How should the state and the society define the notion of «plan»?

— A target set unattainably high which the multiindustrial production and consumption system must reach at the breaking point of its ability?

— A target known to be achievable which sets a level of control indices; the production and consumption system must not operate at a level lower than those indices, yet exceeding them is not only desirable, it is must be guaranteed by the freedom and creativity in science, business and management?

The second answer to the question proves to be the practically consistent one.[141]

Besides conforming to the vital needs of society, the planned range of production and consumption must be known to be achievable. Exceeding the planned values of indices when it is socially useful must be guaranteed by business and control organization in all industries and regions.

—————————

Basically this is provides full coverage of the industrial civilization’s political economy extremely summarized. This subject must be understood at least in such general way and it should be seen in real life. But conventional sociology and economy have a custom of keeping silence on such issues as the mutually excluding nature of objectives of production and distribution of products in society, on the methodology of planning and on planned adjustment of the self-regulating market mechanism. This happens because professional clerks (economists, accountants, bank financiers, stock exchange brokers) as well as the rest of the crowd are not supposed to know that they are all controlled in a robot-like manner in a very simple way. Since early childhood their views and professional skills are being formed to suit the goals of the masters and bosses of the system but they are not consistent in practice.

We have dealt with these problems very briefly in this work but we have tackled their essence. More details are provided in the «Brief course» by the IP of the USSR. As known from experience of promoting the Conception of Social Security, many people think it unnecessary to read it and become familiar with it. We think though that it is obligatory that all supporters of the Conception of Social Security must study it because we live in a civilization where everyone is dependant on the system of production and distribution of products. Therefore no one has a moral right to speak on economic issues until he has formed at least a most general idea of the following things.

· what are the interindustry balances of product and financial exchange;

· how they are connected with each other;

· how the processes within an industry are described by the instruments of mathematical statistics and the probability theory;

· how these description of the processes within an industry are connected with the accounting system;

· what the instruments of adjusting the market mechanism to self-regulating production and distribution are;

· how these instruments are reflected in the interindustry balance;

· how the objectives of production and distribution typical of the society are reflected in the interindustry balance;

· how should the planning system be built so that it would generate a succession of planned balances corresponding to completing morally healthy objectives of production and distribution of products;

· how should the policy on taxes, subsidies, credit and insurance change while the succession of planned balances is being realized so that the real indices of production and consumption would be better than the planned targets and that the chosen objectives would be completed.

And the main thing is to understand:

· why should defining targets within the planning system be demographically grounded within the course of the global policy;

· how are the demographically grounded and the degraded parasitic ranges of needs determined in practice;

· what needs are attributed to each class today.

One must know, understand and feel this even if one is not going to make a career and take up the post of the state’s leader, prime-minister or the minister of economy. One must know this so that the «great» schemers[142] and liars could not fool people any more.

In order to make it easier to master this knowledge and to help people break free from the prejudice of pseudo-economic myths we have published “The Brief Course…”

Now on the basis of the information provided in this digression we could move on to discussing Ford’s and Stalin’s views on normal economy of society.

4.5. Planned Economy of Bolsheviks
is a Socialist Economy

Having provided a definition of the fundamental economic law of socialism at the end of Chapter 4.4 Stalin explains it further and differentiates objectives and the means of accomplishing them.

«It is said that the law of the balanced, proportionate development of the national economy is the basic economic law of socialism. That is not true. Balanced development of the national economy, and hence, economic planning, which is a more or less faithful reflection of this law, can yield nothing by themselves, if it is not known for what purpose economic development is planned, or if that purpose is not clear <we have dealt with the task of defining targets in Digression 6>. The law of balanced development of the national economy can yield the desired result <i.e. attaining and maintaining the necessary level of industries’ capacities and the proportions between industries> only if there is a purpose for the sake of which economic development is planned. This purpose the law of balanced development of the national economy cannot itself provide <because the proportions between various industries and the absolute capacities are themselves defined by the targets set within this task>. Still less can economic planning provide it <as defining targets does not lie within the bounds of proportions between industries and the methodology of planning>. This purpose is inherent in the basic economic law of socialism, in the shape of its requirements, as expounded above. Consequently, the law of balanced development of the national economy can operate to its full scope only if its operation rests on the basic economic law of socialism.

As to economic planning, it can achieve positive results only if two conditions are observed: a) if it correctly reflects the requirements of the law of balanced <i.e. proportionate> development of the national economy <i.e. if the methodology of planning adequately models the proportions and relations between industries providing for predictability of the consequences of decision-making on economic policy> and b) if it conforms in every way to the requirements of the basic economic law of socialism <which means that the planned targets of social and economic development are set in accordance with the demographic setting and that the planning system is aimed at securing satisfaction of the morally healthy (vital) needs of everyone>» (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, ch. 7. “The Basic Economic Laws of Modern Capitalism and of Socialism”).

Yet the above-quoted extract (if divested of our explanatory comments put in <angular brackets>) to many would seem empty (meaningless) babble of a top party hierarch ignorant of practical issues and having nothing to do with economic reality of the Soviet society.

Many abide by this point of view justifying their stance by recalling the economic reality of the late «zastoi» and «perestroika» USSR. This was a time when there was shortage of most products ranging from foodstuff to furniture, housing and cars (that were yet considered to be among luxuries optional for a family household) and overstocking (glut) in some categories of products, such as an abundance of carpeting and cut-glass ware that existed at a time. Supplies of some products to the trading network experienced regular failures, among them even such basics as salt, soap, tooth-paste, sugar and sausage (which was at times available only in Moscow, Leningrad, republic capitals and closed «classified towns» («spetsgorodki»). Along with that there existed the «raspredeliteli» (distribution centers only for Soviet “elite”), where the Soviet “elite”, consisting of party, government, academic and other «nomenclature», got all the products they needed according to their individual rank no matter how poorly the public trading network was supplied. And those are just a few facts characteristic of that reality.

It could seem that this experience of life in the USSR confirms that Stalin’s statements on the fundamental economic law of socialism and its implementation on the basis of planned control of economy are most surely nothing but preposterous meaningless babble; that real life has proved that planned economy is not viable if it is to serve the interests of the majority of people.

Yet if one correlates the extract quoted from “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R” with Digression 6 it becomes clear beyond doubt that on the contrary the history of the post-1953 USSR including the mess the country got into in the times of «zastoi» and «perestroika» proves that Joseph Stalin gave the right definition of the economic laws of socialism yet after his assassination the strategy of social and economic development was worked out and implemented in the way that severely violated both the fundamental economic law of socialism and the law of regular and balanced development of economy.

In order to exemplify this statement we shall make another digression.

*       *    *

Digression 7:
The Post-Stalin USSR
was an Anti-Socialist State

As for the fundamental economic law of socialism, which defines the goals of production and distribution of products in a society, there was no strict differentiation and division between the degraded parasitic and the demographically grounded range of needs neither in the general political economy of socialism nor in the applied theories of controlling economy on a planned basis.

In the Stalin period it can be explained by solving the tasks of the country’s social and economic development on the basis of Marxism which the Russian culture accepted but had no time to comprehend in correlation with the actual life situation. The intellectual potential was spent in struggles within the party, technological and organizational aspects of restructuring national economy in the 1920‑s — 1930-s. Then all every effort was directed to win the Great Patriotic War (World War II as it is called in the formed USSR) and to carry out the economical restoration and re-equipment of military forces (when missiles and nuclear weapon were introduced) that followed. But after the restoration period was over and “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R” was published the complete failure and futility of social and economic sciences in the USSR can be explained only by the degraded parasitic morality of the scientists themselves. The more vicious in morals — the more corrupt and obliging and higher in the social hierarchy, but at the same time the more stupid and less efficient in defining and solving the problems of actual life and social development.

As a result of such indifference of science and politicians towards the two incompatible ranges of needs alcohol and tobacco products were taking the leading places in the revenues of the USSR budget. And by the mid-1980-s each rouble gained from sales of alcohol was attended by 3 — 5 roubles (in different assessment) of direct or indirect damage registerable by bookkeeping. It was caused by faults, factory accidents, absenteeism, spoilage, hooliganism and more serious crimes and results of people’s actions under the influence of alcohol. There is also damage that evades bookkeeping and includes health damage to the new generations given birth by drinking parents and cultural damage caused by absence of proper education and by genetic potential’s degrading under the influence of alcohol.

The same can be said about the production and usage of tobacco products and, especially today, of different dopes.

As a result the USSR — Russia in post-Stalin period fell, falls and in the nearest future will fall behind the requirements of time in mass solving of moral, scientific, technological and organizational problems of its development which define its international position and the attitude the local “elites” and common people of other regions of the Earth share towards it.

