The decline of morality in conditions of the market economy

Written on . Posted in Aim, Macrocosmos, Mind

Why do we consider the capitalism as a root of all problems of our society? Only because of it`s trend to deepen the property stratification between the poor and the rich? Or, maybe, because of it`s basis in the exploitation of man by man? Or the main reason is its transformation in the final phase to imperialistic power that is enforced to search new and new markets in the new lands, basing the supply not on the demand, but on the informative influence? In all that is a part of the answer, but why do we not offer to reform this economical order for the primary conditions of the free competition?

The using of the wage labour adduces that the capitalist, desiring to get the profit at the production, doesn`t enlarge the value of merchandise much, when he exposes it at the market, because of the competition with others (and everyone has one aim: to sell the goods anyway, but doing this by reducing the prices would led to the permanent decline of prices and in the result to scanty profits and bankruptcy of companies), and the profit bases on not full payment to the exploit wageworkers for a working day, for example, if the man works 8 hours, he gets the payment for 5 hours. This creates a certain stock for bourgeois, a costless work, losing which he has no lesion and so can`t become the bankrupt in contrast to the first case. Because of this the wageworker doesn`t get full payment and the capitalist gets the superprofit. A part of time the wageworker works “for himself”, paying off capitalist`s expenses for his hiring (that comes out in the salary) and other part – for creating the profit for the mode`s of production owner.

In contemporary world the interpretations of our view of the economic model are often wrong because of particular concepts` distortion. Let`s examine the most basically of them.

 1. The capitalist

By this word we mean a man that is the mode`s of production owner and in the given system uses the wage labour. Is this uniquely bad? There are many people, who emphasize that such people have the right for main part of the profit obtaining because they, creating certain idea, find the energy and the sources for its realization, for production establishing, and not fold up in conditions of the rivalry and state`s regulation. And what is the influence of this process on the society? That is meant under “the idea of resources` contribution in right way” actually is directly created by all people demand on the certain group of products or services, which ensues from human needs. So the merit of success is not on the one person, who has a certain project, but on the contrary on all society that creates the need in him. We mean that if exactly this capitalist hadn`t done it, it will be done by other, and in the conditions of other economical order it would be done by the society itself, because the human nature is built on satisfaction its needs. That`s why it is the senseless argument to confer the capitalist with priority in the profit`s distribution because of his “fine idea”. Here it must be noted about the illusion of “creating workplaces by the capitalist”, so far as we can see if people don`t have the demand, nothing will be worked. The workplaces are created by people`s demand and not by a concrete person. The next argument is that the capitalist “arranges the production and organizes all in it”. What is the production? It is the complicated versatile process that needs knowledge in the wide range of questions and one man usually doesn`t have it. That`s why the capitalist employs people, who are qualified in their work, and they organize the process. But they are only the wageworkers. Hence the people, which organize all the process, don`t have any priority in the profit`s distribution, but have only the bigger salary because of nominally more complicated labour. So the capitalist doesn`t organize the production by himself, but appropriates the profit, leaving the proximate organizers only in wageworkers. And the last moment is that the capitalist invests the part of resources to not become a bankrupt in conditions of the competition and to not come out of the rules, which are set by the state. And in this case, like in the latter one, the team of wageworkers do everything for him.

Finally we can see that the capitalist invests his own resources in the demand, which was created by the society, invests the resources in the production`s organization (which is organized by the wageworkers) and starts to get the superprofit from all these, using the priority in its distribution. We want to note also the phrase “his own resources” concerning to one private person that is not completely understood by the society: this certain potential is the work of all people, isn`t it? We labour mainly at that workplaces, which was created by the generations of predecessors before us, use the raw, which is mined by utterly different people, apply the technique, which was invented by the others etc. So can we say that the accumulation of certain resource in the hands of one man is his own achievement? In sum we can see that the team of wageworkers, which organize everything, basing on society`s needs (and their own too) give the main profit to the capitalist just as he invest the resources in it. What we offer? We offer that people must be directly the owner of all this resource, and this means that in the case of needing something the society will has its own force to organize the production, and all team of the workers, which will take part in it, will occupy the place the capitalist, so all participants of production will have equal parts in the profit`s distribution, but won`t give it in the private hands. This will lead to immediately improvement of working people`s financial position and the accumulation of the riches in the private hands will be stopped, so there won`t be property stratification, which leads to the political one (social stratums that shares our nation today, when one hands have the resource as well as the power and in other hands – only the salary for their own labour selling, won`t be formed).

