The coming horror of the revolution. Or the USSR 2.0? Ideology and economics
Having discussed capitalism and socialism in the previous article, we come to two very interesting conclusions.
The first of these is that the capitalist and socialist economic systems in their pure form have by now exhausted themselves. By the end of the twentieth century, the socialist economy had lost the capitalist competition. But capitalism also gradually turned from an engine for the development of society into its brake, and gradually ceases to be useful to society: in a number of areas, capitalism is already openly harmful. Thus, the world is gradually moving towards another era of change, because when society “outgrows” the existing economic system, it changes to a new one. Alas, usually this process is quite painful. The transition from slavery to feudalism was slow, painful, and accompanied by many wars. The first steps towards capitalism were also very difficult: for example, the same fencing in England can be considered as a genocide of one’s own population living in rural areas.
The second conclusion regarding the capitalist and socialist economies is that both systems have their disadvantages and advantages, and they complement each other: socialism is strong where capitalism is weak, and vice versa.
This is where a natural desire arises to somehow link in one harness “horse and quivering doe”, that is, to create an economy in which the merits of socialism and capitalism would merge harmoniously, complementing each other, and thereby minimizing the disadvantages of both systems. It's hard to do ... but not impossible. How?
The author of this article will try to first describe the goal, that is, the state of society that we seek to build. Some of his statements may seem naive, contrived or incomprehensible. For such explanations will be given why it should be so, and not otherwise, how it should work according to the author, and why we need it exactly in the proposed form. And only after a description is given of the society that the author proposes to build, only when the goal that he urges to achieve is clear, only then will he proceed to the description of methods for achieving the goal. Therefore, I urgently ask: even if you, dear reader, seem that the author is drawing castles in the air - do not rush to accuse him of rampant projecting, wait until he reaches the description of the path, following which we will achieve our goals.
Well - let's go?
The first thing to do is to somehow name the society of the future, which the author undertakes to describe. It is impossible to call it the “ideal state”, if only because it is nevertheless imperfect, and mankind will never have any ideal society. Just because humanity will exist as long as it develops, and while it develops, the existing forms of social organization will sooner or later become obsolete, replacing each other, and what kind of ideal can we talk about here? Therefore, we will call our future society simpler: USSR 2.0.
So, the first and cardinal difference between the USSR 2.0 and today's “society of victorious capitalism” should be the “new old” ideology, in many respects repeating the principles of the “Code of the Builder of Communism”. Of course, “largely repeating” in no way means “duplicating”: nevertheless, the new ideology will be much closer to the communist one than the one that exists today.
The first, fundamental and key difference between the ideology of the USSR 2.0 and the existing one is to change the highest value of human development, that is, what, in fact, is to devote to human life. In a capitalist society, this is money. In the USSR, 2.0 should be the highest value knowledge. Why is that? There are three main reasons for this.
Reason 1. Humanity, generally speaking, at all times tended to go forward and try to know the world around him. Discoverers plowed through uncharted seas, overcame thousands of kilometers of unexplored continents, learned to rise in the air and sink to the bottom of the oceans. Sometimes they were driven by a thirst for profit: the same Columbus, discovering America, still just looking for another way to rich India. Sometimes it’s a military necessity: the first submarines, “hidden vessels” were created as a means of destroying the enemy fleet. Sometimes it was a thirst for knowledge, because, for example, there was no economic or military interest in reaching the same North Pole, but people gave their lives in attempts to do this.
But now we are faced with the fact that the surface of the earth has been more or less explored, we have also more or less mastered the air and water, and now we have space before us. However, space studies of other planets are incapable in the foreseeable future neither economic nor military benefits, thus, by and large, capitalism is not too interested in them to do. The result - more or less serious projects in this direction are actually frozen: how long have they been talking about the same flight to Mars? And nothing has changed.
The problem is that at the initial stages of scientific and technological revolution could be moved forward (and moved) by enthusiasts. The first “submarine” capable of diving a few meters under water, and set in motion by muscular strength or “bookcase” capable of flying a couple of hundred meters above the ground, could be collected by one person, or a small group of people. But in order to create technologies and organize, for example, research of the bottom of the Mariana Trench, we need a completely different order of resources, available only to a large corporation, and even a manned flight to the moon is beyond its power.
In other words, each next step in exploring the world around us will cost a lot more than the previous one, but it is necessary to take these steps - gradually, of course, reasonably relating them to the possibilities that we have. Strictly speaking, this is one of the tasks of science: the search for ways by which the impossible today would become possible in the future.
If we give up on this ... of course, not today, and not the day after tomorrow, but such self-restraint in development can cost us dearly. I would not like, of course, to simplify the situation to the level of a space action movie, but if in the course of years through 300 of today's “development” we find a large comet whose trajectory intersects with the planet Earth, what will we do? Will we offer a comet to buy at a discount the newest model of iPhone, which can brew coffee and do a Thai massage?
In general, humanity needs the knowledge of its surrounding space and processes, the development of the basic sciences, even if this knowledge does not guarantee profit in the foreseeable future.
The reason is 2. In the phrase "scientific and technical progress" the word "scientific" is not in vain put in the first place. Technique nevertheless only follows science, realizing its achievements in the metal, so that the high priority of science will be an excellent prerequisite for the growth of the well-being of our citizens. And, of course, their protection from external influences, because modern weapon It is a highly sophisticated fusion of high technology.