It’s also no use speaking about the satisfaction of people’s needs by means of development and improvement of production on the basis of high technologies. The old enterprises were working for decades without upgrading their technological base and the new ones were constructed according to projects, which provided for the use of old technologies and morally outdated equipment. Above all «dolgostroy» (long-term building) flourished caused by the violation of proportions between the planned amount of works and the productive capacity of the construction industry.

It means that in the post-Stalin period it was not only the fundamental economic law of socialism that was violated but the law of planned proportional development was systematically violated as well. In our opinion the most striking example of violating proportions resulting from falsely defined targets i.e. from violating the fundamental economic law of socialism, — are the forays of «virgin soil reclamation» and the development of the USSR Armed Forces.

The first virgin soil crop exceeded all expectations. It was reaped … and mainly rotted because the infrastructures of accommodation, storage, grain processing and transport had not been created in advance. Moreover during the first forays on the virgin soil an agrotechnics, that did not agree with the natural conditions of Kazakhstan steppe, was employed and in some regions up to half a meter of fertile soil was carried away by weathering. It will take the soils thousands or at least hundreds of years to recover from this damage.

The personal blame for this sabotage, this biosphere environmental crime lies completely on Nikita Khrushchev, the members of the Central Committee of Communist Party, the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of those years, the State Planning Committee, the corresponding departments of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

This could have not happen if it had been done according to common sense, the fundamental economic law of socialism and the law of planned proportional development of national economy.

In this case the roads and accommodation would have been built first of all. The agricultural production would have been limited by the amount necessary to feed the new-coming population. In several years aeromechanics would have been modified to agree with natural conditions of the region. And then on this basis the problem of food self-sufficiency of the USSR would have been solved in the regular succession of generations and in constant care for the sustenance of the soils’ fertility[143].

One does not need to be a genius to work out in advance a plan for reclamation of virgin soils very much like this sequence of successive and mutually coordinated actions. It was necessary simply not to regard a plan as some sort of a record to beat, not to make much of abstract numbers in order to blow up a propaganda boom, but to concentrate on what in particular should be done, in what succession and by whom, what resources are necessary for it and what metrologically consistent indices give ground that one may proceed to the next stage of a complex plan.

Another expression of the “elite” policy of constraining population to the degraded parasitic range of needs are «khrushchevki» (standard blocks of flats built during the times of Khrushchev). Their «architecture» psychologically depresses an individual and their overcrowded conditions (or «compactness and «combined lay-out» of everything and all, if to use the slang of those times). Their small size and number of rooms destroyed the extended family. Thus the «khrushchevki» epoch caused an irretrievable damage to formation of individuals in several generations, because nothing can substitute an everyday communication of a small child with his grandparents[144].

If to dwell further on the problem of individual formation let us recollect a well-known phrase «architecture is music in stone». And in the same way as musical background (radio, audio-records) influences human psyche and activity, architectural background also has this kind of influence. In textbooks on ancient history, which everybody (in the USSR) studied by in the 1960 — 1970s, it was told how an enemy army burst into the Athens acropolis. When the warriors beheld the statue of Pallas Athena standing in front of them on the pedestal they were stunned and retreated without committing any plunder. This is an example of the influence of architecture which is if not ideal yet closer to an ideal than that of modern cities. And when we try to investigate the reasons of youth riots like the one in the center of Moscow on June 9, 2002 when Russia lost the football match to Japan it should be kept in mind that the majority of the participants of that hell-bender grew up against the «architectural» (if it can be called such) background of «khrushchevki» — «vivarium»[145].

One can often hear that «khrushchevki» caused rapid growth of housing construction, that people moved from communal flats and cellars, that the housing problem[146] in towns was being solved. But these are two different and hardly interconnected questions: the first is a question of architectural forms and styles and the second is a question of building materials, technologies and constructions. Nothing, except an anti-national neo-Trotskyite political course, prevented from applying more productive building technologies in combination with a life-asserting architectural style instead of the unnatural style of «khrushchevki» — «vivarium».

Besides, in order to raise the statistics on «housing construction» the doors in «khrushchevki» were installed not on the borders between a room and a corridor (or a kitchen and a corridor) according to the rectangular outline of rooms, but within a meter from this border towards the corridor. A passage to the kitchen through a niche in the dining room in some «khrushchevki» can be explained by the same desire to fake report statistics. This niche appeared as a result of eliminating the wall between the dining room and the corridor that led to the kitchen passing the bathroom. Because of such architectural perversions each room or a kitchen acquired up to two additional square meters, which could not be used but were included into reports on housing construction. These meters were also charged according to tariffs on usable are and were taken into account in case of an application for improvement of living conditions.

The same happened with the staircases. Lifting a piano to the fifth floor became an theme for jokes of that epoch. However the reality was that millions of elderly people could not descend those staircases and that the deceased had to be turned over in order to be carried down because the coffin could not fit into the narrow space of stair flights. It will take several generations to overcome the consequences of that period.

Besides, «khrushchevki» were tightly connected with the notorious «six hundred square meters»[147] land allotments, which were sometimes a hundred kilometers away from the town place of habitation (it deserves no other name). The result is:

«“Khrushchevki” + “six hundred square meters”» = «destroyed biocenoses + waste of land resources, transport and industrial capacities» in contrast to the option of building family cottages with attached plots of land in towns and developing production which does not engage many people in small towns and in the country-side.

The development of the USSR’s Armed Forces in the post-Stalin period was also an act of sabotage. For the military forces in peaceful time to warrant the country’s ability to defend and to develop successfully the number of soldiers or seamen should correspond to the number of officers and the quantity of high-quality equipment in accordance with the specific branch of arms and the military doctrine. In order to maintain all of this in fighting efficiency an infrastructure of bases (accommodation for soldiers, officers and their families, shooting-ranges, etc) and training facilities should be developed. Because some armaments become morally and physically obsolete and are taken off the register national economy should develop a complex of modernization, reconstruction and utilization industries[148].

Violation of structural proportions of the military forces towards increasing the quantity of armaments and manpower proper which are not backed up by due development of infrastructures of basing, training, reconstruction, modernization and utilization is justified in one and only case: if the war is known to start in the nearest future. In this war the quantity of armaments and manpower excessive in comparison to the proportions of peacetime will secure a quick victory resulting from a massive strike on the offence or on the defense. Or it will be destroyed during the first stage of a stabilized warfare.

But if the military forces of a state are growing during more than 30 years (1953 — 1985) according to proportions of a wartime period — it is an issue of a separate research.

In our opinion during the period between the summer of 1953 when Nikita Khrushchev came to power and the death of Leonid Brezhnev in 1982 all the information on real processes of global policy given to the leaders of the USSR was intentionally perverted by consultants in science (The Institute on the USA and Canada) and intelligence, which happened due to the all-around influence of second-generation Trotskyites. Drinking (both Khrushchev and Brezhnev) and smoking (Brezhnev) were with few exceptions an integral part of the party and state leaders’ life-style. They perverted and depressed the psychological state of politicians and prepared a «fertile field» for them to be suggested all kinds of false ideas about the intentions and actual policy of the USA, NATO and the processes of global policy in general.

As for the states, which were enemies of the USSR in the «cold war» of 1946 — 1985, a lot of their politicians were initiated masons who acted according to the masonry’s global political scenario. Those who were not masons were fooled by science and intelligence of their countries, which were infiltrated by masons. Marxist Trotskyism initially included a branch of masonry; therefore everything in the global policy was under control of the representatives of biblical conception.

Under such circumstances the proportions of the military forces of the USSR redundantly deformed in relation to infrastructure of basing and provision convinced everyone who was not admitted to the global scenarios that the country was preparing to start a war and all that noise about a peaceful co-existence of two systems was intended to put Western politicians and society off their guard.

Moreover, there were methodological errors in the work of State Planning Committee of the USSR and of the Union Republics and bodies of government supervising their economies, and so good intentions could not be realized because inappropriate means were used.

Thus, although such branch of knowledge as «economic cybernetics» did appear in Soviet science, those economic «cabernet[149]-ics» were engaged mainly in small talk and in adjusting quotations from western researches to Marx-Lenin ideology and to publications of the regular Congress of Communist Party instead of scientific and creative research work.

As a result «economic cybernetics» did not solve the problem of defining targets and did not define the price list to be the financial and economic expression of the error vector of the society’s self-control. It did not consider the problem of the system’s internal «noise» and the external noise on the level of micro- and macroeconomy, means of their suppression and excluding from the processes of control and self-control. It did not reveal the problems of coordinating the addressed directive (structural) control and the market self-regulating system (non-structural control) in a general process of controlling the realization of plans. No theory of control can be a consistent basis for the practice of control unless it has definite answers to such questions as: what is a vector of control objective? what is the objective expression of control error vector? what can be used as means of control? which parameters should be independent in the process of control? It concerns both Soviet and foreign cybernetics.

