ABANDONED to the whims of some cruel and merciless FATE, the roots of which lie in the essence of human beings themselves.
However, before we ask ourselves the question of how we should proceed to change human society and culture so that life begins to bring more satisfaction, we must first of all be aware of the existence of certain types of conditions that are simply not subject to significant change.
As we have already noted, among them is the BIOLOGICAL NATURE of man itself. Against the background of a much more amenable to change in the appearance of society, it is generally not subject to sharp and noticeable changes. It is also obviously difficult to expect a change in the dynamic course of technological and demographic processes that have taken shape in recent centuries.
The growing concentration of the population, whose existence depends to an ever greater extent on the volume and quality of an ever greater number and ever more diverse range of goods, makes absolutely necessary both the existence of an exceptional degree of division of labor and a numerically increasing and ever more highly centralized apparatus for the management and realization of production.
The possibilities for the SELF-SUFFICIENT existence of separate, limited in number groups of people are becoming and will become more and more difficult compared to the past. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the processes of production and consumption are already transforming the planet and its population into a community, into something WHOLE. Under the influence of all these factors, today man – more than ever before – feels his connection and dependence on society. However, he feels this dependence not as a good or some organic connection, not as a force that serves and protects him, but rather as a THREAT to his own natural rights or even to his very economic and physical existence.
In this situation of increasing dependence of man on society, the EGOISTIC INSTINCT inherent in his nature are increasingly strengthened. At the same time, other SOCIAL motives and tendencies of the human essence, expressing the aspirations for a greater degree of communication, are weakened and even DEGRADED.
This degradation is GENERAL and covers practically all layers of the existing society, regardless of what its “layers” and “sectors” they are in. Becoming increasingly victims and “prisoners” of their own selfishness, people begin to feel increasingly threatened and lose the sense of the simple joys of life.
Having thus outlined the main content of TODAY'S CRISIS OF SOCIETY, we can now also state our opinion on what the outcome of it could be. In short, once a person has lost the sense of the meaning of life as a result of broken or meaningless ties with society, the only way to regain it is to strengthen the social impulses within himself and restore the FULL CONTENT of these ties.
In other words, instead of trying unsuccessfully to hide and run away from society, which for him increasingly takes on the dimensions of the EVIL THAT OPRESSES HIM, he should find ways to further strengthen his ties with the human community in order to change both them and the community itself.
The source of the evil that today's social relations represent for man, in my opinion, is the ECONOMIC ANARCHY OF CAPITALIST SOCIETY. What we observe in it today is how the members of the EXISTING HUGE PRODUCTION ASSOCIATION in any case strive in every way to deprive each other of the results and fruits of their collective labor. It is especially important that the process in question is carried out not only and not so much through the factor of brute force, but as a result of the constant action of rules established and strengthened by the existing legal order.
According to him, all necessary production capacities for the production of both consumer goods and means of expanded reproduction can be - and in practice are - primarily PRIVATE PROPERTY OF INDIVIDUALS.
To simplify my presentation, I will call "workers" all those who do not own the means of production, although I am fully aware that such a classification will also admit a number of inaccuracies.
The owners of the means of production have the ability to BUY the labor power of the worker. By setting the means of production in motion, the worker creates new output, which ALSO becomes the property of the capitalist.
The most important thing in this process is the measurement of their real value and the ratio between what the worker produces and what he is paid for it. Since in the current order labor contracts are “free”, what the worker receives DOES NOT EQUAL to the real value of the output he produces, but is determined by the MINIMUM NEEDS of his life, on the one hand, and the ratio between the capitalist’s needs for labor and the total number of workers competing for the jobs he offers, on the other.
What is particularly important to understand at this point is that EVEN IN THEORY and according to the existing "legal order", the worker's wage is NOT DETERMINED by the value of what he produces.
It is a tendency inherent in private capital to become more and more concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. This tendency is connected both with the competition between capitalists and with the purely technical features of the development of productive capacities, the requirements of the deepening division of labor, and the emergence on this basis of ever larger units of production which displace and replace the multitude of smaller ones.
As a result of all these processes, a CAPITALIST OLIGARHY is formed under the conditions of capitalism. Its monstrous power becomes so great that it practically cannot be limited by the currently operating means and mechanisms that we are accustomed to calling democratic.
This is so because in modern Western democratic societies, members of the legislative bodies are elected through the mechanisms of political parties. They, in turn, are under the influence of private capitalists, from whom they are mainly financed. In this way, capitalists practically stand between the mass of voters (the electorate) and the legislative sphere, which – according to democratic principles – should express and serve their interests. As a result of all this, elected representatives in practice protect the interests of the unprivileged sections of the population less and less.
