“Khrushchev – the only politician in the world, declared war on the dead. And he managed this war to lose”
The great October socialist revolution, its opponents began to revile right from the moment of the transaction – and this propaganda attack not stopped yet. And for a quarter century, immediately after the destruction of the Soviet Union, the rejection and hatred of the Oct become the norm in public policy and throughout the “former Soviet Union”. And this fact best demonstrates that the ideas embodied under the Red banner of the revolution is still alive. So the questions put to the then Russian society, Lenin’s party, are today not the history of political doctrines, and to the most that neither is a relevant policy, and to the most strategic parts of it – to the goals and methods of achieving their goals.
If not considered outright slander about the “hundreds of millions of people shot”, “Famines”, “one rifle for three”, “threw the corpses” and other war propaganda, the opposition to ideas of social justice, implemented under the banner of October, basically is based on the formation of views about the nature of naturalness of a market economy and based on her political designs. As Churchill said: “Democracy is a very bad system, but it is better invented nothing”.
Accordingly, the market and democracy is opposed to totalitarianism, which is due to the repression and oppression can achieve short-term consolidation of the society and high rate of development, but in the long standoff inferior to effective market economy and democratic values. In General, a terrible Wraith of totalitarian propaganda inevitably dissipates, losing freedom and peoples return to the natural market relations.
Objections to this all-conquering concept can bring a lot, but most importantly – it is not confirmed by practice. In reality, the economic system based on socialist principles, demonstrate a significantly higher efficiency than any capitalism.
Moreover, without exception, real progress in the most developed Western economies are basically the most stringent mechanisms of state financing, Central planning and management of resources that is inherent to socialism and not free enterprise. Examples abound: any large-scale industrial breakthrough in any country and in any era is based on a rigid will of the state, not market forces.
You may recall a four-year state plans pelivanoski Germany, a “New deal” of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, postwar “Marshall plan” or any of the legendary “Asian tigers” and each such success is always a single will, a development plan and state budget.
Actually, this is best seen in the history of our country: the USSR showed the highest growth rate unmatched anywhere, ever, inflicted a military defeat of the enemy, far superior in military strength and economic potential, and after the most terrible in the history of the world war faster than anyone rebuilt their national economies.
To move forward today, you must answer the question: what social and economic system will replace the existing capitalism. According to the persistence of attempts repainted in cheerful, modern colors old rusty market leverage and to give this piece of junk for the “Natural Path of human Development”, which somehow stubbornly rests in the grave, we have to admit that modern philosophical thought rather avoids an honest answer, rather than seriously concerned with the search for a way out of the impasse.
Moreover, all of us constantly imposed coordinate system, where socialism is opposed to the market, totalitarianism and democracy, in principle, impossible to construct a logically consistent picture of the world. And to disclose and justify what the causes of the current prolonged global crisis, with world war I, and why the only way out of it, except for controlled degradation, is the building of a just and efficient economic system, a trial version which implemented the Great October.
Accordingly, political power, to get their hands on such a tool, will receive an important, and under certain conditions, and a decisive geopolitical advantage.
As the most advanced, in their own opinion, of the state behind them and the forces that dragged the world to the brink of another precipice, hard call themselves civilized (and others, apparently, savages), the beauty can distinguish the stages of development of society is on the “level of civilization”. And convincingly dismantle the propaganda cliches that are widely used in modern public space instead of reasoning to reveal the hidden behind the real social relations.
This is necessary in particular because the benefits of the welfare state to democracy and the free market today, need justification, because of the powerful and successful example of the Soviet Union before the eyes not. And apart from faith in the triumph of justice, requires understanding. Obviously, any meaningful human activity, including economic, is the driving force behind motivation. The basis of any motivation, we can identify basic communication: high (as much as possible, even at the sacrifice) motivation for any action exists when a person has either a personal interest or the interest of the group with which he identifies himself. For the sake of strangers – wouldn’t lift a finger. The selfless help a stranger, don’t even need people, common in traditional societies, quite widely, but at its core it is still possible to consider the principle of community – for a person normal in one way or another consider themselves part of the people and of humanity, and nature in General. In principle, there is no reason to believe that the economy can exist any other basic mechanism of motivation. People are basically the same, whatever they were doing, and from this point of view based on basic human motivations instead of the usual cliche of “free market” or “socio-economic formations”, you can build a clear logical system structuring the human society by major civilizational stage of development.