For this and other reasons State Planning Committee of the USSR was doomed to practice defective and vicious methods of modeling social and economic development and of plan optimization.

In order to demonstrate what idiotic notions about the functioning of a multiindustrial production and consumption system the State Planning Committee indulged in and what ideas Soviet economic science cultivated let us consider a quotation from the work “The Planned Equilibrium: installation, maintenance, efficiency” (by V.D. Belkin and V.V. Ivanter, «Economica» Publishing house, Moscow, 1983, p. 209):

«The question is how to estimate the product a part of which was produced over the desired solvent demand? It can be done using the equilibrium prices[150]. As it was demonstrated (…) the prices for the goods, the production of which is redundant in relation to the solvent demand, should be lower than the production prices. The redundant production means redundant expenditure in labor, material and natural resources, damages for the entire society and the recession of economic efficiency of national economy».

The last phrase is the expression of a private-owner, capitalist mode of thinking, which does not comprehend the structural integrity of a multiindustrial production and consumption inside a society and which a single businessman directs towards deriving of maximum of profit right now and always.

This world understanding is incapable of defining targets and evaluating efficiency in the activity of a super concern state. The logic of the last phrase from the given quotation leaves only one step to make towards suggesting to destroy the product, which is redundant in relation to the solvent demand at prices that do not cover the expenses on its production. Private-property economy gives us a scope of such examples: it is well known that corn was drowned in sea or used as fuel for electric power-stations in order to raise prices while the population of whole regions in other countries was starving.

There is a need in a different approach to the efficiency of national economy. The latter is a structural integrity designed for guaranteed satisfaction of the daily living needs of the entire population in the succession of generations, but not of the degraded parasitic needs of a small “elite” group. However we do not even put a question of interrelation between a turnout exceeding the solvent demand and a demographically grounded need in a book dedicated to the planned equilibrium in a state whose goal is to build «communism» when everything will be free of charge and free-for-all.

Yet if one proceeds from the principle that production in a society is performed for the sake of satisfying vital needs, then in a normally functioning production system product quality should correspond to these needs and to the standards in which they are expressed. A price in such system first of all is a means to limit the number of consumers. It deprives the insolvent part of the possibility to obtain or use some product.

Correspondingly production exceeding the expected (planned) solvent demand on the demographically grounded range of needs an advanced result in carrying out the plan and is socially useful for it will permit to satisfy the vital needs of more people within the planned period. Therefore the prices on this product should be lowered in due time to ensure its sales, and the «losses» of the manufacturers should be covered by subsidies. Otherwise former prices ensuring the profitability of production should be retained, while the potential consumers should be offered target subsidies.

Here is the opinion of H. Ford on the question:

«We are not much concerned with the statistics and the theories of the economists on the recurring cycles of prosperity and depression. They call the periods when prices are high “prosperous.” A really prosperous period is not to be judged on the prices that manufacturers are quoting for articles.

We are not concerned with combinations of words. If the prices of goods are above the incomes of the people, then get the prices down to the incomes (put in bold type by the authors). Ordinarily, business is conceived as starting with a manufacturing process and ending with a consumer. If that consumer does not want to buy what the manufacturer has to sell him and has not the money to buy it, then the manufacturer blames the consumer and says that business is bad, and thus, hitching the cart before the horse, lie goes on his way lamenting. Isn’t that nonsense?» (Ch. 9. “Why Not Always Have Good Business?”).

This helps to understand that H. Ford understood the aim and manner of a normal functioning of a multiindustrial production and consumption system better than the collaborators and directors of State Planning Committee 60 years after “My Life and Work” by H. Ford has been published[151]. The fault of State Planning Committee and economic «science» of the USSR is aggravated by the fact that unlike H. Ford they had several decades of working-out the plans of which they were to make sense. But social climbers and bureaucrats are hopeless.

As for the question raised by the authors of “The Planned Equilibrium” it demands a substantial answer:

The exceeding of a planned range of production by a real output will inevitably lead to the reduction of prices on the product on the demographically determined specter of needs. And in this case the fiscal-subsidizing policy of a super concern state, such as the USSR, should provide under the normal functioning for the solvency balance of the branches of economy. This — is a normal regime of functioning of a multiindustrial production and consumption system of a morally healthy humanly developing society.

If the product exceeds the proper demographically determined needs of the state it should find its outlet on the world market (its quality should suffice) or it should be given to the destitute countries as a gratuitous or other kind of help in the course of the goals of state’s global policy[152].

However the economic science of the USSR did not understand the exceptional position of a socialist political system as an owner of the whole credit and finance system and an exclusive operator of the «financial press» which gives birth to law of value (i.e. a price current base of nominal prices and price correlation). This science put it in the way that the state — is one of many private owners of this system, which can use it until its activities are paid off under the set prices and price correlation.

Such position would be correct in relation to any private-capitalist political system where the owner of the credit and finance systems and operator of a financial running knot is a usurious corporation independent of state[153].

Such branch of sociological science that could be called «juridical cybernetics» also did not appear in the USSR. This science could have analyzed and developed legislature as a system of social self-government algorithms in the course of a definite conception of global policy.

Certainly, many of the mentioned and not mentioned, but known from the life of the post-Stalin USSR, facts are vices unconsciously, automatically inherited from the epoch of J.V. Stalin and earlier times.

However in the years of Stalinism they are forgivable for they were objectively determined by the fact that the socialist revolution took place in the country where 85 % of population were completely illiterate. The first educated generation of the Soviet nation grew up during the pre-war years. They mastered science (including Marxism which was imposed on them) and culture belonging to the previous ruling “elite”. They inherited the science and culture, which were already formed and retained all their vices. It was therefore inevitable that the predominant part of population was not free in its world understanding from the power of the vicious and obviously false ideas, which they duly put into practice.

But at the end of 1952 “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” was published in which J.V. Stalin pointed out many of the problems mentioned by us directly or in connection with other issues. And when the «ottepel» started nothing — except corruption, obsequiousness and malignancy of scientists, «Soviet» intelligentsia in general, limiting them in their choice of objects for research and restraining in obtaining morally acceptable results — nothing prevented them from investigating and solving the problem formulated by S. Okito in the interview quoted in Digression 6.

Many years that passed after 1953 — the years of a different morality of scientists and politicians — allowed to get free from the mistakes and abuses characteristic of Stalin period and to develop all the good that was given a start and new power in the result of the Great October Socialist Revolution, building of socialism and victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941— 1945.

However malignant scientists and politicians (under the connivance of the rest of population) carried to the point of absurdity everything that was good, perverted and violated it while developing everything bad. Logically there came the perestroika and the situation we have today as the in-between results of the then launched reforms.

All this shows that in the fragments quoted from “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” by J.V. Stalin are no empty talking. In a brief work it is simply impossible to explain all the particulars and details[154]. Stalin determines only those problems and sets up those the goals that he finds essential to be solved by the entire population to ensure further successful development of the USSR as a multinational society in which everyone can master his genetic potential of development and become an individual.

Let us now return to the main issue of this part.

*            *
*

It is well known that J.V. Stalin is an advocate of socialism and planned economy, yet many people tend to forget that he supports not a planned economy «generally speaking», but a planned economy definitely aimed at complete satisfaction of vital needs of all people in the society. The fact that the guaranteed satisfaction of morally healthy needs is meant is implied by the very Idea of socialism and social justice in its evolution in each particular historical epoch.

Let us now turn to the viewpoints of H. Ford. Earlier we have quoted his opinion on the central flaw of the system of private-capital enterprise as a system of production and distribution of products in the society:

«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».

Thus it can be understood that H. Ford and J.V. Stalin share the following opinion:

National economy (and in the historical perspective — world economy) should be planned, socialist in its essence and it should guarantee in succession of generations the satisfaction of vital needs of laborers conscientiously participating in the economic activity, i.e. of the majority of society.

Suspicion may arise that this opinion, which belongs to the private owner – a capitalist H. Ford – is an incidental, unmotivated slip of the tongue or some ambiguity torn out of context[155]. That we use it with reference to Ford’s authority to provide grounds for the necessity of planned basis in economy on micro- and macro-levels and a socialist character of production-consumption social interrelations. Let us therefore turn to other parts of Ford’s work where the issue of necessity of planning in economy on micro- and macro-levels and of relations between the capital and the businessman and the rest of society is the major topic:

«By poverty I mean the lack of reasonably sufficient food, housing, and clothing for an individual or a family. There will have to be differences in the grades of suste­nance <this — is a rejection of a barrack-equalizing pseudo-socialism>. Poverty can be done away with only by plenty, and we have now gone far enough along in the science of production to be able to see, as a natural development, the day when production and dis­tribution will be so scientific that all may have according to ability and industry.

