Given a General comment on the series of articles by the author on socio-economic dynamics of Russia in the last 20 years, as well as an overview of confessions of representatives of ruling and serving its “elite” about the General character and prospects for change in the situation in Russia.
Assessment of the main economic and social parameters of the dynamics and trends of the Russian Federation to the inevitable crash is actually due to the policies of the Russian government (all branches and agencies at the Federal, regional and local institutional authorities in their entirety) is given in articles of the author published during the autumn, culminating in 2019.
And, above all, such an assessment given by the author in the following articles:
“In Russia, economic stability, crisis or disaster? (part 3, 1 and 2)”;
“The gold reserves of the Russian Federation exceeded the debt of the Russian Federation – what does this mean in reality?”;
“And why did “the money is there, but you keep”?”;
“In Russia still rampant poverty or endemic poverty?”;
“Model “reformed” Russia?”;
“Impending catastrophe of the Russian Federation and whether it is possible to prevent it”;
“The results of sociological research in Russia or what caused the dualism of results of sociological researches in Russia?”.
Turning the contradictions between the relations of distribution and the productive forces in the conflict between the material development of production and its social form.
In order adequately to understand the real importance of all of what is referred to in the articles in General, and in the third part of the article “In Russia, economic stability, crisis or a disaster?” in particular, it is necessary, first of all, to return to the actual now the fragments of what is written by the author in the article “the Relevance of the inevitable change of social forms of production”. This is the final – 10th – part series “the Conditions and limits of extension, the reproduction of financial capital” published by the author 16.09.2018.
In this September article 2018, including, it was written that in the manuscripts included in 51 Chapter publications “Capital” (3rd volume), Marx stressed that “every definite historical form of the… the process [of labor] further develops the material foundations and social forms it [the labor process]. Reaching degrees of maturity, a given historical form is cleared and frees space for higher forms” (Marx).
It is a crisis of historical forms of labor process, that is, the crisis of the material basis of society – the aggregate data industrial relations, which is the historical form of social reproduction and, consequently, the social form of the labor process.
“The onset of such a crisis, continued Marx in these manuscripts, is manifested in the broadening and deepening of contradictions and opposites between the relationship of distribution, …on the one hand, and the productive forces, the productive capacity and development of its factors, from the other side. Then the conflict erupts between the material development of production and its social form”.
According to these insights of Marx, the onset of the crisis, the material basis of society is not determined by changes in the distribution of the products of labor as such, but changes in the distribution, “which is contained in the production process and which determines the organization of production” in the first place.
In other words, the onset of the crisis, the material basis (the totality of production relations) of a society is determined by the redistribution of the means of production and redistribution of members of the society on the various social units of production as the development of the distribution of the instruments of production.
And, second, the onset of the crisis, the material basis of society defined by such changes in the distribution of that through the political and legal superstructure of the society (in the form of this mediation, as it is expressed in the totality of the institutions of the society) change “share [the manufacturer] in the world”.
According to the teachings of Marx, the second party to the conflict between the material development of production and its social form are the “productive forces” of the society, their (the productive forces and society as a whole) “productive capacity”, “development factors” of this productive ability.
But what is the productive forces of society, taken from their “productive capacity” and “factors in its [productive capacity] development”? It is primarily people who are direct manufacturers, not taken at all, and by their ability to produce the products of labor, themselves, and the their society.
This conflict is manifested in the fact that members of this society have already become “obvious” that they do not reproduce neither themselves in their former social certainties, nor the their society as such.
First of all, because the existing social relations of the producers in the mass, unable to produce even the totality of the products of labor, which according to your list, the quantity and quality required under the existing conditions for the reproduction of their selves and their society.
The impossibility of the reproduction of ourselves becomes apparent to most workers (for the total of the employee), first, because the existing production of the products of labor and the reproduction of society as a whole the volume of production of the products of labor cannot be increased.
Second, the quality of the products of labor cannot be improved to the extent and in the measure necessary for the reproduction of members of society themselves and all their companies. Why?
Because if this organization of social production and reproduction of the existing technical basis of production volumes of the products of labor cannot be increased, their quality cannot be improved, increase of productivity technological basis of social production is impossible in society required scale and pace.