And finally, the reason for 3. It is clear that we will never be able to turn an entire nation into scientists and engineers - not everyone will have the desire or ability to do this, and it is absolutely not necessary. But we must return to the approaches that were declared (but, alas, did not always fulfill) Soviet education. In response to Mr. Fursenko, we must return our education system to prepare a “human creator”, and not a “qualified consumer”. Why does society need this? The easiest way to answer this question is the name of the old TV show: “Hello, we are looking for talents”.
The fact is that we need first-class clever scientists, engineers, technologists and representatives of other specialties. So, a properly constructed system of upbringing a "man-creator" will provide the opportunity to search and find gifted children, help them develop their talents, ensure the flow of the "best of the best." At the same time, today's “qualified consumer” system of this kind does not provide at all. It does not motivate the development of the intellect, the search and development of talents, in general: “if you want to be a scientist, become it, but these are your problems, bro!”.
Today we are striding in the direction of caste in education. And this, in turn, guarantees a large staff failure in the future. To provide the country with highly qualified personnel in science and knowledge-intensive industries, “elite” schools “not for everyone” can never replace a full-fledged and high-quality general education system. Just as in the preparation of the Olympic team, several sports clubs equipped with the latest science and technology will never be able to replace mass sport.
In other words, in the ideology of the USSR 2.0, we must abandon the highest value of capitalism - “success”, the measure of which is the amount of money earned. In the USSR, 2.0 should come to the forefront of the harmonious development of the individual, spiritual and physical, and life's achievements should be measured by success in work. The scientist who made the new discovery in his field of science, the engineer who designed the unique production line, the surgeon who managed to carry out a unique operation - these are the heroes of the USSR 2.0. In other words, above all in our new ideology should be appreciated the discovery, or the creation of something new. In second place is high professionalism in what has already been studied: an experienced teacher, whose wards constantly achieve success at the Olympiads, a turner who has mastered the wisdom of his profession to perfection, a plumber, after whose work the pipes have not flow for decades, and at least the janitor whose part always shines cleanliness, and tenants see ice only in the cinema ...
What about the money? Money for a person of the USSR 2.0, of course, is extremely important. But not as an end in itself, but only as a means of ensuring the personal needs and requirements of the family at a level that allows you not to worry about the immediate. In other words, money in the USSR 2.0 is transformed from a goal into a tool designed to provide a person with the opportunity to quietly do what he likes. Not more, but not less.
Interestingly, something similar, in general, was declared in the USSR, but ... it did not work there. And, actually, why?
The fact is that it is not enough to declare such an ideology. It must also be supported by appropriate measures, and certain hierarchies should be built up under it. In the late USSR, with rare exceptions, the proposed rationalization, innovative ideas often simply did not find use, because enterprises were not interested in their implementation, preferring to work in the old fashioned way. High-quality, efficient work only led to the fact that a person began to work "for himself and for that guy," and all this had almost no material rewards. Already in the early Soviet Union, a phenomenon called “equalization” arose in wages. As you know, people’s work is unequal: the work of the head of the design bureau and the work of a car washer brings various benefits to society, and, in theory, should be rewarded in proportion to this benefit. In the USSR, payment differentiation was relatively low, and people often lacked sufficient material incentive to take on more difficult, more responsible work. The second negative aspect of equalization was that it was rewarded, if you can say so, labor, and not its quality. That is, if you take people of the same profession, working in the same team and engaged in the same business, the reward for hard work was relatively small. The reward certainly existed, but it was so miserable that it became easier for many to give up and work “like everyone else” than to scream for an extra ten.
In other words, it turned out that in the post-war USSR the inventor and rationalizer often did not see the introduction of their proposals, and the quality and impact work was not rewarded to the proper extent either by status in society or financially. And this is something in the USSR 2.0 should be corrected. We will talk about how to do this later, but for now just remember the experience of the Stalinist USSR: any work was considered honorable, but this honor was rewarded in quite different ways. A worker who came to the newly built factory could easily live in a hut or a dugout, but the designer or engineer, if he had any merits before the Fatherland, could easily live in a multi-room comfortable apartment, use the services of a housekeeper, have an official car available. In addition, important inventions and discoveries were encouraged by special awards, the size of which at that time reached astronomical values. While in 1939 g the average wage of workers and employees in the USSR was about 330 rubles / month, the maximum amount of the Stalin award was 100 000 rubles, that is, the income of the average citizen for 25 years of socialist labor! You should not absolutize the system of Stalin's material incentives, but much of it has retained its relevance today.
In order for the USSR 2.0 to work properly, it’s not enough to change the ideology alone — an economic and domestic political organization is needed in which people’s creative and labor successes would be rewarded both materially and by a corresponding increase in social status.
All of the above is the main, fundamental difference between the USSR 2.0 and what we have today. I understand that with respectable readers, the question has long been in my head: “What about capitalism sharks?”, But we’ll get to that before, but for now let me introduce “The moral code of the USSR builder 2.0”
1. Love to motherland. It should be noted that in the USSR this item included devotion to the cause of communism and love for the socialist Motherland, but we will not interfere with one's love for the Motherland and for a particular state system.