The underlying causes of poverty, as I can see them, are essentially due to the bad adjustment between produc­tion and distribution, in both industry and agriculture — between the source of power and its application (put in bold type by the authors)[156]. The wastes due to lack of adjustment are stupendous. All of these wastes must fall before intelligent leadership consecrated to service. So long as leadership thinks more of money than it does of service, the wastes will continue. Waste is prevented by far-sighted not by short-sighted men. Short-sighted men think first of money. They cannot see waste. They think of service as altruistic <i.e. unprofitable a priori> instead of as the most practical thing in the world. (put in bold type by the authors)[157]» (Ch. 13. “Why Be Poor?”).

«Although there is never a time when everyone has too much of this world’s goods — when everyone is too comfortable or too happy — there come periods when we have the astounding spectacle of a world hungry for goods and an industrial machine hungry for work and the two — the demand and the means of satisfying it — held apart by a money barrier <caused by many ways by the usury of banks and stock-market speculations>. Both manufacturing and employment are in-and-out affairs. Instead of a steady progression we go ahead by fits and starts — now going too fast, now stopping alto­gether. When a great many people want to buy, there is said to be a shortage of goods. When nobody wants to buy, there is said to be an overproduction of goods. I know that we have always had a shortage of goods, but I do not believe we have ever had an over­production (put in bold type by the authors). We may have, at a particular time, too much of the wrong kind of goods. That is not over­production — that is merely headless production. Hemay also have great stocks of goods at too high prices. That is not overproduction — it is either bad manufactur­ing or bad financing <i.e. an attempt to gain excess profit by forcing up prices>. Is business good or bad according to the dictates of fate? Must we accept the conditions as inevitable? Business is good or bad as we make it so. The only reason for growing crops, for mining, or for manufacturing, is that people may eat, keep warm, have clothing to wear, and articles to use. There is no other possible reason, yet that reason is forced into the back­ground and instead we have operations carried on, not to the end of service <i.e. other people>, but to the end of making money <for oneself> (put in bold type by the authors)[158] — and this because we have evolved a system of money that instead of being a convenient medium of exchange, is at times a barrier to exchange[159]. Of this more later.

We suffer frequent periods of so-called bad luck only because we manage so badly. If we had a vast crop failure, I can imagine the country going hungry, but I cannot conceive how it is that we tolerate hunger and poverty, when they grow solely out of bad management, and especially out of the bad management that is im­plicit in an unreasoned financial structure[160]. Of course the war upset affairs in this country. It upset the whole world. There would have been no war had management been better. But the war alone is not to blame. The war showed up a great number of the defects of the financial system <i.e. laid open the failure of hopes for the self-regulation of production and consumption by a free market in connection with the actual living needs>, but more than anything else it showed how in­secure is business supported only by a money foundation. I do not know whether bad business is the result of bad financial methods or whether the wrong motive in business created bad financial methods[161], but I do know that, while it would be wholly undesirable to try to overturn the present financial system, it is wholly desirable to reshape business on the basis of service. Then a better financial system will have to come. The present system will drop out because it will have no reason for being. The process will have to be a gradual one.

The start toward the stabilization of his own affairs may be made by any one. One cannot achieve perfect results acting alone, but as the example begins to sink in there will be followers[162], and this in the course of time we can hope to put inflated business and its fellow, depressed business, into a class with small-pox — that is, into the class of preventable diseases. It is perfectly possible, with the reorganization of business and finance that is bound to come about, to take the ill effect of seasons, if not the seasons, out of industry, and also the periodic depressions» (Ch. 9. “Why Not Always Have Good Business?”).

Those were the thoughts of H. Ford about the problems caused by the absence of planning basis and they might have been regarded as simple complaints which do not oblige and do not exhort to do anything. But it is not so considering the general context of his book where in chapter 7 he makes direct statements on the objectively formed necessity to include planning basis into the economy of society:

«There are far too many assumptions about what human nature ought to be and not enough research into what it is. Take the assumption that creative work can be undertaken only in the realm of vision. We speak of creative “artists” in music, painting, and the other arts. We seemingly limit the creative functions to productions that may be hung on gallery walls, or played in concert halls, or otherwise displayed where idle and fastidious people gather to admire each other’s culture (put in bold type by the authors)[163]. But if a man wants a field for vital creative work, let him come where he is dealing with higher laws than those of sound, or line, or color; let him come where he may deal with the laws of personality. We want artists in industrial relationship. We want masters in industrial method — both from the standpoint of the producer and the product. We want those who can mould the political, social, industrial, and moral mass into a sound and shapely whole. We have limited the creative faculty too much and have used it for too trivial ends (put in bold type by the authors)[164].

We want men who can create the working design for all that is right and good and desirable in our life. Good intentions plus well-thought-out work­ing designs can be put into practice and can be made to succeed. It is possible to increase the well-being of the workingman — not by having him do less work, but by aiding him to do more. If the world will give its attention and interest and energy to the making of plans that will profit the other fellow as he is, then such plans can be established on a practical working basis. Such plans will endure — and they will be far the most profitable both in human and financial values (isolated in a separate paragraph and put in bold type by the authors).

What this generation needs is a deep faith, a profound conviction in the practicability of righteousness, justice, and humanity in industry. If we cannot have these qualities, then we were better off without industry. Indeed, if we cannot get those qual­ities, the days of industry are numbered. But we can get them. We are getting them (isolated in a separate paragraph and put in bold type by the authors) (Ch. 7. “The Terror of the Machine”).[165]

Ford was mistaken in his evaluation of the perspectives: the days of industry are not over. But he was right in his apprehension that in the historically developed by that time (it was only 1922) form industry does not have a right for existence. He was right: the global biosphere and environment crisis, an unquestionable attribute of the life of mankind in the last quarter of the 20^th century and in the foreseeable perspective of the 21^st century, is a result of predominance of those methods of managing which Ford foresaw, condemned and warned against offering his alternative.

Yet the problem of alternative principles of managing organization on the basis of demographically grounded target definition and of planning in long-term successions is connected with the question how a problem of freedom of man is comprehended within a society. Depending on the answer to this question a private-capitalist enterprise and «free market» system will pass to this alternative according to its own free will or it will happen inevitably under the influence of extra-social (biosphere-ecological crisis and people’s physical and psychological degradation) and intra-social conditions (social and political activity, uncompromising initiative of the more progressive part of society).

In one of his interviews Stalin commented upon the rights and freedom of man:

«I can hardly imagine what «personal freedom» an unemployed may have, he who walks hungry and cannot find an application of his labor. The real freedom exists only where exploitation is destroyed, where there is no oppression of people by other people, where there is no unemployment and hunger, where a man does not live in fear of losing his job, his house, his bread next day[166]. Only in such society real and not official, personal or any other freedom is possible[167]» (from a conversation with the chairman of a news-paper union Roy Howard, March 1, 1936).

It has been mentioned that the high level of individual social protection including the guarantees of economic rights (which are essentially creative and consumer’s rights)and freedoms calls for control. I.e. it calls for a demographically grounded definition of targets and efficient regulation of product exchange, in a multiindustrial production and consumption system from which the society obtains the majority of consumed goods.

11 years later (in the year of H. Ford’s death) Stalin has a discussion with another foreign interviewer concerning the problem of necessity to regulate production and distribution in national economy in order to get free from the vicious circle of economic depressions and social disorder resulting from the latter.

«J.V. Stalin asks: And what about the businessmen? Are they willing to be controlled and limited?

Stassen answers that they usually object to it.

J.V. Stalin observes that they will surely object» (from a conversation with some Stassen, April 7, 1947).

Stassen’s answer actually proved that Stalin was right in rejecting H. Wells’ statement of bourgeoisie’s kindness. In the other aspect a question of necessity of governmental regulation of private enterprise is a question of private and state ownership over means of production and a question of relationship between the state and any individual of the society and especially the businessman.

What is the essence of the right of ownership over means of production? What is the difference between private and public ownership over means of production? — These questions belong to that multitude of questions to which traditional political economy (including its Marxist version in general and socialist version in particular) does not give articulate, systematic and practically viable answers. Let us therefore clarify them.

The right of ownership is one of many rights acknowledged by very different societies. It is realized by ownership subjects in relation to property, i.e. to objects of ownership. It is realized through proclamations as well as through implications. And proclamations can be suppressed by the actions of implications attending to these proclamations. An example to it is a violation of the Biblical commandment «Do not steal» by the prescription (also biblical) to the Hebrew of international usury executed on the racial corporation basis: «steal and the main thing — make everybody think that this stealing is allowed by God himself and to you alone» (see Supplement 1).

