What Guarantees the Ruin of Economy? 5 страница
But income received from loan interest, including interest on bank deposits is legalized theft. This racketeering is an anonymous one because the racketeer does not deal with the people he robs personally, and therefore those who are being robbed by him have no opportunity of countering him personally.
Opponents to the above-mentioned viewpoint on moderate loan interest rates including interest on bank deposits will have to explain the following to the average laborer:
· Why have some categories of unearned income been acknowledged as legal and other categories of unearned income — as illegal and criminal?
· Why seizing legalized unearned income on one’s own accord has also been recognized as crime and is punished by law?
It is particularly desirable to explain it to the average laborer and not to the «average tax-payer» because in the historically real economy a tax-payer can turn out not to be a laborer though he pays taxes on his unearned income which is legalized in the society. And the laborer[50] has to provide food, clothes and all the things necessary for everyone including tax-payers who live an «honest» and law-abiding life on the unearned income that is legalized. The laborer has a right to know why he is supposed to provide for the life of those who can work but don’t, and sometimes to provide them with a higher standard of consumption than the one his own family can afford.
The idea to form the so-called «middle-class» is connected with the wish of major parasite investors, who live mostly by unearned income, to get lost among the facelessness of this «middle», where people do labor but their income consists to a large extent of the unearned income from «stock» of different sorts. The parasite investors seek to achieve it in order that the «middle class» would pettily watch the pennies it gets from it and stand up for the whole corrupt parasitic system.
An example of how thoughtless «middle-class» penny-watchers rise to defend the corrupt parasitic system is their objection to re-organizing credit and finance system on the basis of eliminating loan interest and interest on bank deposits.
Objections of this sort proceed from the assumption that eliminating loan interest (including interest on bank deposits) will cut down the credit resource of the bank system, as people will no longer place money into banks. This will undermine the very institution of credit (and consequently the economy on the whole). Such objections are unfounded.
|
|
|
First, the price list (price-current) on any marketplace is determined by the society’s nominal paying capacity including its crediting constituent and responds to any changes occurring on it. In other words the larger the portion of money loaned and not paid back in the volume of purchased products and services, the higher nominal prices.
Second, there are other means of macroeconomic regulation to ensure a credit status of the bank system, which will allow it to work efficiently[51].
But if every form of loan interest were banned by law, it would bring the society into a morally healthier state, it would improve its economy and finance, it would be accompanied by countless positive phenomena in other spheres of civilization’s activity whose value cannot be calculated by means of accounting.
As a result, macroeconomy will be primarily controlled by the rational will of people. This will is now being ousted from the sphere of macroeconomic management and suppressed in it by thoughtless automatism of collecting loan interest that ensures the welfare of the usurers’ corporation no matter how bad their mistakes and misuses in the macroeconomic policy on credit and investments are.
Therefore while loan interest is still in force, especially «immoderate» loan interest that serves to generate debts that are sure to be impossible to pay back, i.e. serves to establish a system of slavery on the financial basis, the following holds true:
· Evading taxes is a method of resisting usurious slavery, moreover so when a large part of state budget is spent on «servicing» the state’s liabilities to foreign and domestic usurers and profiteers from the stock exchange;
· The tax police and legal institutions serving it are in many aspects akin to the polizei whom the Nazi invaders hired among the locals in order to implement their strategy of enslaving the peoples of Russia.
Many entrepreneurs and employees cannot explain the difference and connection between usury and taxation as it has been done above, yet they feel both the difference and the connection between them. And because they feel them they formulate their policy on the micro-level of economy according to what was said above.
|
|
|
That is why the politicians who hope to legalize the income of physical and juridical persons, return the capital that had vanished abroad back to Russia are deceiving themselves. They will not achieve this without dealing away with systemic usury and speculations on «stock» as well as with scientific justification of their supposed necessity and inevitability in the economy of the civilization.
Russia feels it and is aware of this. And she won’t be able to develop further until legalized unearned income is eliminated. Attempts to act by force are only aggravating and prolonging the current crisis and will lead those who use force and their accomplices to no good.
Digression 2:
The Axioms of Modern Economics
In order to make clear what conception[52] of controlling the productive forces of mankind H. Ford adhered to we must clearly define several theses regarding the modern system of production and distribution of products and services in the society.
Most of them are obvious because they constitute some of the objective qualities of the social and economic life of our age. Yet regardless of that the economic theories dominating in modern science are founded upon the assumption that different opinions hold true for the issues discussed and that the views stated below are supposedly false.
We shall not recall the times of Adam Smith and earlier. We shall leave alone Robinson Crusoe and Friday living on an imaginary island. We shall turn to normal everyday life of any modern society that has developed a technosphere and that has become dependant on it. One can make the following statements about its life and economy.