The origins of modern economic structure emerged in ancient times, when primitive tribal society, which can be considered the first level of civilization arose the concept of ownership.
How did this happen? In a subsistence economy, the tribal way of life, the concept of ownership to anything. In fact it is a family and place within it a hierarchy similar to the existing in pre-human groups – for example, a pack of wild monkeys. What ever be the “property” from anyone from the pack in the eyes of the leader?
This way stable, is formed automatically, always and everywhere, beginning at a certain minimum level of development, self-healing after any external influences and can be destroyed only with the human society as such. In addition, seems to be another factor associated with the development of the economy as such. Initially, the development of primitive production, its extension and complexity, and the emergence and deepening of division of labor clearly defined the trend towards industry – a unified economic system, even more effective than it’s more and more difficult.
Obviously, the industrial economy, in contrast to subsistence farming, which in principle does not fit in the tribal way of life. Even a simple process chain is dozen transactions, and there are chains of tens to hundreds of operations, and it is only for one type of product. But one family – a maximum of hundred people. That is a dead end. But as productivity growth, even in a primitive subsistence economy begin to appear surplus. And it is logical that the chief of the tribe, in accordance with its status as the most strong and most important, these surpluses will assign exactly the same as the leader will take away anything from any of his pack. In fact, this act of appropriation and creates the concept of ownership. In modern law such actions are very accurate name: “alienation”.
What civilizational consequences had it? Dialectics teaches us that everything has two sides. The act of exclusion not only makes the property owned by a particular person – for everyone else it becomes a stranger. So, in his attitude ceases to operate basic
human motivation: to care about someone else’s makes no sense.
In pack animals it doesn’t matter: monkeys don’t grow bananas, which feed on. But human society in its economy, even primitive, itself produces a product which then consumes. And if all to select all or at least only the means of production, the economy will rise – normal motivation will disappear. And what in return? Therefore, a problem arises that is absent in the community – to make all the other work on the owner. Logical solution – to compel by force or famine. It quickly became clear that this path is not economically viable.
Forced labor is unproductive, when the expansion of production at a faster pace, a growing apparatus of coercion and control, requiring more resources for its maintenance, that is, above a certain limit the development of such a structure is impossible. Another way to give the workers the illusion that they are participating in a “common cause”, the more that family, clan and tribal way of life has not disappeared, but within the family it is. And this technique allows you to use normal human motivation – to the extent that the employee would consider it “common cause” is really his.
In fact, for this reason, the deception built into the very Foundation of any exploitative society – only the illusion of “the common cause” provides a higher motivation of workers, and thus, productivity and competitive advantage. And the more effective the deception, the result is above. Were also implemented another trick to circumvent the restrictions of subsistence farming – a Union of tribes. If you can’t fit multiple process chains in one family, you can unite the resources under a single management, as required by the interests of production, and the resulting product is divided among the owners in accordance with nested shares.
In ancient times this took the form of estates of feudal society, when each production or management assigned to a separate family, and closer to the present, this system is transformed into a joint-stock company, keeping the overall principle is United under a single leadership and common goal-setting and distribution of the produced remains in the hands of quite primitive mentality of the owners, United by a common agreement. This is the second level of civilization, which lasts until now.
Why this path led to a dead end?
“Joint” the economy and almost all modern States, with the undoubted advantages, has a fatal flaw. The fundamental contradictions between the interests of the separate families of the owners, preserved from primitive times, carefully transferred to a higher level, inside a democratic society, “joint”. Former tribal leader, put his property into a “common cause”, still has a higher priority to the fate of their shares and not the entire company, because its share is an asset and the fate of himself, his family, tribe or clan.
Savage everything that is outside of his family, perceives purely as a resource, even if it’s a huge company, country or the whole world. Therefore, the payment of current dividends can be more important than the prospect of the company for many years to come. You can even destroy utterly “common cause” – if the private family unit in the result will increase. In addition, higher production efficiency is achieved increasingly through deception (the illusion of a “common cause”), and the conditions of the high competition forced to force such methods for “motivation”. Eventually this led to the fact that even simple reproduction, that is, zero return, cannot be achieved without the use of the latest methods of deception and manipulation.