In well-meaning concepts of social organization people cannot be objects of ownership neither in proclamation (slave-owning, feudalism, serfdom) nor in dissembling (private-owning capitalism with the strangling not of usury or of personal «copyright» on the objects of «intellectual» property).

Of all the ownership rights an exclusive role belongs to the right of ownership on the means of production, because much depends on it directly or indirectly in the legislative regulation of economic life of society.

The essence of the notion of «the right of ownership on the means of production» is revealed exclusively as the right to control production and distribution of product either directly or through a delegate.

The essence of the notion of right on such objects of ownership as earth and its bowels, waters and other natural resources is revealed only as a right to organize human labor using these resources and also as a right to limit access to its non-productive use (e.g. for leisure, etc).

Right (in the meaning of personal right as a social institution) and value are categories residing in a social organization, not nature. Under the circumstances of purchase of such rights it is a result of human labor in the past, present or a possible result in future that is always paid. «Natural resources and comforts» do not objectively have any value. Their payment is a nominal solvency limitation of possibility to use them and a creation of funds to pay the labor contributing to the natural reproduction of these resources.

The notions of private and public ownership are connected with the social division of professionalism and its reproduction with the succession of generations in the social labor consolidation. Their essence is revealed through the process of formation of administrative personnel.

A property is private if the staff operating the means of production does not have an opportunity to immediately remove from administration those who did not justify their confidence and to employ or propose someone from their own circle as a new administrator.

A property is public if the administrators who have ceased to be trusted, did not cope with the duty of improving administration quality can be immediately removed from their posts through the initiative of the operating personnel. This is based on of the condition: a closed social group an entrance to which is restricted to the representatives of other social groups cannot be a social basis for an administrative body.

It is impossible to introduce public property in its administrative essence by a law because:

· if a dominating opinion is that what is public de jure is ownerless de facto, then the latter would become private personal or corporate.

· moreover, legal introduction of public property is possible only under a definite level of development of culture, morality and world understanding of a society, at least of its politically active part.

The right to remove an administrator — which is indispensable from public ownership — may be socially useful only if the personnel are conscious that the only reason for this is an administrator’s inability to exercise his duties on the necessary level of quality according to the socially supported conception of social life. In particular, a reason for the removal may be the use of administrative post for personal or family-clannish enrichment through blatant stealing, financial fraud, creation and support of possibilities to get exclusively high payment and other things of this kind which directly or indirectly cause damage to the contemporaries and descendants.

In other words the right of public ownership is based on the world understanding of individuals integrating a society and unconsciously (automatically) reproduced cultural traditions, but not on juridical declarations. That means:

First, in a society’s culture and psychology a moral worldview basis should appear in which the ownership on the collectively used means of production is understood as public irrespective of its legal form. And only after it the domination of public ownership de facto will express itself in the practice of controlling the society’s multiindustrial production and consumption system and will legally ratify itself.

If there are juridical forms but no moral worldview basis then a “public” de jure property is doomed to be a de facto private property of a corporation of swindlers-administrators as it was mostly the case in the USSR in the course of its entire history though it was caused by different reasons in different periods.

Private property may be personal (family-clannish) as well as “elite”-corporate. And a corporation may have a legal form of a privileged class (nobility) or caste (merchant class in Russia) or it may not have such a form but act in a mafia-like manner (as bureaucracy in the USSR). In the case of private corporate property it may seem public and have the juridical status of a public one. In the USSR the «national» state and cooperative-kolkhoz property was public in form but because of “elite” exclusiveness and absence of social control over «nomenclature» bureaucracy, which over generations started reproducing itself as dynasties, all «public» property under the connivance of the rest of population became “elite”-corporate. This was a manifestation of an actual morality that dominated among the non-party population and in the Communist Party. During the «perestroika» and «democratization» this actual fact of life began to be legally substantiated[168].

Now when we have explained the question of ownership on the means of production and the difference between the public and private (personal and corporate) ownership on the means of production let us turn to H. Ford’s views on the capital.

«Capital that a business makes for itself, that is employed to expand the workman’s opportunity and increase his comfort and prosperity, and that is used to give more and more men work, at the same time reducing the cost of service to the public — that sort of capital, even though it be under single control, is not a menace to humanity. It is a working surplus held in trust and daily use for the benefit of all. The holder of such capital can scarcely regard it as a personal reward. No man can view such a surplus as his own, for he did not create it alone. It is the joint product of his whole organization» (put in bold type by the authors) (Ch. 13. “Why be Poor?”).

Thus it may be understood that though H. Ford is one of private owners and capitalists and a shareholder of «Ford Motors Company», he nonetheless actually perceives «Ford Motors» (and also all the other enterprises in the USA and in the world) as public property of all nations and mankind in general which is controlled personally by certain individuals. He does not go into the details of: who has been personally trusted to control this or that property by society; and who has usurped this right and misuses the legal right of private property by exploiting people’s ignorance and the vices of historically developing culture. But Henry Ford is a socialist by the essence of his words.

This explains the calumnious character of Marxist articles on H. Ford and his activity:

In the 20^th century the psychical Trotskyites[169] and their backstage masters claimed to build not a really socialist society but a slave-owning system[170] on the basis of exclusive exploitation of the Ideas of socialism and justice in the social life organization in the form of Marxism-Leninism. That’s why socialist «Fordizm» was so dangerous for their project.

On the other hand H. Ford developed the socialist ideas freely and independently of contemporary Marxist rubbish, which was hardly known to him. This fact only speaks for his, in this case, common sense. Because the real socialism on the basis of Marxism — despite all the subjective desire of many true communists in and outside Russia to be faithful to Marxism — cannot be objectively realized for two fundamentally important reasons:

· Philosophy with its «basic» question “What is primary: matter or mind?” takes us away from solving the problem of predicting consequences to the end of choosing the best scheme of action which makes the fully functional control possible. In other words if you do not foresee all the possible actions and their consequences beforehand how can you consciously choose an action which leads to the realization of consciously set goals?

· Marxist «political economy» is based on fictional categories that cannot be evaluated in the process of economical activity. («Required product» and «surplus product» — could you distinguish them in the warehouse; «required working hours» and «surplus working hours» — could you find the watch that shows when the former end and the latter begin; «expenditure of labor» in many fields of activity used as a basis of price formation theory but which cannot be objectively measured; only idiots can agree that a bookkeeping operation of «value transfer» — when numbers are transferred from one account to another — ratified by the legislation in action is an objective economical process of transfer of objectively immeasurable value of means of production on the delivered product, etc.) As a result Marxist political economy cannot have anything in common with bookkeeping (socialism — according one of Lenin’s aphoristic definitions — is «accounting and control»). The latter is a basis of control on the micro-level of economy and gives rise to statistics that is essential for analysis, modeling planning and control on the macro-level of multiindustrial production and consumption system[171].

Let us return to the part of H. Ford’s book where we have stopped. H. Ford continues:

«The owner’s idea may have released all the energy and direction, but certainly it did not supply all the energy and direction. Every workman was a partner in the creation. No business can possibly be considered only with reference to to-day and to the individuals engaged in it. It must have the means to carry on. The best wages ought to be paid. A proper living ought to be assured every partici­pant in the business — no matter what his part. But, for the sake of that business’s ability to support those who work in it, a surplus has to be held somewhere. The truly honest manufacturer holds his surplus profits in that trust. Ultimately it does not matter where this surplus be held nor who controls it; it is its use that matters.

Capital that is not constantly creating more and better jobs is more useless than sand. Capital that is not constantly making conditions of daily labor better and the reward of daily labor more just, is not fulfilling its highest function. The highest use of capital is not to make more money, but to make money do more service for the betterment of life» (Ch. 13. “Why be Poor?”).

What conclusion may be drawn from the last two paragraphs though H. Ford himself did not make it? — If it is said that «No business can possibly be considered only with reference to to-day and to the individuals engaged in it. It must have the means to carry on. (...) Capital that is not constantly creating more and better jobs is more useless than sand. Capital that is not constantly making conditions of daily labor better and the reward of daily labor more just, is not fulfilling its highest function. The highest use of capital is not to make more money <personally by his owner>, but to make money do more service for the betterment of life <of everybody>» then, as the proverb goes, having said “A” — say “B”. In particular:

As the juridical private capital in its essence and origin is public property and not personal or family property then its control must be handed over not to the juridical kin-heirs according to the right of succession or a portion out described in a will as it takes place in case of private property. But it must be handed over to the best in moral and professional qualities from the circle irrespective of his social background and post occupied by him whether he is an owner, chairman of the directors’ board, Chief Executive, top-manager, etc.