2. Conscientious work for the benefit of society. How it should look like in the USSR 2.0 author indicated above.
3. Respect for life, freedom, human rights, its material and intellectual property. USSR 2.0 - anything, but not the country of "cog people" of the state mechanism.
4. Collectivism and comradely mutual assistance: one for all and all for one. Man to man is friend, comrade and brother. Understand this as follows: USSR 2.0 builds its society in the golden mean between the concepts of collectivism and individualism.
There is an immutable fact - the existence of society, society, is more important than the life of its individual members. That is why in all ages men have fought, protecting not only their loved ones, but also other people of their own kind, the society to which they belonged. That is why a person who, at the risk of his life, saves people in distress, evokes in us a feeling of genuine respect and a question for himself: “But could I do the same if I were in his place?” But there is another indisputable fact: any society is the people who form it, that is, the society exists for the benefit of its people.
Thus, citizens of the USSR 2.0 understand the priority of public interests over personal, but do not allow the suppression of the individual by society or the state. Individualism is prone to rivalry, the collectivism of the USSR 2.0 is much closer to the maxim "Be successful in your chosen field, and help those who are close to you to achieve the same." In other words, the collective in the USSR 2.0 is considered, first of all, as a voluntary association of people whose personal goals coincide to achieve these goals. Accordingly, relationships in a team are built on the foundations of teamwork, respect for others and, of course, mutual assistance.
Since childhood, 2.0 citizens of the USSR are taught to communicate with people around them, that is, it is considered natural to know at least a little about those around us - housemates, work colleagues, etc., be ready to give them all possible help and feel free to ask for such in case of need.
5. The family is recognized as the most important unit of society, it is built on the mutual respect of all its members, the joint upbringing of children, which are its greatest value. In other words, the state encourages in every way the institution of the family, the birth and upbringing of children, and this also includes material incentives. Mothers and single fathers are also respected and supported by the state. Needless families and loneliness, of course, are not prohibited, but are not encouraged.
6. Intolerance to racial, national, religious hatred.
7. Honesty and truthfulness, moral purity in public and private life.
8. Intolerance for injustice.
How does all this work? Well, for example, a young soldier enters the school and is faced with the appearance in his call of a certain fraternity whose members begin to behave impolitely towards others. This is unfair, but the young warrior is intolerant of injustice. Based on the principle of collectivism, he unites other fighters in order to protect their rights and freedoms (another principle!). Based on the principle of friendly mutual assistance, not only those who have already suffered from the “fellow countrymen”, but also others whom they have not touched yet, adjoin the newly formed team. And then this newly-formed team conducts thorough educational work among members of the fraternity, explaining to them in a popular and accessible way the full depth of their errors. Including, of course, explanations that such actions of the community lead to incitement of national discord, and this is completely unacceptable.
Let's finish with this “political information” about the features of ideology and move on to the economic system. It is easy enough to describe it ... but to explain why it will work effectively is much more difficult. This article does not have enough space for a detailed description of the economy of the USSR 2.0, so we mention only some important points.
The fact is that in the theory of the market economy there is a thesis, the validity of which by the majority of its adherents is not questioned. And it lies in the fact that, with the exception of some very specific cases, the state management of the enterprise, and even more so the industry will be less effective than the management of the private owner. It goes without saying that a theoretical basis is laid down, which consists in the fact that the owner, personally interested in economic results, will provide the best level of management, but ... the practice does not confirm this thesis.
The USSR created many models of weapons that were quite at the level of Western models. It was sometimes created that it surpassed foreign analogs in a number of parameters, or even something that had no analogues in the world - yes, at least supersonic anti-ship missiles. That is, for example, in the field of combat aviation Soviet design bureaus, scientific and production capacities quite successfully competed with such monstrous western corporations as Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The achievements of the USSR in space exploration are undeniable - and, oddly enough, the USSR’s stake on cheap "disposable" transport rockets has fully justified itself and has shown an unconditional economic advantage over American reusable spacecraft programs. Although when such a desire arose, the USSR was able to build a Buran, which even had some advantages over the Space Shuttle.
And the same can be said about such a high-tech industry as the nuclear industry. Technologies and scientific advances inherited from the USSR have made our atomic industry not only competitive, but even the leading industry in the world.
Thus, we see that for some reason both the planned economy and state ownership did not prevent the creation of an economically efficient military, nuclear and space industry in the USSR. Someone, of course, may begin to argue with this, but this, in essence, is meaningless: it suffices to look at the export volumes of weapons, space services and the construction of nuclear power plants abroad in modern times.
And this, in turn, means that state ownership of the means of production is not at all taboo, and under certain conditions it can be quite competitive with leading private producers. It turns out that if we understand and reproduce these conditions, then our state industry will face commercial success.
There is another interesting example. The author of this article does not own the full information (in fact, his information, on the contrary, is very fragmentary and incomplete), but it is possible that in the Russian Federation today there is a fairly powerful and very effective public corporation. We are talking about Rostec, which includes 14 holdings, which include more than 700 companies and employs 445 thousand people. Of course, it is difficult to judge about it, having access only to external documents, but the economic indicators of the corporation are constantly growing, it is developing, while giving out "up-to-the-minute" such ultramodern products as, for example, electronic warfare, the same Khibiny ( Concern Radioelectronic Technologies JSC).