FIRST. With minor exceptions there are no products or services we consume that can be produced by someone on his or her own. Production of any object or service starting with the conception of its design and up to delivering it to the customer requires collective labor both directly aimed at producing the object or service and indirectly connected with its production (manufacture and maintenance of technical equipment, ensuring necessary conditions that accompany production, for example heating on the premises etc.)
|
|
|
In other words, collective labor of many people, sometimes passed on from generation to generation, is the basis of the welfare of society on the whole. And it’s the basis of the welfare of social groups and individuals within it. And any kind of personal labor that forms a part of such collective work is a combination of directly productive labor and management labor. The last is aimed at coordinating activity of members of a single collective, as well coordinating activity of many collectives.
SECOND. If we proceed along the line of manufacturing a product in the opposite direction (start with the finished product, going then back to the stage of manufacturing semi-finished goods, components, technical equipment and, finally, to obtaining raw materials and energy) we shall see that the manufacturing process appears to be something like a branching tree. In this tree every «branch» is managed by administratively independent directorates of different enterprises.
These directorates even if their staff consists of a single member control activities by means of directives addressed to their specific area of «jurisdiction». These activities are:
· Controlling certain stages of the manufacturing process (telling people what should be done and who must do it);
· Controlling products exchange within the manufacturing process (telling how work must be passed on from one man to another).
The reason people started trading in all times and in all countries was their inability for different reasons to control the exchange of products efficiently using the addressed directive method.[53]
THIRD. Therefore the market of intermediate and «investment» products [54] , which services the sphere of production and has a more or less open pricing, is a kind of «glue». It «glues» together different fractions of the manufacturing process, which are under addressed directive control of different directorates (because they are owned by different physical or juridical persons), into an integral manufacturing process. When the market can no longer act as this kind of «glue» the complicated manufacturing processes, which employ a great many directorates and staffs subordinate to them, break up into fragments for which there is no demand. As they are not self-sufficient systems in terms of production and consumption they begin to degrade until they disappear completely in the course of time.
|
|
|
FOURTH. It is not only the market that plays the role of such «glue», which integrates many private enterprises (microeconomy) into a macroeconomy. This role is also performed by culture on the whole: most of all by language culture[55], and by the system of standards[56] maintained in the society in particular.
FIVE. Sales of products and services to ultimate consumers (individuals, households, non-production social organizations, state institutions and so on) are ensured not only by a demand for the products, which are necessary to satisfy the needs of customers. It is also ensured by the paying capacity of potential consumers. As well as by the trends and their paying capacity one anticipates.
SIX. Financial circulation is a phenomenon that merely accompanies the exchange of intermediate products within the manufacturing process and consumption of products by ultimate consumers. It is a process, which controls production and consumption. The effect that financial circulation has on production and consumption, i.e. on whether the market is able to act as the «glue» or not, depends on the policy defined by the individuals who control the society’s finances. Namely: the government (issue of money, policy on taxes and subsidies), the bank sector (issue of money, setting loan interest rates and the volume of loans), insurance companies (volume of insurance and price on risks), etc.
SEVEN. Production and consumption form an integral system of the society. This system develops itself in the course of history. Its skeleton is formed by manufacturing processes. And it then acquires the flesh of a system of human relations determined by morals (ideological relations and those resulting from ideology — informal legal tradition, the legally codified one, financial ones, etc.)
EIGHT. The welfare of society and its future is secured SUBJECTIVELY by means of this system as a whole. This system, based on technology, exists and changes OBJECTIVELY. In order to apply this system efficiently one must do the following:
· Define targets that are to be completed by means of this system;
· Organize and adjust the system and its elements to the end of:
Ø completing objectives defined,
Ø suppressing processes that lead to completing objectives that are rejected,
Ø adapting it to new problems and objectives that emerge (including pre-emptive measures);
· Tailor the work of every colleague (and not an individual worker) so that it conforms to the objectives defined and to the scheme according to which this integral multiindustrial system of production and consumption was adjusted.
NINE. It follows that: There are economic theories that refuse to consider economic issues in terms of the systemic integrity of multiindustrial production and consumption in a modern society. Instead of focusing on the problem of controlling self-regulation of this multiindustrial production and consumption system they keep studying its components separately. Such theories avoid facing the question of the systemic integrity formed by its components which is superior to any one of them taken separately and of establishing control over self-regulation of this systemic integrity. In the modern world these theories are nothing but humbug and swindle.