Though H. Ford himself handed the management of «Ford Motors» to his relatives[172] he was ready to eliminate that rule and thus turn a juridical private ownership over means of production into public ownership on paper and in practice.

Only if the right of enterprise management is inherited by the most deserving of candidates — irrespective of his right to inherit a family property of the firm founder as a relative «capital that is employed to expand the workman’s opportunity at the same time reducing the cost of service to the public, even though it be under single control, is not a menace to humanity».

However let us again stress that the right of public ownership on the means of production originates from the world understanding of separate individuals as well as society on the whole and cannot be realized legislatively in an opposition to the dominating morality and world understanding[173].

First, in a society’s culture and psychology a moral worldview basis should appear in which the ownership on the collectively used means of production is understood as public irrespective of its legal form and only after the domination of public ownership de facto will express itself in the practice of management of a social multiindustrial production and consumption system and will legally ratify itself.

Only when in society’s culture there is such moral worldview basis stable in succession of generations is it possible to remove inappropriate administrators from management on the initiative from below or to hand over these posts to the most deserving by the firm’s head.

Yet such a basis did not exist neither in the USA in times of H. Ford nor in Russia by 1917. It was not formed in the USSR either where public, especially in post-Stalin times, was considered by the majority as «belonging to nobody» which anybody can disrupt to use for his personal or family needs. As a result became possible a breakdown of the USSR and the privatization of «soviet heritage» by the financial and stock exchange speculators and marauders under the connivance and accomplice of the remaining part of population less successful in deceit and machination.

If the majority of the society understood that the public property is a personal property of everyone, that it is a part he himself affords (directly or indirectly through the institutions of his own state) out of his exclusively personal or family use to the public use of more or less broad circle of people, — the breakdown of the USSR and the privatization of the «soviet heritage» would have been impossible. The attempts to act in this direction would have been considered by the politically active part of population an expression of mere insanity or an intentional aggression of exponents of degrading parasitic morality, and would have been opposed in advance by effective counteraction on the part of the true, i.e. conceptually powerful Bolshevik communists.

 

Part II

Historical Experience of Bolshevism
in 20^th Century
and its Prospects

 

 

5. Results of «Fordizm» as the American Attempt of Bolshevism in 20^th Century

H. Ford at the age of 59, being the person grown wise with experience, in his book “My Life and Work” in 1922 — in the year when the USSR was formed[174] — expressed a wish, which we already quoted in Part 4.4:

«In order to create a system which shall be as in­dependent of the good-will of benevolent employers as of the ill-will of selfish ones, we shall have to find a basis in the actual facts of life itself».

His management of «Ford Motors» set an example that transition of the society to more effective way of production, aimed at satisfying vital needs of the majority (taking more or less conscientious part in work for the public good), is quite real and realizable task.

H. Ford proved this in practice at the level of microeconomy under conditions of biblical-and-talmudic degraded parasitic macroeconomy, built on the principles of mob-organized domination of usury and stock gambling, supported by the entire might of the state and its legal machine.

At all that H. Ford as an employer acted at the level of microeconomy; he had no authority to change legislation and state structure of the USA so that they complied with the principles of «Fordizm», the first American version of bolshevism in its essence. Understanding limited nature of such capabilities, H. Ford purchased newspaper “Dearborn Independent” in 1918 and from its pages he gave his views on historically formed organization of social, economical and political life of the USA and of the world. He opposed it to the principles of «Fordizm» as organizational principle of different way of life of the civilization, dependent on technosphere and manufacturing-and-distribution system.

However, Henry Ford did not succeed as the advocate of the ideas and leader of the public initiative of transformation of social life. Moreover, he was advised to stop his social and political activity under the threat of bankruptcy. Having published in the «Dearborn Independent» articles on social-and-political and economical issues and the part of the Jewry in them, H. Ford confronted with organized counteraction to the circulation of the newspaper and to the free discussion of the issues touched upon by him. This counteraction increased after publication of «International Jew», the book, compiling articles published in «Dearborn Independent» during the previous years. Campaign of baiting and pressure carried out against H. Ford continued during the 1920-s; after all, H. Ford stopped his public political activity, seeing lack of the contemporary society’s active support of social-and-political and economical opinions that he expressed.

Different things happened during this anti-Ford campaign. Thus, the owner of «ХХ Century Fox» wrote H. Ford a letter on behalf of the Jewish «community» of the USA. In this letter he offered him to stop his appearances on the «Jewish question», otherwise he promised to include in the released films pictures with solely Ford automobiles broken in the motor car accidents, accompanied by the relevant explanations of the number of the dead, injured, and technical reasons of the accident. And in the end of this campaign, H. Ford was given the text of abdication to be signed: he would renounce of everything he had published on the «Jewish question» and apologize to the Jewish «community».

«Details of renunciation and apology were worked out by his <H. Ford’s> two representatives and well-known Jewish figures: Lewis Marshall and congressman Nathan Perelman. Marshall wrote the text of renunciation, which, he expected, would be the basis for Ford’s apology to the Jewry and… expose the automobile titan to ridicule. “If I had his money, — said Marshall cynically during the conversation with his close friend, — I would not have signed such a humiliating statement even for 100 million dollars!” To the greatest Marshall’s surprise, the letter of renunciation was published without a single correction and bore the Ford’s signature.

In this letter special emphasis was laid on “extreme busyness” of a big businessman, which prevented him from focusing due attention to the articles being published in “Dearborn Independent”. It was admitted that accusation brought against the Jews were of malicious, unjust and insincere character. “The Great Ford” humbly apologized to “the long-suffering Jewish people” for “unproved assertions and mistakes”, contained in his newspaper.

Ford’s renunciation was received by the “Jewish community” with unconcealed joy. “Anti-Semites of the world are mourning!” — Yiddishers’[175] press was breathless with joy. And still, did the “proud American” really repent?

After Ford’s death it was discovered that he did not sign any apologia before the Jews. The signatures under the renunciation and letter of apology to Shapiro[176] were fabricated by his assistant, Harry Bennett, who told about it on the pages of magazine “True” in 1951: “I telephoned Ford. I told him that “the apologia is already inscribed”, and added, “it looks very badly”. I tried to read the text over the telephone, but he stopped me. Then I reproduced Ford’s signature on the document. I always could sign for him very plausibly. Then I presented the paper to Wintermeier and Marshall. The signature was certified, and the matter was settled”» (“The International Jew”, Moskvityanin”, 1993, pp. 22, 23 — publishers’ preface).

Because H. Ford made no actual renunciation, it is necessary to mention one more fact, cited in the preface to “The International Jew”:

«Thus, Bernard Baruch was called <by H. Ford> “the Judas’s consul in America”, “the almighty Jew[177]” and “the most powerful man” in the days of the war <World War I of the 20^th century>. When American reporters asked Baruch to comment on the “titles” given to him, the closest advisor of all USA presidents of the first half of the 20^th century (put in bold type by the authors) tried to joke off: “Do you think I shall deny anything?!» (“The International Jew”, the cited Russian edition, preface, p. 5).

Thus Bernard Baruch himself essentially proved by default Henry Ford’s assessment of the role of the Jewry (Hebrews) in making of the supragovernmental global policy, including organization of the World War I of the 20^th century and revolutions in Russia and Germany, about which H. Ford wrote among other things.

However, mentioning numerous facts concerning the role of the Hebrews in making of the internal and the foreign policy of the European states and of the USA, as well as of the global policy, and resting upon the counterfeit “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”[178], H. Ford was not able to shed light on this role authentically. In our opinion, one of the causes of this was his ignorance of many facts of the mankind history, and incomprehension of its general course in the past and probable trend in the future (which were determined by this ignorance).

But besides that, from the text of an interview given by H. Ford to newspaper “New York Times”, one can understand that having misused H. Ford’s ignorance in the sphere of knowledge of global civilization history and lack of systematically-integral sociological notions, the «Hebrews» themselves involved H. Ford in the activities, which they later on called «anti-Semitic». In 1915 H. Ford attempted to stop World War I of the 20^th century. He freighted a ship, on which he and a group of public figures of the USA set off to the European coasts to initiate peace negotiations. H. Ford’s peace initiative did not meet with success. But later on he told a correspondent of the “New York Times”:

«It was the Jews themselves who convinced me that there is direct connection between the international Jewry and the war. Onboard of our ship there were two righteous Jews. Before we could sail 200 miles they began to instill to me the idea that the Jews ruled the world due to their control of gold[179]. I was reluctant to believe them, but they went into detail while illustrating the means the Jews used to control the warfare… They spoke for so long and looked so competent in what they said that they convinced me» (“The International Jew”, the cited Russian edition, preface, p. 3).