At the current stage of development (or rather, degradation) of the economy and the state, built on the “joint” principles, all the more noticeable depletion of these foundations, including the expansion of the concept of ownership. It is now much more important than actual control over the distribution of the product produced by society, rather than formal ownership.
Modern language dutifully reflects this reality strengthened the concept of “title owner”, “ultimate beneficiary” – that is, entities that appear not what really are. Policy dutifully follows the economy, rapidly turning into a farce tent type: increasingly obvious that decisions are made not at the level of official policy, where they just executed and implemented, and the role of the state as a whole is reduced to the role of the Committee to manage the Affairs of big business.
In this framework there is no fundamental difference between modern capitalism and slavery, feudalism or communism – DM Trotskyist version, with the “labor army” under the leadership of “proletarian commanders” – in all these cases, the product produces a society (globalized industrial economy), and distributes and main parts, assigns a narrow tribal group, not capable of deeper integration. Even the absence in the case of “Communist labor armies” formal private ownership of the means of production does not prevent such a system, disguised as “socialism”, to be inward-looking, tribal and exploitative.
In other words, a powerful modern industrial civilization is owned by the Union of the wild tribes, Dorval to the steering wheel and a sack of grenades.
If you do not consider the bucolic options for the return to subsistence farming and preserving forever, that civilizational impasse logically there are two possible options: — to replace the natural biological system of human motivation based on the instinct of procreation and care of offspring, artificially created and able to meet the needs of industrial production. The traditional name of such projects – “dystopia”.
— to establish within society a management class that has as its highest priority the best interests of society as a whole, and able to effectively manage a single economic complex of any size. This is the Communist project. The great October revolution, the Spring of humanity. In other words, the transition to a higher level of civilization.
What is its fundamental difference from all forms of exploitative society with the proposed point of view?
The difference lies in the basic motivation. Socialism as a theory originally postulated the primacy of the public interest, that is, involves participation in the manufacture of all members of society. In other words, the principle of “common cause” that allows you to engage in labor organization mechanism underlying human motivation, that is, the higher the degree of interest of each in the overall result – to the extent that you believe it all.
Why did the Communist seemed to be in reality only possible? Because other alternatives, providing development, no.
In fact, any dystopia is an attempt to maintain the level and achievements of industrial civilization, while maintaining a narrow group of savages as the ultimate and only beneficiaries of all of humankind.
Since the role of industry as a source of any undisputed wealth, the inquisitive, the idea revolves around the need to ensure high motivation for people in employment in the interests of others. Yet find two main ways: automation up to complete robotization of production, or the artificial formation of a controlled high motivation from the workers, preserving the will and creative component.
Variants within this framework, invented many. Not to consider all of them, to emphasize their common fatal flaw: the task is to build
controlled society, creativity and development, is the level of, if not the Creator, then at least the demiurge. If you store man as a species, will have to replace the internal, automatically running on instinct, the motivation for the scheme of “friend or foe”, for the same power, but the outside, retaining all the creative and strong-willed qualities of the person. Or require the creation of artificial intelligence capable of creative activity and the relevant “automatic” industry. Neither created in the foreseeable future, and the modern world economic system will collapse and will be replaced in the lifetime of the current generation.
In addition, even if the sky is suitable for the purpose of technology, to anything good it will not. The reduction of humanity to a narrow
group global beneficiaries and their descendants, freed from the need to do something creative and useful when you have self-closed “all manufactures” of the economy, will exclude any development and will inevitably lead to a precipitous degradation. Ultimately, this way people just disappear, and there will be only this is the “fallen from the sky” technology.
What is the General conclusion? What is the value today of the Great October revolution?
The October revolution marked the beginning of the largest in the known history of a social experiment for the construction of a new economic system, more efficient than the capitalist or any other, and the organization of society. This experiment was aborted because the threatened the existing capitalist system, but he left behind a experience use of other ways of organizing the economy and social life. But the experience is inevitably demanded the dismantling of the control system of globalized industrial economy focused on a very narrow group of “final beneficiaries”, and construction to replace it, but on its own database, management system industry in the interests of all mankind.
But the greatest significance of the Great October has for Russia. Our country not only has rich natural resources, vast territory and a talented population. In addition, only in Russia still remains an invaluable experience of building socialism, and many still living who was involved. Therefore, to renew the socialist project is in the territory of the “former USSR” and soon enough the accelerated degradation of modern capitalism to bail.
© 2019, paradox. All rights reserved.