Thirdly, because the existing relations of distribution are direct manufacturers of the products of labor, including members of their families, for the most part do not receive and cannot obtain even the minimum set of tools for life that is on your list, the quantity and quality required under the existing conditions for the reproduction of their selves as such.
And finally, because through their life experience people are aware of – any reforms of the norms and rules of distribution of products of labor, if these reforms do not redistribute means of production and people in the different divisions of production and do not change the relationship between people, will not allow the direct producers to the means of life necessary for its reproduction.
The extent to which the data while maintaining the social conditions for historically significant masses of the society members, “the evidence” of impossibility to reproduce themselves due to objective and subjective at the same time, and only subjective – it is a slightly different question than the question about the conflict between the material development of production and its social form.
However, ideologically, politically and economically, this – previous – question is the most important issue not only to measure the adequacy of the analysis of the historically specific situation, but in General to determine strategies and tactics to specific subjects of historical development and their ideological, political and economic agents.
But most of the people’s awareness of the contradictions between the material development of production and its social form is not yet a conflict between the material development of production and its social form.
The contradiction between material production and the social form becomes a conflict only through mass sentiments prevailing within the public production of the body.
Mass sentiment in public life is manifested solely and only as the actions of the masses of the members of the material state, which is a modified form of material the contents of this public production of the body.
What least the bulk of the members of the tangible States is a full members of the political state, the more the conflict between the material development of production and its social form appears on the surface of social life as conflict between the material state, on the one hand, and political government on the other.
It is this conflict just realized ideologically and politically permitted as a conflict between “bottom” and “top” in this state a public body.
Valuable recognition of Paul Kudyukin.
Former Deputy Minister of labour and employment of population of the Russian Federation Pavel Kudyukin 19 November 2019 said: “we already third year the minimum wage will be tied to the subsistence level. But there are a few subtleties. The first is that it is tied to the subsistence level with a delay of six months. The second — the minimum wage, deducted income tax. That is actually receiving a wage in the minimum amount receives the amount below the subsistence minimum. And the third subtlety is the calculation of the subsistence minimum in Russia was low. This level of the poor physical survival. In General, the minimum wage should be increased at least twice compared to current levels”. Source: https://regnum.ru/news/economy/2783641.html
In this statement, P. Kudyukin, in particular, should pay attention to the testimony of the following: subsistence level in Russia is set at “poor physical survival”, first, and drawn therefrom all budgetary and social consequences.
But in practice, if the employee receives a salary of minimum wage, this minimum wage, which is officially equal to the subsistence minimum, the personal income tax is deducted at a rate of 13%.
It follows from this important conclusion: the political state called Russia, even the declarative does not guarantee working in RF receiving “wages” they need to “poor physical survival”. And this is the second.
But most importantly third: the minimum level of income (after deducting income tax) received by families should be two official “living wage” (before personal income tax from the amount of this “minimum”) per one family member. For otherwise, a (lower) income will not ensure the simple reproduction of labour power and the preservation of health of every member of the family.
It is this “minimum income” for each family member is a lower level of poverty. Incomes below this level — this is poverty, that is, the disqualification of able-bodied family members, loss of health of all family members, the inability for children to obtain the education necessary for simple reproduction of even semi-skilled labour “worker” and the professional employees.
And how much is in rubles now?
If the “living wage” is set equal to an average of 10,444 thousand RUB, the border separating poverty, is a net (after deduction of income tax) income per family member in the amount of 20.9 thousand rubles per month (24 thousand rubles to withholding personal income tax). This follows from the statements quoted us a former Deputy Minister of labour and employment of population of the Russian Federation, who oversaw this subject.
If on the average across Russia, the family receives a total monthly income that is less than 20, 9 thousand RUB. per one family member, then that family belongs to the needy population, but not to the poor (low income population).
Beggars can’t be classified as low-income by definition. Because the essence is in the fact that they (the poor) are not provided even the bare minimum required for simple reproduction of individuals.
Therefore, if the average coefficient of family in Russia approx. 2,7, net (after deduction of personal income tax) the minimum income an average family in Russia should be not less than 56,43 thousand RUB., which corresponds to the minimum total amount of nominal (before deduction of personal income tax) of income an average family, equal 64,862 thousand RUB in a month.
Now everyone, who is familiar with these (average RF) the material criteria of poverty/poverty may well taking into account the ratio of its regional “living wage” with the average Russian to determine the level of income and security of his family, as well as all those families who he knows is sufficient for this assessment measure.