It is more than likely that Rostec is far from being so rosy, as the reports show, and it has its own problems in bulk, but which enterprises of the Russian Federation do not have them today? Actually, even if the corporation would simply remain afloat, in the conditions of our wildly capitalism and the jerk of the dollar rate, this would be a great achievement. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that Rostec does not just somehow exist, but finds the strength to go forward. Very few private enterprises can boast of such kind, and this, again, means that a high level of management is attainable in the state corporation. I repeat once again - the example is probably inaccurate, since apart from open data and conversations with several people working in a corporation, the author does not have any other data. But anyway.
So, according to the author of this article, the basis of the economic system of the USSR 2.0 should be a symbiosis of a planned and market economy, in which the basis of the productive forces would be large production state corporations. Private property is not abolished, but the area of private business is becoming much narrower. As a matter of fact, all branches, groups of productions, are subdivided into 4 areas, in which:
1. Private business is completely absent;
2. Private business may be present, but public corporations are prevalent;
3. Private business prevails, but state corporations are also present;
4. Fully given to private business
The first area includes, for example, such a field as foreign trade in arms - in the USSR, 2.0 private enterprises may be arms manufacturers, but their export must be concentrated in the hands of the state.
Oil and gas production, of course, should be returned to the state, and besides, it makes sense to exclude private business from natural monopolies, such as, for example, energy. But there are some nuances.
For example, today the companies-subsoil users themselves do not own the subsoil, but the oil and gas they extract are the property of private companies, from which the state withholds taxes, excise taxes and other charges. So, in the USSR 2.0 oil produced, of course, should be the property of the state. But at the same time, state-owned companies engaged in oil extraction can use the services of private entrepreneurs in the development of mineral deposits and mining.
That is, it looks like this: the state pays for seismic exploration services that a private enterprise performs, and a suitable field is discovered. Then the state can carry out its development (drilling, production, etc.) on its own, but it can entrust it to a private enterprise. However, in this case, the private owner will receive not oil or gas, but only a contract for the provision of industrial services and payment for it - according to estimates. Thus, superprofits are excluded, which private companies receive at high world prices for energy carriers, because their incomes no longer depend on the prices of oil and gas. Nonetheless, private companies can still be present in this market, provide seismic exploration and production services to the state, and receive an honest price for it, making a reasonable profit.
The same applies to energy. According to the author of this article, such serious and important objects as hydroelectric power stations, not to mention nuclear, should be in the hands of the state. In such areas, reliability will probably be more important than economic efficiency, which private owners often achieve by “optimizing” those costs that cannot be “optimized” in any way. On the other hand, maintenance of transmission networks, such as power lines, hot and cold water supply lines, etc. may well be entrusted to a private entrepreneur.
The same goes for many manufacturing industries. The bottom line is that complex, knowledge-intensive industries should be engaged in the state, and private business can perform mainly supporting functions. In other words, for example, the production of transport aircraft should be the prerogative of the state, but private companies can also produce individual parts, spare parts for them. And also to provide all kinds of services - transportation, auditing, etc.
And one more important nuance - if, for example, the production of aviation, the author of this article considers the prerogative of the state, then the operation of this aviation, that is, companies engaged in air transportation, should be done primarily privately. Explanations of why this is necessary will be given later.
The main banks should be state-owned, but some private ones will be quite acceptable. In agriculture, it makes sense to rely on a private producer, but the food industry should be returned "under the wing" of the state. And here, for example, a number of services in the service and social sectors, such as transport and trading services, communication and catering services, personal services, entertainment and recreation, and others, can be left to private business. Moreover, in some areas the state may not participate at all (I can not imagine what utility could bring, for example, public hairdressing), and in some - still be represented only very slightly, at the level of enterprises that the author decided to call “reference”, but what it is and why it is needed - we will consider in the next article.
Education should be public, although a certain number of private schools, universities and vocational schools (especially the latter) are quite reasonable and acceptable. The same applies to medicine. That is, the coverage of state medicine should be such that any person has the opportunity to receive medical care at a state clinic. However, there should be private medicine, the organization of which, however, should be significantly different from today. Private, paid medicine should be, on the one hand, a way to get guaranteed, highly qualified care (it is clear that public clinics will also include graduates of medical universities - troechniki, etc.), and secondly - will enable qualified doctors to receive decent reward for your work.
What is the purpose of the above-described concentration of industry in the hands of the state, the general priority of the state economy over the private one? There are three reasons for this.
First, the fact is that the USSR 2.0 should become a socially-oriented state, whose economy is aimed at increasing the well-being of all its citizens (and not their individual representatives).
Secondly, the economy of the USSR 2.0 should avoid the pitfalls of modern capitalism, such as reducing the quality of products, reducing the duration of its service, etc.
And the first and second easier to achieve in a predominantly state-owned economy.
And finally, thirdly, the fact is that the changes proposed by the author of this article concern not only, and not so much a change in the form of ownership, as a change in the relationship between the “economic entities”. In other words, the economy of the USSR 2.0, of course, remains a market ... but it will be a completely different market, not the same as we see it today.
