Annotation: The article attempts to consider the October revolution in Russia from the point of view of the Pareto law and the theory of forced labor. It is concluded that this coup was anti-market, an attempt to slow down the development of the country towards the construction of a market economy. It was supported by the mass of the population, which had a low level of social adaptation, that is, mediocrity, in whose interests, as the majority of the population, the managers who came to power in the 1917 year were forced to act.
Abstract: In the case of coercion to work. It’s a roadmap to a market economy. It has been supported by the population of the population.
Keywords: revolution, mediocrity, market economy, forced labor, feudal remnants, “Pareto's law”.
Key words: revolution, mediocrity, market economy, forced labor, feudal vestiges, "Pareto law".
Here is the cover of this edition. If any of the visitors to the VO website will be interested - just write, I will send it to you by mail, even for free. I don’t need it anymore - they wrote it down in the rating, in the science report, too ...
The theme of the revolution, well, the one that for many years in Soviet Russia was called the Great October Socialist Revolution or “Great October”, in the minds of most people in many ways turned into a certain set of cliches or stereotypes, an attempt on which is perceived as the destruction of the foundations. Moreover, as a result of this social upheaval, many people received quite definite benefits and they do not at all want their rights to these benefits (as well as the rights of their children!) At least in principle to be disavowed. It is for this very reason that many documents on the same Great Patriotic War are still classified up to the 2045 year, that is, by the time all its direct participants die and the truth about it will not hurt anyone personally.
However, with the revolution, the situation is somewhat different. In order to consider it, it is enough to achieve the achievements of modern science, or rather the sciences, well, and the archives are practically not required. But to begin a detailed study of this phenomenon should nevertheless not from scientific theories, but from fiction, an example taken from which explains much more than psychology, sociology and economics. What is this example? An excerpt from George Orwell's novel "1984", and the excerpt is very, very indicative: "Throughout stories and, apparently, from the end of the Neolithic, there were three kinds of people in the world: upper, middle and lower. The groups were subdivided in a variety of ways, carrying all sorts of names, their numerical proportions, and also mutual relations changed from century to century; but the fundamental structure of society remained unchanged. Even after tremendous upheavals and seemingly irreversible changes, this structure was restored, just as the gyroscope regains its position no matter where it is pushed. The goals of these three groups are completely incompatible. The purpose of the higher ones is to stay where they are. The goal of the medium is to swap places with the higher ones; the goal of the lower ones is when they have a goal, because it is characteristic for the lower ones that they are crushed by hard work and only occasionally direct the gaze beyond the limits of everyday life, to cancel all differences and create a society where all people should be equal. Thus, throughout history, a struggle flares up again and again, always the same in general terms. For a long time, the higher ones seem to firmly hold power, but sooner or later there comes a moment when they lose either faith in themselves, or the ability to govern effectively, or both. Then they were overthrown by the middle ages who drew the lower ones to their side by playing the role of fighters for freedom and justice. Having reached their goal, they push the lower ones into their former slavish position and become the highest ones themselves. In the meantime, new averages peel off from one of the other two groups or from both, and the struggle begins all over again. Of the three groups, only the lowest never succeed in achieving their goals, even temporarily. It would be an exaggeration to say that history was not accompanied by material progress. ” And the fact that this is the case is hardly worth proving: this is the basis of the history of all the revolutions that shook human society.
Now, however, before we go further, we will look at how people on planet Earth were involved in labor activities. It used to be thought that, depending on the forms of ownership, people had a primitive communal society, slave, feudal, capitalist and ... the pinnacle of social progress was socialism, the first phase of communism. However, the concept of ownership is very ephemeral. Thus, in the era of slavery, there were many free and semi-free peasants, and under feudalism and capitalism - the most real slaves! So this is not the case, but in the attitude of people to work. If we look at the history of mankind from this angle, it will become obvious - only three epochs existed: the era of natural coercion to work, when labor was forced by life itself, the era of non-economic coercion to labor, when a person (slave or serf) was forced to work, applying violence towards him, and finally - the era of economic coercion, when a person can even not work and live, but not live very well. And in order to “live well”, he has to sell his ability to work in the market. That is, the system of non-economic coercion is ... yes, the system of market mechanisms for managing the economy is well known to all of us today.