Equally valuable recognition Andrei Klepach, political scientists and publicists.
Chief economist VEB Andrei Klepach, from 2008 to 2014, former Deputy Minister of economy of the Russian Federation, who oversaw the preparation of macroeconomic assessment and forecasting, in an interview with news Agency “the Sign” 19 November 2019 said:
“A significant part of our elites to build the life in the nineties-two thousand years came from the fact that you need to get all the profit, all wealth. Now we see that it has its social costs and its limits. So requires understanding and changing behaviour, and it is not easy. I hope the answers will be found. Otherwise the abyss and within the elite and between the elite and the majority of the population will deepen.
— In your opinion, is it explosive?
— I think so…”
(Source: https://www.znak.com/2019-11-19/andrey_klepach_ocenil_veroyatnost_ekonomicheskogo_krizisa_i_opasnost_konflikta_elit_i_naseleniya )
In other words, the fact and the “open secret” now is, first, that between different parts of the “ruling elite of Russia” exists not just a split but a chasm, which deepens and tends to lead to an open “war of all against all”.
Second, still a big gap not only exists, but is rapidly widening between the “ruling elite of the Russian Federation” in its entirety, on the one hand, and the greater part of the population of the Russian Federation, on the other hand, is fraught with the collapse of the entire Russian Federation.
But because, in very soft recognition Klepach, for “the ruling elite of Russia” to understand and change their behavior, that is, all its economic and social policies in its parts and as a whole, quite “easy”, and radical change, I suppose, impossible, so far as “social and political explosion” is inevitable.
The feasibility of the latter substantially in the same day, 19 November, 2019, affirmed and columnist for the news Agency “Rosbalt”, journalist Sergei shelin, who summed up his article as follows:
“Say that power with anybody is not considered. She is implacable only to the common people. And allows the nobility to fight for their interests. …
In spite of the autocracy, defend their interests great and serious structures are allowed, and maybe even is on the increase. Mechanisms of compromise work. A dialogue of interested persons with the highest power is not only possible, but often productive.
However, ordinary people in this debate of the giants is not something that the poor relatives, but just zeros. Their interests weigh nothing. If sometimes they somewhat coincide with the interests of the prevailing dignitaries, citizens can consider themselves lucky. But if that often does not match, then the top of it is no thrill. …
So do we have protection? How! But only there, where ninety-nine percent of the citizens of course not.”
(Source: https://www.rosbalt.ru/blogs/2019/11/19/1814041.html )
And finally, head of the Laboratory of political and social technologies, political analyst Alexei Inanimate on November 20 in an interview to IA “New day” did overall conclusion: “Russia on the eve of chaos.”
Namely A. Inanimate drew attention to the following significant points of the current political situation in Russia and tendencies of its development in the short term, the next year, a maximum of two years:
“Politics is always a product of the economy, what our government forgot. As the economy stagnates, the situation will not improve. Oil falls, they’re going to increase the tax burden on business. The government a lot of money, but… we Have the collapse of the economic space. …
We can predict that by the time the elections to the state Duma a power, nothing can save. They will need to think of something – maybe even postpone the election. …
Now the methods of control and the administrative resources actually cease to work, and methods of “homichini” with the results of voting are counterproductive – they produce a big protest and a lot of dirt after that. They (the authorities) have abandoned the idea to increase the number of single-mandate, because it is not able to control the political process, and by election day they will not be able to control any process. They have a lot of money, but it won’t do anything. …
If you take the experience of a hundred years ago, the king also had a lot of money, but when chaos takes over, the resources no longer work. Our government, as Koschey “languishes” on it in gold, it is on him and die. There will be chaos, after which you will need to re-build the political and economic system.”
( Source: https://newdaynews.ru/moskow/677088.html )
To multiply such assessment and recognition there is no need – every day they are growing like an avalanche down on everyone who is not hiding its head in the sand.
The situation in Russia becomes a revolutionary, yet did not become such, but even becomes.
However, from the history of Russia is well known, and popular wisdom had cast it into a brief but very accurate generalization: “Russian long harness, but quickly we go”.
Vladimir Vasiliev, November 21, 2019.
The primary publication available here: http://www.dal.by/news/178/21-11-19-4/
© 2019, paradox. All rights reserved.