This humbug and swindle in the culture of our age is performed by mafia corporations of professionals. Very often it is not the matter of mistakes actually made by economists and sociologists[57] — members of the Academy, its corresponding members, doctors, professors, candidates of science, assistant professors as well as scientists and lecturers of a lower rank. It is the matter of their parasitic self-seeking avarice and malicious venality (readiness to provide «scientific» and «theoretic» grounds for any propaganda if it is paid for, readiness to teach students and schoolchildren anything ordered by their «customers» passing it off for reliable knowledge).
TEN. The globalization of the biblical, enslaving, usurious kind involves the downfall of modern civilization and the people’s falling into savagery alike the screenplays of American «futuristic» nightmare films. A globalization alternative to it is not possible without solving the problem of establishing a mechanism to control self-regulation of the global production and consumption system to the end of ensuring that all people share in human dignity.
These are the «ten commandments» which one must bear in mind when making an assessment of the entire economic science and press. They are at the same time the axioms of modern economics, of the economics that has a right to exist and develop in our age.
Keeping them in mind let us go back to what Ford thought about organizing production and distributing products and services within the society.
4.3. Fordizm —
the First Advent of Bolshevism to America
Joseph Stalin defined the essence of the fundamental economic law of capitalism the following way:
«The main features and requirements of the basic economic law of modern capitalism might be formulated roughly in this way: the securing of the maximum capitalist profit through the exploitation, ruin and impoverishment of the majority of the population of the given country, through the enslavement and systematic robbery of the peoples of other countries, especially backward countries, and, lastly, through wars and militarization of the national economy, which are utilized for the obtaining of the highest profits» (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”, “Remarks on Economic Issues Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, Ch. 7. “The Basic Economic Laws of Modern Capitalism and of Socialism”[58]).
Today it is hardly possible to call the population of the «golden billion» countries impoverished: it is stupefied by over-consumption due to the global redistribution of income from usury and debts that cannot be repaid performed by the supra-national bank corporation. Yet nowadays striving for the highest possible profit is still characteristic of the Euro-American type of capitalism.[59]
And yet we find the following on the very first pages of the book “My Life and Work” by H. Ford:
«As things are now organized, I could, were I thinking only selfishly, ask for no change. If I merely want money the present system is all right; it gives money in plenty to me. But I am thinking of service. The present system does not permit of the best service because it encourages every kind of waste — it keeps many men from getting the full return from service. And it is going nowhere. It is all a matter of better planning and adjustment. (put in bold type by the authors)» (Introduction. “What Is the Idea?”).
This extract leads us to assume that H. Ford as businessman is not the type of businessman whose qualities served as the basis for defining the fundamental economic law of the Euro-American type of capitalism. It is so because Ford clearly condemns money-grubbing, i.e. getting a maximum profit from a business and seizing it solely for one’s private needs (we shall speak about it later), proclaimed as a goal that every «normal» member of society seeks to achieve. Ford does not accept the capitalism of his time as a system. He also contrasts the self-seeking money-grubbing that reigns in that system with the universal norm of social behavior: acting to the BENEFIT of other people and society.
Yet unlike the true Marxists — anti-capitalists — Ford is not a revolutionary. He is seeking not to overthrow the social and economic order that has formed in the course of history but to reform it. And he is a reformer who rejects violence as a means to achieve social progress. He is a teacher. He had learned a great deal about organizing production and distribution of products within the society, about politics as a whole (including global politics[60]) and interpreted what he had learned. And he had carefully written that knowledge down in his books[61] to enable others — who share his creative approach to life and to problems one must face in it — could use his knowledge and practical skills to the benefit of their contemporaries and descendants.
But before we go on quoting Ford’s book “My Life and Work” we shall make a short digression into the realm of laws and rights (which are different things).
* * *
Digression 3:
Objective Rights and Subjective Laws
A right is an open opportunity of doing something while being safeguarded against a retribution for what has been done.
In the Russian world understanding the notions of «right» and «righteousness» are interconnected and the words that designate those notions are cognate. Therefore right is a reflection of objective righteousness predefined by God, so consequently a right is superior to a law passed by a government as a law can also represent an unrighteousness existing in the society. Only an ill-natured person can claim the words «right» and «law» to be synonymous. Such a person is seeking to make people confuse these two notions to the end of substituting rights with unrighteous laws.
It follows that if one accepts the terms of a theory where «Right» and «Law» are synonymous then one should distinguish between two categories of rights existing in social life:
· objective rights given to man and mankind from above. The main right superior to all other is the right of every man to act as God’s deputy on Earth guided by his conscience and in concord with the message of the Revelations[62];
· subjective «rights», established in social life by its participants themselves. They depend on their morals and are arbitrary, and can therefore be both righteous and unrighteous.
Дата добавления: 2019-09-02; просмотров: 206; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!