To be continued ...
The first of these is that the capitalist and socialist economic systems in their pure form have by now exhausted themselves. By the end of the twentieth century, the socialist economy had lost the capitalist competition. But capitalism also gradually turned from an engine for the development of society into its brake, and gradually ceases to be useful to society: in a number of areas, capitalism is already openly harmful. Thus, the world is gradually moving towards another era of change, because when society “outgrows” the existing economic system, it changes to a new one. Alas, usually this process is quite painful. The transition from slavery to feudalism was slow, painful, and accompanied by many wars. The first steps towards capitalism were also very difficult: for example, the same fencing in England can be considered as a genocide of one’s own population living in rural areas.
The second conclusion regarding the capitalist and socialist economies is that both systems have their disadvantages and advantages, and they complement each other: socialism is strong where capitalism is weak, and vice versa.
This is where a natural desire arises to somehow link in one harness “horse and quivering doe”, that is, to create an economy in which the merits of socialism and capitalism would merge harmoniously, complementing each other, and thereby minimizing the disadvantages of both systems. It's hard to do ... but not impossible. How?
The author of this article will try to first describe the goal, that is, the state of society that we seek to build. Some of his statements may seem naive, contrived or incomprehensible. For such explanations will be given why it should be so, and not otherwise, how it should work according to the author, and why we need it exactly in the proposed form. And only after a description is given of the society that the author proposes to build, only when the goal that he urges to achieve is clear, only then will he proceed to the description of methods for achieving the goal. Therefore, I urgently ask: even if you, dear reader, seem that the author is drawing castles in the air - do not rush to accuse him of rampant projecting, wait until he reaches the description of the path, following which we will achieve our goals.
Well - let's go?
The first thing to do is to somehow name the society of the future, which the author undertakes to describe. It is impossible to call it the “ideal state”, if only because it is nevertheless imperfect, and mankind will never have any ideal society. Just because humanity will exist as long as it develops, and while it develops, the existing forms of social organization will sooner or later become obsolete, replacing each other, and what kind of ideal can we talk about here? Therefore, we will call our future society simpler: USSR 2.0.
So, the first and cardinal difference between the USSR 2.0 and today's “society of victorious capitalism” should be the “new old” ideology, in many respects repeating the principles of the “Code of the Builder of Communism”. Of course, “largely repeating” in no way means “duplicating”: nevertheless, the new ideology will be much closer to the communist one than the one that exists today.
The first, fundamental and key difference between the ideology of the USSR 2.0 and the existing one is to change the highest value of human development, that is, what, in fact, is to devote to human life. In a capitalist society, this is money. In the USSR, 2.0 should be the highest value knowledge. Why is that? There are three main reasons for this.
Reason 1. Humanity, generally speaking, at all times tended to go forward and try to know the world around him. Discoverers plowed through uncharted seas, overcame thousands of kilometers of unexplored continents, learned to rise in the air and sink to the bottom of the oceans. Sometimes they were driven by a thirst for profit: the same Columbus, discovering America, still just looking for another way to rich India. Sometimes it’s a military necessity: the first submarines, “hidden vessels” were created as a means of destroying the enemy fleet. Sometimes it was a thirst for knowledge, because, for example, there was no economic or military interest in reaching the same North Pole, but people gave their lives in attempts to do this.
But now we are faced with the fact that the surface of the earth has been more or less explored, we have also more or less mastered the air and water, and now we have space before us. However, space studies of other planets are incapable in the foreseeable future neither economic nor military benefits, thus, by and large, capitalism is not too interested in them to do. The result - more or less serious projects in this direction are actually frozen: how long have they been talking about the same flight to Mars? And nothing has changed.
The problem is that at the initial stages of scientific and technological revolution could be moved forward (and moved) by enthusiasts. The first “submarine” capable of diving a few meters under water, and set in motion by muscular strength or “bookcase” capable of flying a couple of hundred meters above the ground, could be collected by one person, or a small group of people. But in order to create technologies and organize, for example, research of the bottom of the Mariana Trench, we need a completely different order of resources, available only to a large corporation, and even a manned flight to the moon is beyond its power.
In other words, each next step in exploring the world around us will cost a lot more than the previous one, but it is necessary to take these steps - gradually, of course, reasonably relating them to the possibilities that we have. Strictly speaking, this is one of the tasks of science: the search for ways by which the impossible today would become possible in the future.
If we give up on this ... of course, not today, and not the day after tomorrow, but such self-restraint in development can cost us dearly. I would not like, of course, to simplify the situation to the level of a space action movie, but if in the course of years through 300 of today's “development” we find a large comet whose trajectory intersects with the planet Earth, what will we do? Will we offer a comet to buy at a discount the newest model of iPhone, which can brew coffee and do a Thai massage?
In general, humanity needs the knowledge of its surrounding space and processes, the development of the basic sciences, even if this knowledge does not guarantee profit in the foreseeable future.
The reason is 2. In the phrase "scientific and technical progress" the word "scientific" is not in vain put in the first place. Technique nevertheless only follows science, realizing its achievements in the metal, so that the high priority of science will be an excellent prerequisite for the growth of the well-being of our citizens. And, of course, their protection from external influences, because modern weapon It is a highly sophisticated fusion of high technology.