They succeeded in H. Ford’s involving into «Jewish question» not only because of his ignorance in history and sociology, but because he understood organization and algorithms of system integrity of multiindustrial production and production distribution better than organization and algorithms of individual’s mentality or algorithms of collective mentality generated by them.

It does not mean that he did not feel peculiarities of the people’s mentality and thus could not organize people in their collective activities. If he was insensitive to people’s difference in organizing their mentality and to the nature of collective mentality generated by them (which controls collective activities), there would not be company «Ford Motors» in the history (or, at least the company as we know it now). Although H. Ford was rather an engineer of the machines, technologies and organization than «the engineer of the human souls»[180], he saw and expressed the essence, which characterized his contemporaries and compatriots:

«There is no difficulty in picking out men <candidates for promotion>. They pick themselves out because — although one hears a great deal about the lack of opportunity for advancement — the average workman is more interested in a steady job than he is in advancement.

Scarcely more than five per cent of those who work for wages <i.e. of active adult population>, while they have the desire to receive more money, have also the willingness to accept the additional responsibility and the additional work which goes with the higher places. Only about twenty-five per cent are even willing to be straw bosses, and most of them take that position because it carries with it more pay than working on a machine. Men of a more mechanical turn of mind, but with no desire for responsibility, go into the tool-making department where they receive considerably more pay than in production proper. But the vast majority of men want to stay put. THEY WANT TO BE LED. THEY WANT TO HAVE EVERYTHING DONE FOR THEM AND TO HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY <AND CONCERN>[181]. Therefore, in spite of the great mass of men, the difficulty is not to discover men to advance, but men who are willing to be advanced» (put in capitals by the authors, “My Life and Work”, Ch. 6. “Machines and Men”).

As is seen from H. Ford’s books, he did not try to discover the reasons of origination of irresponsibility and carelessness prevailing in the society and revealed by him. He did not try to discover the reasons of origination of associated parasitical, consumer attitude to all kinds of power and its carriers. And the matter concerns the USA, where (as is customary to consider):

· the social order is primordially more democratic than in monarchic Europe, which continued to support many traditions of class-and-caste order during the epoch of downfall of the monarchies (19^th century — beginning of the 20^th century), as well as during the post-monarchical epoch — due to the psychological inertia;

· every individual is primordially granted more freedom than in older countries of Europe and Asia, where the freedom of individual’s self-expression and creativity is somehow or other suppressed by historically formed traditions, rooted in the great antiquity;

· newly arrived population of the USA consisted of supposedly real freedom-lovers, who for the sake of freedom left their ethnic homeland, and they brought up their sons and grandsons, born and bred Americans of the first generation, also in the spirit of freedom[182].

But real freedom is, first of all, the person’s freedom of choice and his self-assignment of responsibility and care about the lots of the others and prosperity of everyone.

In other words, if, on the one part, the majority of Americans avoid undertaking responsibility and care (which was revealed by H. Ford), then this majority is not free, but is in the power of minority.

On the other part, H. Ford notices:

«We will always find Jews in the top-drawer society — where all the power is concentrated. This is the essence of the Jews question. How do they manage to get the top in all the countries? Who assists them?.. What do they do when they get the top?.. In every country where the Jews question is vital it becomes obvious that the root of the question comes from their ability to get hold of the power. Here, in the United States, the unquestionable fact is that in the last 50 years this minority has gained so much control while other, several dozen times bigger national groups failed to» (“The International Jew”, the cited Russian edition, preface, p. 9).

And in the other world understanding, the freedom is undertaking, first of all, by one’s own initiative, one or another quality, fullness or breadth of power.

However, depending on to which extent the undertaking of power is accompanied by responsibility and concern for other people’s fates and for everybody’s prosperity, and depending on how exactly the terms «prosperity of a person» and «prosperity of the society» are understood and what they mean, to that extent freedom is really freedom, but not permissiveness towards the people.

Usually, the society does not care who personally takes care about human community of all people. This particularly applies to the crowd, more or less satisfied by its consumer status and efforts for its provision. The issue of personal composition of power arises when some social groups (to the extent of the society majority) disagree about the power’s activities.

And it was this disagreement with historically formed social order and system of production and distribution peculiar to this order, which made H. Ford ready to be brought to the «Jewish question».

However, having confronted with it, he did not try to analyze the causes of appearance of psychological differences in behavior motivation of Hebrews and the rest of multinational (by its origin) American society. He just «registered» this (in general, well-known) fact.

The cause of the «Jewish question» is not in «Hebrews’ ability to retain the power under control», as Ford puts it, but in different circumstances, relating to the algorithms of person’s mentality, which he did not study, namely:

· purposefulness in undertaking of power or absence of such purposefulness;

· authoritative actions of the people, who have become familiar with one or another quality of power in its completeness and breadth, which distinguish them from authoritative actions of the representatives of other cultures within the same power in the same social-and-historical circumstances.

So-called «Hebrews’ ability to take power under control» is just the consequence of the causes, which were not revealed, understood or named by H. Ford — statistically expressed differences in algorithms of personal mentality of Hebrews and non-Hebrews.

The first cause of incessant arising of «Jewish question» in all crowd-“elitist” societies, where Jewish (Hebrews) diaspora exists, consists in the following: in situations, when overwhelming majority of non-Hebrews, as H. Ford noticed, evade from undertaking authoritative powers, the Hebrews do not evade from any power undertaking, moreover, they in many cases artificially create situations, when they could be able to take one power or another.

The second cause, in fact constituting the «Jewish question», matured for «massacre» of one or another kind, consists in the fact that the power, being under control of representatives of historically formed traditional Hebrews — due to specific character of actions, peculiar to it, determined by still more profound and ancient causes (generally not known even by the rabbinate, say nothing of common Jews) — is apprehended by the rest of the society as the hostile power, parasitizing[183] on it.

To reveal and understand these more profound causes, more ancient than historically real Jewry and its culture means to understand the beginnings of the «Jewish question»[184].

To solve the «Jewish question» it is necessary to find practical answer for the question:

Is it possible to change algorithms of Hebrews’ and non-Hebrews’ mentality (prevailing in the crowd-“elitist” society and expressed statistically) in such a way as to conclude the conflict, to establish harmony in people’s relations irrespective of their origin, and the society itself and each person was in harmony with the biosphere, Cosmos and the God? And if this is objectively possible, how should this be done practically?

However, without revealing the beginnings of the «Jewish question» H. Ford could not give vitally valid answer for it. Because H. Ford was more occupied with management of «Ford Motors», and concerned himself with sociological on the whole and historical in particular problems superficially, actually incidentally during his spare time, he did not reveal and did not call these more profound or ancient causes by their proper names. H. Ford could not understand or ground from the historical cause-and-effect point of view the behavior peculiarity of overwhelming majority of representatives of traditional Jewry (Hebrews), and he did not reveal any historical prospects that would be the alternative to their parasitic world domination.

This gave grounds to the Jewish leaders in the USA (in person of Bernard Baruch) to laugh at the newspapermen for a start: “Do you think I shall deny anything?!” — But what is it that Baruch would deny? — He (as any Hebrew (=Jewish) internazi) sincerely agreed with the opinion expressed by the «anti-Semite» H. Ford:

«The international Jew … rules not because he is rich, but because in a most marked degree he possesses the commercial and masterful genius of his race, and avails himself of a racial loyalty and solidarity the like of which exists in no other human group. In other words, transfer today the world-control of the international Jew to the hands of the highest commercially talented group of Gentiles, and the whole fabric of world-control would eventually fall to pieces, because the Gentile lacks a certain quality, be it human or divine, be it natural or acquired, that the Jew possesses» (“The International Jew”, v.1, “IV-The Jewish Question—Fact or Fancy?”).

H. Ford did not engage himself in searching answers to the questions: are certain qualities of Hebrews and non-Hebrews (historically actually expressed in statistics and distinguishing them from each other in their behavior) given genetically and permanently by God? or they are culturally conditioned and could be altered (with God’s help) by the goodwill of the people themselves?

Should H. Ford truly elucidate these problems, B. Baruch, his likes and their backstage masters were past laughter at the newspapermen and the readership, because the matter is not only in personal qualities, which these or those Hebrews have, and which these or those
non-Hebrews have not.

The point is that presence or lack of these personal qualities are mainly stipulated by the culture, formed and maintained within the channel of the doctrine of certain global policy. And at the same time, genetic apparatus and culture of the mankind and national societies are interconnected and influence each other[185].

The essence of biblical doctrine is that personal qualities of Hebrews and non-Hebrews are defined in it (see Supplement 1) and are somehow «programmable». Should H. Ford truly elucidate these problems, he would have to:

· either agree to the biblical doctrine and yield to it (they say, the nature of the races is objectively such and it is permanent, thus, it is necessary to yield),

· either develop some alternative for it.