Adherents of the "Great October Revolution" tirelessly asserted that the revolution liberated the masses of Russia from feudal remnants in the form of the tsarist autocracy and landowner landownership, and this is true. But did she free him from all the remnants of non-economic forced labor? If you look closely, it turns out that such remnants are left enough.
To begin with, the main achievement of the Bolshevik coup d'état is the abolition of landlord property. But read the "Land Decree"! The resulting land was forbidden to sell, donate, exchange, and even treat it with hired labor! That is, the land was withdrawn from the sphere of market relations, and this is the level of the economy of Ancient Egypt, when all the land of the Egyptians in the same way belonged to the state, and the peasants had only the right to work it. True, this action was immediately covered by a beautiful left phrase that the earth is now common. But common, it means ... a draw. What, by the way, V. Mayakovsky wrote very well in his time: “You can die for the land for your own, but how to die for the common?” (Although there will be no doubt further, but a panegyric of the victorious red power!).
And now about the benefits of this decree ... The poor, in fact, did not give anything, they didn’t need land, but livestock, tools and ... treatment for all-out drunkenness "from grief". Fists did not live from the earth, and robbing fellow villagers. And only the middle peasants gave the desired revolution. They did not have enough land, they had something to cultivate it, which is why it was they who supported it at first. This bundle showed V.I. very well. Lenin in his work “The Development of Capitalism in Russia”, written by him in the 1899 year, and it remained so until the spring of the 1918 year. Then the need of the poor was satisfied by the kulaks, that is, the rural bourgeoisie, but what then was the result of all the perturbations of the Civil War? Again, the servitude was allowed, in addition to the middle peasants, the kulaks and the poor reappeared, that is, three groups: the upper, middle and lower, which no revolution can destroy.
Well, now about the goals of the development of human civilization ... They are such that, by developing the means of production, to destroy the peasantry as a class, since the peasant is not a market man by nature. It produces mainly for itself, and sells only a little, that is, it cannot feed the growing population of the planet. Only a hired agricultural worker, who personally does not own anything, can do it.
And this is the beginning of the article ... As you can see, all publishing indices are in place.
Yes, but now what happened in Russia? And there, after 1917, a communal system was formed, devoid of market land relations, that is, a step was taken back in economic relations between people. The fear of the market and the desire to attract the masses of backward peasantry to their side led to the fact that Lenin even sacrificed the Bolshevik program for the municipalization of the land, using the Social Revolutionary plan as a basis (it is quite understandable for the peasants - to take everything and share!) and criticized. That is, semi-feudal orders, as it is no wonder, were preserved in the USSR, and after the 1929 year, they became even stronger. Then the labor of the peasants was intensified by the introduction of the collective farm system, but this was not a market at all, but an exclusively non-economic system of forced labor, supplemented by the cannibalistic slogan: “He who does not work, does not eat!”
However, in order to provide support for their undertakings, the “middle” ones, who overthrew the power of the “old higher ones” and became “higher” themselves, had to give the “lower ones” something, and they gave them that these very “very low ones” understood well: leveling in the sphere of consumption and leveling in the sphere of labor. Again, all this was covered up with a lot of beautiful phrases, but the truth behind them was one: mediocrity had a certain level of wealth guaranteed to them, but those who were beaten out of the general level ... increased wealth was provided only if they worked for society , that is, again, they provided the surrounding mediocrity, a huge average mass of ... former peasants who migrated to the cities in the process of "de-de-perestinization" of Soviet society. In 1925, the number of industrial workers was 1,8 million. And already in 1940, 8,3 million. The number of women employed in industry increased from 28% in 1929 to 41% in 1940. Naturally, such growth could be achieved only through migration to the cities of the population from the countryside, which brought to the cities its own paternalistic culture and simplified outlook on life.
However, the very growth of the industry’s well-being of free citizens of the country was also to a large extent ensured by already completely slave labor - labor by forced prisoners of the Gulag. Now for work in northern conditions, people receive various allowances, higher wages. Well, the prisoners of the Stalinist camps mined coal, tungsten and molybdenum in the mines, poured wood in the taiga and ... got only a balanda and hope to somehow survive. No wonder the serious economic problems of the USSR began precisely after the closure of this “production base of socialism”.