And finally, the reason for 3. It is clear that we will never be able to turn an entire nation into scientists and engineers - not everyone will have the desire or ability to do this, and it is absolutely not necessary. But we must return to the approaches that were declared (but, alas, did not always fulfill) Soviet education. In response to Mr. Fursenko, we must return our education system to prepare a “human creator”, and not a “qualified consumer”. Why does society need this? The easiest way to answer this question is the name of the old TV show: “Hello, we are looking for talents”.
The fact is that we need first-class clever scientists, engineers, technologists and representatives of other specialties. So, a properly constructed system of upbringing a "man-creator" will provide the opportunity to search and find gifted children, help them develop their talents, ensure the flow of the "best of the best." At the same time, today's “qualified consumer” system of this kind does not provide at all. It does not motivate the development of the intellect, the search and development of talents, in general: “if you want to be a scientist, become it, but these are your problems, bro!”.
Today we are striding in the direction of caste in education. And this, in turn, guarantees a large staff failure in the future. To provide the country with highly qualified personnel in science and knowledge-intensive industries, “elite” schools “not for everyone” can never replace a full-fledged and high-quality general education system. Just as in the preparation of the Olympic team, several sports clubs equipped with the latest science and technology will never be able to replace mass sport.
In other words, in the ideology of the USSR 2.0, we must abandon the highest value of capitalism - “success”, the measure of which is the amount of money earned. In the USSR, 2.0 should come to the forefront of the harmonious development of the individual, spiritual and physical, and life's achievements should be measured by success in work. The scientist who made the new discovery in his field of science, the engineer who designed the unique production line, the surgeon who managed to carry out a unique operation - these are the heroes of the USSR 2.0. In other words, above all in our new ideology should be appreciated the discovery, or the creation of something new. In second place is high professionalism in what has already been studied: an experienced teacher, whose wards constantly achieve success at the Olympiads, a turner who has mastered the wisdom of his profession to perfection, a plumber, after whose work the pipes have not flow for decades, and at least the janitor whose part always shines cleanliness, and tenants see ice only in the cinema ...
What about the money? Money for a person of the USSR 2.0, of course, is extremely important. But not as an end in itself, but only as a means of ensuring the personal needs and requirements of the family at a level that allows you not to worry about the immediate. In other words, money in the USSR 2.0 is transformed from a goal into a tool designed to provide a person with the opportunity to quietly do what he likes. Not more, but not less.
Interestingly, something similar, in general, was declared in the USSR, but ... it did not work there. And, actually, why?
The fact is that it is not enough to declare such an ideology. It must also be supported by appropriate measures, and certain hierarchies should be built up under it. In the late USSR, with rare exceptions, the proposed rationalization, innovative ideas often simply did not find use, because enterprises were not interested in their implementation, preferring to work in the old fashioned way. High-quality, efficient work only led to the fact that a person began to work "for himself and for that guy," and all this had almost no material rewards. Already in the early Soviet Union, a phenomenon called “equalization” arose in wages. As you know, people’s work is unequal: the work of the head of the design bureau and the work of a car washer brings various benefits to society, and, in theory, should be rewarded in proportion to this benefit. In the USSR, payment differentiation was relatively low, and people often lacked sufficient material incentive to take on more difficult, more responsible work. The second negative aspect of equalization was that it was rewarded, if you can say so, labor, and not its quality. That is, if you take people of the same profession, working in the same team and engaged in the same business, the reward for hard work was relatively small. The reward certainly existed, but it was so miserable that it became easier for many to give up and work “like everyone else” than to scream for an extra ten.
In other words, it turned out that in the post-war USSR the inventor and rationalizer often did not see the introduction of their proposals, and the quality and impact work was not rewarded to the proper extent either by status in society or financially. And this is something in the USSR 2.0 should be corrected. We will talk about how to do this later, but for now just remember the experience of the Stalinist USSR: any work was considered honorable, but this honor was rewarded in quite different ways. A worker who came to the newly built factory could easily live in a hut or a dugout, but the designer or engineer, if he had any merits before the Fatherland, could easily live in a multi-room comfortable apartment, use the services of a housekeeper, have an official car available. In addition, important inventions and discoveries were encouraged by special awards, the size of which at that time reached astronomical values. While in 1939 g the average wage of workers and employees in the USSR was about 330 rubles / month, the maximum amount of the Stalin award was 100 000 rubles, that is, the income of the average citizen for 25 years of socialist labor! You should not absolutize the system of Stalin's material incentives, but much of it has retained its relevance today.
Presentation of the Stalin Prize
In order for the USSR 2.0 to work properly, it’s not enough to change the ideology alone — an economic and domestic political organization is needed in which people’s creative and labor successes would be rewarded both materially and by a corresponding increase in social status.
All of the above is the main, fundamental difference between the USSR 2.0 and what we have today. I understand that with respectable readers, the question has long been in my head: “What about capitalism sharks?”, But we’ll get to that before, but for now let me introduce “The moral code of the USSR builder 2.0”
1. Love to motherland. It should be noted that in the USSR this item included devotion to the cause of communism and love for the socialist Motherland, but we will not interfere with one's love for the Motherland and for a particular state system.