2. The profit`s distribution

We often hear the reproaches that our ideas want to equalize all in everything and in the salary too. Shall everyone get the goods equally? No, it shall not. Upper we criticize the principle of capitalistic economy, because people don`t have full payment for their work. The work distributes according to its complexity and there is no way to estimate equally the work of the miner and the seller, but in the both cases these people have only of their payment. That`s why we suggest the idea of full labour payment, which can be realized only when the workers won`t be only hired force, but the directly owners of their workplaces, so when there won`t be the capitalist, who wants to get the profit. The receipt of the full workday payment is not the finally aim of the revolution, because even in these conditions a single mother with five small kids won`t have the possibility to provide her family. When we proclaim the idea of the folk revolution we mean that it is impossible to say about equity, while nearby will exist the hurt of indigents. What is the exit?

In contemporary conditions, when the capitalism turned to global imperialistic power, destruction if its individual parts (for example, the largest corporations) or its annihilation at the separate territories (as they impose to us that in the “socialist states” there aren`t the capitalist production and distribution) will spread positive effect very gradually, because the economy has already got the global character and by the reason of its economic connections will become weaker very slowly, losing its own parts*,**.

(* The reader shall understand that we speak about the territories and the peoples, which are included in the global process of commodity production and exchange. The alteration of economic relations at the one pole inevitably will have an affect at the other one that will lead to confrontation: or the established new order will win at the second pole too and the production with the distribution will be adjusted according to the new principles, or the old order will win and will return to status quo, but synchronous continuous existing of two antipodal economic regimes presumes very weak chances to success of the established alteration).

(** To read more about this question the reader will be able in the article, in which will have the general view of the principle of social and national revolution).

Establishing of the order, in which the payment of the workday will be full, is just a temporary tool to create a necessary financial base, from which, using the permanent technical progress, the modern net of modes of production, designed to satisfy people`s needs (needs of each member of the folk) in full volume, will rise up. This is the final task of the social revolution. And it can be achieved only when all economic system will be rebuilt on the new base. Then it will able realize our economical principle, when each family and each person will have all necessary for sterling life and comprehensive development, making feasible contribution in the economy, that will be the highest equity in the world of financial relations between people, which will prevent the exploitation of man by man and the coercion of man by man in the form of the power.

3. The division of labour

It is hard to believe that several people, when they hear the phrase “the liquidation of labour division”, consider that we suggest everyone to be able to do everything. Actually our idea consists in the reorganization of labour division because contemporary labour division in no wise doesn`t accord with society natural needs, but conversely it is based on the needs of narrow range of the capitalists that adjust it according to their whims. This generates a number of non-production parasitical professions, which are not social helpful and which must be liquidated because of their unnecessary. For example, such profession as PR-manager is paid by the expense of the workers, but doesn`t give them any favour, sometimes vice versa bears harm because of degenerative ideas promotion in the broad masses.

4. The state

We know for a long time that political relations are based on relations economical. But what are the political relations? It is the segregation of the par of society in the certain stratum, which forms relation to the world for other people. It is how to people are forced to live, but not how they vote. For the simplicity let`s share the relations in 3 levels of quality:

  • The humane relation, when man in the family as well as in the society doesn`t meet any obstacles for realizations of his needs or man can overcome these obstacles not by the expense of the others, but in the context of the others, because the realization of the three highest levels of needs requires the interaction and the mutual aid in society. Unfortunately we can meet this type of relations very rarely, because the market relations are based on the competition, but not the mutual aid, that comes out in the political course, propaganda of extreme individualism allegedly of “the bright personalities”, social relations between whom has taken on itself the state with its institutes. We must not forget that the main form of the state coercion is in creation of critical environ for everyone, in which man is forced to work “for food” and in which the minute interruption lead to a number of problems. In the breaks the majority of people think about the relax, degraded forms of which are actively imposed us by the state, remembering about the profit`s receipt. The development of people as the personalities is out of the question, in contemporary society nobody needs it. That`s why the humane relations in our days are rather rarely exception, than the rule.
  • The neutral relation can be expressed by the slogan of our epoch: “if only it isn`t worse” (if only there not be a war). It forms the environ of the elder generations, of “the soviet school” because of the people apathy to the world through their inability to have an influence on it. This situation can be fixed, when during the realization of the three highest levels of needs man meet the obstacles in different degree. One of them he can get round, other – cannot, and often the certain successes man has not in the context of the others, but by the expense of them. It is no matter want we or want not, but in our behaviour the important role has positive and negative sustenance that we get from the surroundings after certain our acts. If we get positive sustenance (for example, man had written a poem and his friends complimented him), the chances of continuation for this act increases, if the sustenance is negative, this type of activity or behaviour become retarded. The soviet generation was growing up in the conditions of permanent social impotence because only the employees of the state machine had real influence on economical and political processes, which had a place in the society. The absence of the positive sustenance and the presence of the negative results had formed listless attitude to the world in global scales, inculcating the feeling of insignificance to the man, which they amazingly try to transform in a sort of tradition or in a feature of the human nature, propagating the demagogy of maximalism instead of explaining the phenomenon of minimalism, which has brightly accented social preconditions. Man`s helplessness in the authoritarian and repressive world is obvious, but this means not his natural insignificance. It tells just about of the results of his activity in the adjusted environ, where such attitude based on personal experience was formed. That`s why the elucidation of the idea of the social and national equity in the context of the utopianism and maximalism is only the manifestation of the bourgeois attendant philosophy hegemony, which is directed to conserve contemporary relations between the man and the world. Despite of wide spreading of this relations type in the masses, it is not dominant in the relations to the world.
  • The “bestial” relation, it`s difficult to choose another word. Its premise bases in the creation of such external conditions, in which full satisfaction of man needs is prevented besides the idea of their satisfaction is often distorted because of our information space prejudgment. This is cultivated by the state and its heads, so-called “the national elite”. Manifesting of this cultivation we can see everyday on a street, when we hear about the new budget (for example, when for the members of parliament recovery 88.5 million UAH are emitted and for the kids recovery – 11.4 million UAH), in the relation of the state to the social unprotected stratums (pensioners, large families, Chernobyl disaster liquidators etc.), in the relation of the capitalist to his wageworkers that are often held at non-human position, in the relation of the policemen to people from their own folk, whom had they sworn. The principle that without deceit and exploitation of the others you cannot live normal by yourself, the principle that it is impossible to provide your family by the conscientious labour in the conditions of the market economy – in the competition, it is so reflected in the policy and the being of our nation that becomes a main principle of interindividual relations, when people, equalling to “the successful Ukrainians”, to “the national elite”, adopt the model of their behaviour, their lifestyle and manners. All time instead of real humans we meet with the reflection of “the protobourgeois”, whom get to the extreme absurd in their morbid desire to imitate the system of “successful world”, proposed by capitalism. For example, they refuse themselves in full nutrition and rest all year only for one fur coat buying or for tour to Egypt, how “the successful Ukrainians” do.

That`s, when why rise against the capitalism, we are orientated primarily not on the technical aspects of this system, but we protest against transformation of the people to the stupid livestock, before which an illusory aim and a picture of happiness are painted. Such people become absolutely powerless in front of the system and aren`t able to establish social relations as well as to self-organization hence they cannot just pretend to be the owners of their lives.

Proclaiming the idea of national and social revolution because of human nature and its needs understanding, we seek after:

  • the restoration of moral relations between people, when every man won`t see the other through the prism of the capitalistic self-interest and competition but will consider him not as a subject of commodity relations, but as a the fellow, a contact with whom is impossible without of Freedom, Equality and Fraternity;

  • the changing of man`s attitude to the world, when man won`t consider the world as the environment, which is hostile for everyone, except the powers that be, but consider it as the parental environ, as the boundless space for self-knowledge and self-realization;

  • the changing of man`s self-conscience, where won`t be place for minimalism and spirit insignificance, but were will be self-understanding as essential part of the nature, logical and historical its continuation, where as the highest good will be full individual self-realization of the person in the self-organized Folk-Family.

Comrade Kit.

Tags: , ,

Copyright © 2013 Folk Freedom. All rights reserved.
Яндекс.Метрика