Should he express even briefly the alternative (but necessarily global) doctrine, B. Baruch, his likes and the masters of the biblical project right away felt past laughter at the newspapermen and the readership (especially as the circulation of “Dearborn Independent” reached at times half a million copies, spread all over the USA). They would have a problem unsolvable within the channel of the biblical project. Its essence is that it is impossible either to buy opponents, or to sell themselves to them, or to agree with them about mutually beneficial cooperation in future global policy conduct within the channel of the biblical doctrine[186].

But since H. Ford could not do it, then, having laughed at him, at the newspapermen and at the readership, the leaders and the masters of the international Jewry started using H. Ford’s «anti-Semitism» and racism in the global project with conventional title «Moustache Clown»[187]. H. Ford got into it by himself because having not revealed and having not understood the beginnings of the «Jewish question», he did not differ objectively different phenomena of Marxism, bolshevism, socialism, communism and medley Zionism in their historically real interweaving. He (just like Hitler and many others hitherto) identified them into the single phenomenon, supposedly aimlessly and groundlessly named by different words.

Because of this misunderstanding H. Ford did not perceive A. Hitler as the provocateur, guided by the biblical «world backstage», — imitator of fight for freedom against Hebrews’ parasitism and supported Nazi party in Germany from its origination during 1920-s — 1930-s, erroneously perceiving it as the mouthpiece of German people’s free will.

And H. Ford’s services in project «Moustache Clown» were rewarded by the master in person of the Fuhrer of the Third Reich, A. Hitler, in July 1938: in commemoration of his 75^th anniversary H. Ford was decorated with the Cross of German Eagle Supreme Order. After this decorating, the Hebrewish and leftist press again started anti-Ford campaign. H. Ford (according to one of his friend’s words) reacted this way:

«They (the Germans) awarded me a medal… They (the Jews) insist that I should return it; otherwise I will not be considered an American. It will not do! I will not reject it» (“The International Jew”, the cited Russian edition, Preface, p. 33).

It was about a year before the imitator of fight for freedom against Hebrewish parasitism started the war doomed to be worldwide. But
H. Ford was in captivity of his phantom general sociological and general historical notions, although it was he who wrote soon after the World War I of the XX century ended:

«An impartial investigation of the last war, of what preceded it and what has come out of it, would show beyond a doubt that there is in the world a group of man with vast powers of control, that prefers to remain unknown, that does not seek office or any of the tokens of power, that belongs to no nation whatever but is international — a force that uses every government, every widespread business organization, every agency of publicity, every resource of national psychology, to throw the world into a panic for the sake of getting still more power over the world. An old gambling trick used to be for the gambler to cry «Police!» when a lot of money was on the table, and, in panic that followed, to seize the money and run off with it. There is a power within the world which cries «War!» and in the confusion of the nations, the unrestrained sacrifice which people make for safety and peace runs off with the spoils of the panic.

The point to keep in mind is that, through we won the military contest, the world has not yet, quite succeeded in winning a complete victory over the promoter of war. We ought not to forget that wars are a purely manufactured evil and are made according to a definite technique. A campaign for war is made upon us definite lines as a campaign for any other purpose. First, the people are worked upon. By clever tales the people’s suspicions are aroused towards the nation against whom war is desired. Make the nation suspicions; make the other nation suspicions. All you need for this is a few agents with some cleverness and no conscience and a press whose interest is locked up with the interests that will be benefited by war. Then the «overt act» will soon appear. It is no trick at all to get an «overt act» once you work the hatred of two nations up to the proper pinch» (“My Life and Work”, Ch. 17. “Things in General”).

These events show that Bolshevistic trend objectively peculiar to H. Ford in his activities within «Ford Motors» was at his attempt to move it outside his company captured by the outer forces. They perverted it and carried it to an absurdity[188] in everything that exceeded the bounds of his professional activities as a technician and economist. The main reason of it is in personal H. Ford’s objective (but not declared) morality, which stipulated his world understanding. In the culture of modern global civilization one can discover two kinds of world understanding[189].

First world UNDERSTANDING — «the I-centric» one. In this world understanding the mental tree develops in different directions from the personal «I», which undertakes the part of reference system zero point. During the process of mental tree development its separate branches absorb newer and newer information pertaining to various areas of life and activities of the person and the contemporary society and the mankind as a whole. Consciousness level thinking represents the unity of flow of emotions and flow of language structures and figurative ideas (this could be called emotionally-notional structure of the soul). Emotions in their turn constitute an outlet to the level of consciousness in the form of ultimately generalized estimation of a “good” or a “bad” mood of realizably non-sensible morally stipulated results of activity of unconscious levels of the person’s psyche, which excel several times the level of consciousness in their abilities of information processing[190].

In case of the I-centric algorithms of mentality, the flow of emotions is stipulated by those circumstances, which directly affect the personality. This results in changes of proper perception of «the I». Therefore the success or failure in certain activities depends on the emotional mood of the person with the I-centric world understanding, performing these activities. And many processes are beyond his comprehension because during the time necessary for this comprehension his «zero point» (from which he builds up his mental tree) changes. Every time this zero point changes the mental process is destroyed, not having achieved the result or having achieved a wrong one.[191]

On the other hand, by having assessed the actual morality of the carrier of the I-centric mentality algorithms and controlling his emotions, he could be driven to certain views and prevented from coming to some other opinions, undesirable to the guardians.

This happened to H. Ford: when he tried to become a social and political leader, he fell under guardianship because he had the I-centric world understanding. We shall not engage in extensive and keen “psychoanalysis” trying to prove this fact. Suffice it to say that the I-centrism of H. Ford’s world understanding directly appeared in the title of his book: “My Life and Work”. If his world understanding was not the I-centric, the title of the book would be different, for example, “My Life and OUR (bold type supplied by the authors) Work”, because, as H. Ford himself says in this book, all the achievements of «Ford Motors» are not his personal achievements, but the achievements of the collective, which appeared and developed under his direction on the principles of people’s friendly relations, i.e. on the principles of Bolshevism. If H. Ford acted differently (as the majority of his contemporary businessmen did), there would not be the «Ford Motors» as it historically formed, and probably no one except his close relatives and friends would know who was Henry Ford.

The I-centric world understanding is characterized by certain kaleidoscopic effect, in the sense that different notions in it are separated, have no connections between each other; the same relates to interrelations of notions and objective phenomena. And it was this kaleidoscopic peculiarity in the I-centric outlook that prevented
H. Ford from noticing the said inadequacy between the title of the book (my achievements) and its contents (work of the collective and its achievements).

The I-centrism in algorithms of mentality and world understanding is peculiar to the children during the process of their personal becoming. But as the person grows up, he pays attention to the interrelations between notions in his mentality and between phenomena in life that seemed to him separated before. He starts looking for and developing an alternative to I-centrism (though he can do it without realizing this and knowing neither the name of phenomenon, which we called I-centrism, nor the name of its alternative). The search of the alternative results in the second world understanding.

second world UNDERSTANDING — God-centric world understanding. In this world understanding the mental tree develops in sequence:

God ] Creature Universe ] object of a person’s attention in interrelation of this object with all the rest of objects and subjects revealed by him during his lifetime.

In this world understanding, there is a «tuning fork» providing conformity of emotional and notional structures of a human soul. Of life as such:

God the Almighty makes no mistakes. Everything done is done the best possible way. But regarding the society, this is true with a reservation: under such dispositions and ethics, which are peculiar to the people[192].

Realization of this fact must be accompanied by joy — positive emotions and optimistic calmness. In such emotionally notional structure the algorithms of mentality works the best way during solving the problems that Life brings and eliminating the ones that it made in the past.

In God-centric world understanding, the kaleidoscopic effect is continually eliminated; the world is represented as still more detailed mosaic. Its «zero point» is basically objectively permanent, which is the steadfast basis for elimination of all the mistakes of world understanding and individual development of a person.

However, due to the culture of modern civilization, the I-centrism of mentality (to a greater or lesser extent) is reserved by the majority of the adults. Yet those who somehow converted to God-centric world understanding, sometimes fall down to the I-centrism under the influence of some mistakes of the formed morality, which are peculiar to them. But intellectual might of any individual in solving all the problems he is involved in, is always realized within the channel of certain world understanding: either the I-centric or God-centric.

Having preserved the I-centrism of psyche algorithms, H. Ford turned out to be groundless as sociologist and practical public figure (he did not realize as «ford» — the wade across an obstacle), although in one of the branches of his I-centric world understanding he managed to express organizational and economical principles of Bolshevism and socialism.

---

Дата добавления: 2019-09-02; просмотров: 259; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы!

Поделиться с друзьями:

---

---

Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!