Furthermore, under the conditions that exist today, private capitalists inevitably directly or indirectly control the main sources of information such as the press, radio, education, etc. In this way, it is extremely difficult - and in most cases practically impossible - for the individual citizen to draw any objective conclusions and wisely use his political rights.
All this occurs as a result of the system of capitalist organization of the economy and society, based on private ownership of the means of production and on what is called the “free contract” for labor, that is, on the sale of the labor of workers to the capitalist.
(Of course, it should be borne in mind that in life the above formula usually does not exist in a “laboratory-pure” form. The interests of the capitalists in certain cases dictate the emergence of various combinations between them and the state, which they also control. As a result of long, fierce political struggles of the workers, some of them manage to win certain improvements in labor contracts for certain categories of workers.)
Regardless of the existence of various variations and deviations, the above-stated GENERAL PRINCIPLE of the organization of the capitalist economy and society - in general terms - operates everywhere.
Direct consequences of it are:
making profit the main goal of the production process - rather than satisfying the real needs of consumption;
the disappearance of any guarantees that anyone willing to work can find any kind of job at all. Moreover, there is almost always and consciously maintained a high number of a veritable ARMY OF THE UNEMPLOYED, whose function is to maintain a feeling of constant insecurity among workers and fear of the danger of losing their jobs.
The presence of numerous masses of unemployed and the low wages of many workers, in turn, further narrows the boundaries of the market for the sale of manufactured goods. As a result, the volumes and variety of a number of items concerning the direct consumption of broad segments of the population decrease. A paradoxical, at first glance, situation arises of obvious glut and surpluses of certain types of goods - on the one hand, and shortage or practical unavailability of a number of others, most often of vital importance for large masses of people - on the other. This, together with the constantly operating basic aspiration to extract the highest possible profits at any cost and with the increasingly fierce competition between individual capitalists, gives rise to irregularities and instability in the processes of accumulation and use of capital. As a result, severe depressive phenomena of economic crises arise.
Instead of being a means of increasingly easing people's labor, technical progress is becoming primarily a source and justification for increasing unemployment.
The consequences of unlimited competition are not only the monstrous unjustified waste of human labor and natural resources, but also the increasingly obvious distortion of public consciousness and the very perception of society by the individual. All of this has already been discussed above.
It is this Distortion and Impoverishment of the human personality that I perceive as the GREATEST EVIL OF CAPITALISM. It is not only permeated throughout our entire system, but through education it is also spread to the next generations. All of them are taught from a very early age to strive for competition, and as a primary moment in their preparation for their future career and life, a sense of worship for the successful accumulation of money is instilled.
I am convinced that there is ONLY ONE POSSIBILITY of getting rid of all these terrible evils. This is the creation of a socialist economy and a corresponding educational system, aimed exclusively at achieving SOCIAL GOALS. The means of production in such an economy belong to the whole of society and are used by it according to plan.
The main mechanism for the establishment and functioning of such a state of society is an economy based on a SYSTEM OF UNIFIED ECONOMIC PLANNING. Through a planned economy, production is regulated and brought into line with the needs of society. The necessary quantities of labor are distributed among all its members capable of labor. In this way, the right to life of every man, woman, or child is actually guaranteed.
At the same time, the foundations are created for the full development of all the natural talents and abilities of the individual. Unlike the glorification of power and personal success prevalent in today's capitalist society, the main goal of education under socialism is to instill in a person a sense of responsibility not only for himself, but also for others.
Socialism, of course, is not limited to the establishment of a system based on a PLANNED ECONOMY. At the same time, it faces a number of extremely complex and historically unique problems in their scale, depth and nature. Among them is, for example, the problem of a productive and promising balance, unsolved by any of the existing societies, between the objectively ever-expanding and centralizing production, management and organizational-political processes of today's civilization and the possibilities for the maximum free and active contribution and status in them of the individual human personality. How can the rights of the individual be protected and, at the same time, mechanisms and opportunities be built for the maximum efficient functioning of the objectively existing management-bureaucratic apparatus for the benefit of society?
These are all complex questions, but even just posing them takes on an extremely important significance today, in the transitional time we live in. And since it effectively imposes a powerful BAN on the free discussion of any issues related to socialism, I believe that publishing the thoughts expressed here will prove to be an extremely important public undertaking.