2. Conscientious work for the benefit of society. How it should look like in the USSR 2.0 author indicated above.
3. Respect for life, freedom, human rights, its material and intellectual property. USSR 2.0 - anything, but not the country of "cog people" of the state mechanism.
4. Collectivism and comradely mutual assistance: one for all and all for one. Man to man is friend, comrade and brother. Understand this as follows: USSR 2.0 builds its society in the golden mean between the concepts of collectivism and individualism.
There is an immutable fact - the existence of society, society, is more important than the life of its individual members. That is why in all ages men have fought, protecting not only their loved ones, but also other people of their own kind, the society to which they belonged. That is why a person who, at the risk of his life, saves people in distress, evokes in us a feeling of genuine respect and a question for himself: “But could I do the same if I were in his place?” But there is another indisputable fact: any society is the people who form it, that is, the society exists for the benefit of its people.
Thus, citizens of the USSR 2.0 understand the priority of public interests over personal, but do not allow the suppression of the individual by society or the state. Individualism is prone to rivalry, the collectivism of the USSR 2.0 is much closer to the maxim "Be successful in your chosen field, and help those who are close to you to achieve the same." In other words, the collective in the USSR 2.0 is considered, first of all, as a voluntary association of people whose personal goals coincide to achieve these goals. Accordingly, relationships in a team are built on the foundations of teamwork, respect for others and, of course, mutual assistance.
Since childhood, 2.0 citizens of the USSR are taught to communicate with people around them, that is, it is considered natural to know at least a little about those around us - housemates, work colleagues, etc., be ready to give them all possible help and feel free to ask for such in case of need.
5. The family is recognized as the most important unit of society, it is built on the mutual respect of all its members, the joint upbringing of children, which are its greatest value. In other words, the state encourages in every way the institution of the family, the birth and upbringing of children, and this also includes material incentives. Mothers and single fathers are also respected and supported by the state. Needless families and loneliness, of course, are not prohibited, but are not encouraged.
6. Intolerance to racial, national, religious hatred.
7. Honesty and truthfulness, moral purity in public and private life.
8. Intolerance for injustice.
How does all this work? Well, for example, a young soldier enters the school and is faced with the appearance in his call of a certain fraternity whose members begin to behave impolitely towards others. This is unfair, but the young warrior is intolerant of injustice. Based on the principle of collectivism, he unites other fighters in order to protect their rights and freedoms (another principle!). Based on the principle of friendly mutual assistance, not only those who have already suffered from the “fellow countrymen”, but also others whom they have not touched yet, adjoin the newly formed team. And then this newly-formed team conducts thorough educational work among members of the fraternity, explaining to them in a popular and accessible way the full depth of their errors. Including, of course, explanations that such actions of the community lead to incitement of national discord, and this is completely unacceptable.
Let's finish with this “political information” about the features of ideology and move on to the economic system. It is easy enough to describe it ... but to explain why it will work effectively is much more difficult. This article does not have enough space for a detailed description of the economy of the USSR 2.0, so we mention only some important points.
The fact is that in the theory of the market economy there is a thesis, the validity of which by the majority of its adherents is not questioned. And it lies in the fact that, with the exception of some very specific cases, the state management of the enterprise, and even more so the industry will be less effective than the management of the private owner. It goes without saying that a theoretical basis is laid down, which consists in the fact that the owner, personally interested in economic results, will provide the best level of management, but ... the practice does not confirm this thesis.
The USSR created many models of weapons that were quite at the level of Western models. It was sometimes created that it surpassed foreign analogs in a number of parameters, or even something that had no analogues in the world - yes, at least supersonic anti-ship missiles. That is, for example, in the field of combat aviation Soviet design bureaus, scientific and production capacities quite successfully competed with such monstrous western corporations as Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The achievements of the USSR in space exploration are undeniable - and, oddly enough, the USSR’s stake on cheap "disposable" transport rockets has fully justified itself and has shown an unconditional economic advantage over American reusable spacecraft programs. Although when such a desire arose, the USSR was able to build a Buran, which even had some advantages over the Space Shuttle.
And the same can be said about such a high-tech industry as the nuclear industry. Technologies and scientific advances inherited from the USSR have made our atomic industry not only competitive, but even the leading industry in the world.
Thus, we see that for some reason both the planned economy and state ownership did not prevent the creation of an economically efficient military, nuclear and space industry in the USSR. Someone, of course, may begin to argue with this, but this, in essence, is meaningless: it suffices to look at the export volumes of weapons, space services and the construction of nuclear power plants abroad in modern times.
And this, in turn, means that state ownership of the means of production is not at all taboo, and under certain conditions it can be quite competitive with leading private producers. It turns out that if we understand and reproduce these conditions, then our state industry will face commercial success.
There is another interesting example. The author of this article does not own the full information (in fact, his information, on the contrary, is very fragmentary and incomplete), but it is possible that in the Russian Federation today there is a fairly powerful and very effective public corporation. We are talking about Rostec, which includes 14 holdings, which include more than 700 companies and employs 445 thousand people. Of course, it is difficult to judge about it, having access only to external documents, but the economic indicators of the corporation are constantly growing, it is developing, while giving out "up-to-the-minute" such ultramodern products as, for example, electronic warfare, the same Khibiny ( Concern Radioelectronic Technologies JSC).