As for property, by that time it was practically all concentrated in the hands of the state and controlled by an army of officials appointed by it. That is, in the face of external (and internal threat!), Russia has received a mobilization type of economy based on state-monopoly property, restricting market relations and non-economic forced labor. So it turns out that, in its results, the “October coup” led to the restoration of pre-market, feudal relations in the country, covered with loud phrases about democracy, social justice and socialism. But not a single enterprise was owned by its workers, they did not choose its director, they did not solve production and wage issues. It is clear that the state could not stimulate the good workers, but it could not really punish the bad - "class brothers". It didn’t make much sense to work really well, above the standard set — the flat, the dacha, the car couldn’t even jump on Kalashnikov himself, although his machine gun was produced in millions of copies.
Meanwhile, from the "medium" began to stand out a new "elite", which wanted more freedom, more welfare, and for this - more power. This process is objective and cannot be stopped, as it is impossible to stop the rotation of the “wheel of history”. An excess of mediocrities in all areas simply could not further ensure the development of the state and society in the conditions of new political, economic and technological challenges, which ultimately led to the events of 1991 of the year, which were simply inevitable, as inevitable when at some point "average" necessarily shift the "higher".
In addition, one should always remember about the “Pareto law”, according to which absolutely everything in the Universe and in society is divided in proportion of 80 to 20. In accordance with this position, 80% ownership is always owned by 20% owners. Their social identity changes, but the proportion itself never changes. That is, 80% are always doomed to work for these twenty, whether they are feudal feudal lords, capitalist magnates or ... “red directors” who emerged from the masses of workers and peasants. That is, it is clear that no abrupt changes in the social system will bring about anything positive and cannot lead. One way or another, 80% ownership will still be in the hands of 20% of the population! The only reason is that 80% is not smart enough, not socialized enough, educated, that is, they are all the same mediocrity. But if the market system relies on 20% of its population, then the so-called “Soviet system” relied on the majority - on 80% and therefore was inevitably somehow doomed to lose. 80% is strong in its numbers, “crushed by mass”, but 20% in any case will catch up sooner or later ... they make up for their own in 1991 too ...
It is clear that mediocrity was forced to skip upward individual talented individuals needed there to maintain the functioning of the state of their interests. A bad plane will not fly, a bad tank will not make much of it, the machine gun will not fire. However, talented people were not allowed to act in their personal interests. They were required by law to be “like everyone else,” for example, it is mandatory to work, that is, to be at the mandatory level of mass mediocrity and only speak a little bit of it.
Here it is necessary to recall the statement of V.I. Lenin that Russia "the most petty-bourgeois country of all European countries. The gigantic petty-bourgeois wave swept over everything, the conscious proletariat suppressed not only with its numbers, but also ideologically, that is, infected, captured very wide circles of petty-bourgeois workers at politics ”. At the same time, he had in mind the events of the spring and summer of 1917. But caused by the revolutionary process, this wave did not go anywhere even after the October Revolution. As a result, people from this “wave” for their support of the Bolshevik regime had to pay bills, to adapt to its mentality, because it was simply impossible to change it due to the mass character of the petty-bourgeois environment in Russia.
Thus, by its consequences, we can characterize the "Great October" as an anti-market and semi-feudal coup d'état, forcedly carried out by the leadership of the Bolshevik Party in the interests of the huge semi-literate peasant mass of Russia, which ultimately suffered from it the most! That is, from the point of view that only market relations are the most rational, we see that from them in the 1917 year, the whole 74 year in the country took a step back.
At one time, Lenin wrote: "... It is the urban and generally factory, industrial workers who are able to lead the whole mass of working people ..." both in the revolutionary transformation of society and in the creation of "... a new, socialist, social order , in the whole struggle for the complete destruction of classes "
. But, the “higher”, “middle” and “lower” structures could not be changed by any workers, they failed to build up any “socialism”, and as a result, the development of Russian society, despite all the spilled blood flows, returned to circles its own, to the economic system of coercion to work: if you want to work, you want to - no, and the one who is smarter than the others, the one whose work is more in demand, or has a greater social significance, as a result receives more than the rest ...
1. V.I. Lenin. Complete Collection op., 5 ed., Vol. 31 p. 156.
2. V.I. Lenin. Complete Collection op., 5 ed., Vol. 39, p. 14.