It is more than likely that Rostec is far from being so rosy, as the reports show, and it has its own problems in bulk, but which enterprises of the Russian Federation do not have them today? Actually, even if the corporation would simply remain afloat, in the conditions of our wildly capitalism and the jerk of the dollar rate, this would be a great achievement. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that Rostec does not just somehow exist, but finds the strength to go forward. Very few private enterprises can boast of such kind, and this, again, means that a high level of management is attainable in the state corporation. I repeat once again - the example is probably inaccurate, since apart from open data and conversations with several people working in a corporation, the author does not have any other data. But anyway.
So, according to the author of this article, the basis of the economic system of the USSR 2.0 should be a symbiosis of a planned and market economy, in which the basis of the productive forces would be large production state corporations. Private property is not abolished, but the area of private business is becoming much narrower. As a matter of fact, all branches, groups of productions, are subdivided into 4 areas, in which:
1. Private business is completely absent;
2. Private business may be present, but public corporations are prevalent;
3. Private business prevails, but state corporations are also present;
4. Fully given to private business
The first area includes, for example, such a field as foreign trade in arms - in the USSR, 2.0 private enterprises may be arms manufacturers, but their export must be concentrated in the hands of the state.
Oil and gas production, of course, should be returned to the state, and besides, it makes sense to exclude private business from natural monopolies, such as, for example, energy. But there are some nuances.
For example, today the companies-subsoil users themselves do not own the subsoil, but the oil and gas they extract are the property of private companies, from which the state withholds taxes, excise taxes and other charges. So, in the USSR 2.0 oil produced, of course, should be the property of the state. But at the same time, state-owned companies engaged in oil extraction can use the services of private entrepreneurs in the development of mineral deposits and mining.
That is, it looks like this: the state pays for seismic exploration services that a private enterprise performs, and a suitable field is discovered. Then the state can carry out its development (drilling, production, etc.) on its own, but it can entrust it to a private enterprise. However, in this case, the private owner will receive not oil or gas, but only a contract for the provision of industrial services and payment for it - according to estimates. Thus, superprofits are excluded, which private companies receive at high world prices for energy carriers, because their incomes no longer depend on the prices of oil and gas. Nonetheless, private companies can still be present in this market, provide seismic exploration and production services to the state, and receive an honest price for it, making a reasonable profit.
The same applies to energy. According to the author of this article, such serious and important objects as hydroelectric power stations, not to mention nuclear, should be in the hands of the state. In such areas, reliability will probably be more important than economic efficiency, which private owners often achieve by “optimizing” those costs that cannot be “optimized” in any way. On the other hand, maintenance of transmission networks, such as power lines, hot and cold water supply lines, etc. may well be entrusted to a private entrepreneur.
The same goes for many manufacturing industries. The bottom line is that complex, knowledge-intensive industries should be engaged in the state, and private business can perform mainly supporting functions. In other words, for example, the production of transport aircraft should be the prerogative of the state, but private companies can also produce individual parts, spare parts for them. And also to provide all kinds of services - transportation, auditing, etc.
And one more important nuance - if, for example, the production of aviation, the author of this article considers the prerogative of the state, then the operation of this aviation, that is, companies engaged in air transportation, should be done primarily privately. Explanations of why this is necessary will be given later.
The main banks should be state-owned, but some private ones will be quite acceptable. In agriculture, it makes sense to rely on a private producer, but the food industry should be returned "under the wing" of the state. And here, for example, a number of services in the service and social sectors, such as transport and trading services, communication and catering services, personal services, entertainment and recreation, and others, can be left to private business. Moreover, in some areas the state may not participate at all (I can not imagine what utility could bring, for example, public hairdressing), and in some - still be represented only very slightly, at the level of enterprises that the author decided to call “reference”, but what it is and why it is needed - we will consider in the next article.
Education should be public, although a certain number of private schools, universities and vocational schools (especially the latter) are quite reasonable and acceptable. The same applies to medicine. That is, the coverage of state medicine should be such that any person has the opportunity to receive medical care at a state clinic. However, there should be private medicine, the organization of which, however, should be significantly different from today. Private, paid medicine should be, on the one hand, a way to get guaranteed, highly qualified care (it is clear that public clinics will also include graduates of medical universities - troechniki, etc.), and secondly - will enable qualified doctors to receive decent reward for your work.
What is the purpose of the above-described concentration of industry in the hands of the state, the general priority of the state economy over the private one? There are three reasons for this.
First, the fact is that the USSR 2.0 should become a socially-oriented state, whose economy is aimed at increasing the well-being of all its citizens (and not their individual representatives).
Secondly, the economy of the USSR 2.0 should avoid the pitfalls of modern capitalism, such as reducing the quality of products, reducing the duration of its service, etc.
And the first and second easier to achieve in a predominantly state-owned economy.
And finally, thirdly, the fact is that the changes proposed by the author of this article concern not only, and not so much a change in the form of ownership, as a change in the relationship between the “economic entities”. In other words, the economy of the USSR 2.0, of course, remains a market ... but it will be a completely different market, not the same as we see it today.
To be continued ...
Information