Problem statement

The situation of Russia is unsightly, hopeless. The reasons for this, however, are secondary - in wars (world, local) and revolutions. The main reason is the lack of formation of civil society, internal disorder, leading to social instability. The source of social disorder is the age-old property relations: it has long been concentrated in a small part of the people. Destruction in 1917-1920. In the beginning of the 20th century, there were few owners among the population: the landlords - 1.2 %, the clergy - 0.9 %, and a little more than one percent of the bourgeoisie. More than 80% of the population was made up of the peasantry, and two-thirds of the population was poor. Only a third of the population - middle-class peasants and burghers in the cities-were proprietors who barely made ends meet. Those who lost in the revolution were few,and those who supported them were even less.

The October Revolution, in contrast to the bourgeois revolutions, established u. The authorities are not a new rising class that has developed on the basis of property relations that emerged in the previous socio-economic system, but a new bureaucracy (the dominant class in Russia from time immemorial). The post-Perestroika "reform" was also limited to replacing one clan of bureaucracy with another. First, the feudal-bourgeois bureaucracy was replaced by the communist nomenclature, and the second time, the gerontocrats were replaced by younger ones who were not alien to the times.

It is known that in Russia there are two troubles, one of which is fools. Fools are officials. Bureaucracy is stupid by definition. It is cut off from the life of the people - the only one that stimulates the development of intelligence. The bureaucracy is an impostor as a master, and its right to rule stems from the usurpation of the right to dispose of national wealth that does not belong to it. It can prevail where and when the latter belongs to the State, not to the people. It's one thing to manage your own property, but it's another to manage someone else's temporarily unearned property. In the first case, the interest of the owner and the" interest " of the property (to be preserved, multiplied) coincide, in the second-there is no such merger, even when the manager is conscientious and decent.

The absurdity of what happened before and what is happening now in Russia is due to the fact that the state has assumed the function of creating the life of the people. In the best case, it can provide internal and external security, promote normal processes and prevent deviating from the norm. The organization of production is not its function. The state can and should be entrusted with control over the processes in the economy, over the market, but on the condition that the state is controlled by society. This is possible if it does not own the national wealth, but is what it is in the democratically organized part of the world.

Russia cannot break out of the vicious circle of state-imposed conditions. It has never had a multi-million dollar "subject of development" in the face of a productive environment-

page 99

it belongs to the owner class. No nation has ever spent so much time and money on overcoming crises as we have. Fascist and militaristic states, after the defeat or death (resignation) of the dictator, gained civilized development in 3-5 years, while others, after some time, set the tone for humanity (Germany, Japan) or the region (Chile). And our "cart is still there". What is the reason for our failures? The fact that communism is more consistent than before the revolution, the Russian state, eliminates the "subjects of development" - the owners. As a result, the situation in society is characterized by "stable indifference of the mass of the population to political, national and national problems" (A. Rakitov). And fascism, a product of big capital, does not destroy the basis of capitalist development - private property, nor does it allow the big bourgeoisie to monopolize it to the extent of eliminating small and medium-sized owners. The latter become the basis for development in a democracy.

The above allows us to answer the ever-Russian question: "Who is to blame?". The Russian liberation movement sought to solve the socio-economic problem by changing the type of Russian statehood. Most effectively, it seemed to be solved by the October Revolution. But by endowing the state with the function of owning national wealth, the revolution has made it hyper-absolutist. The story of its seemingly magnificent heyday began in the process of industrialization of the country with a rotten interior, which was the cause of the collapse of a great power. Modern social thought (with the exception of the singers of the ruling regime) understands the need to deprive the state of the right to national wealth and the right to squander it. But the society does not have the strength to democratically solve the problems of the transition period. It is necessary to cultivate such forces, armed with the idea of co-ownership of citizens in the national wealth of the country.

The essence of the concept

The meaning of history is in the development of a free person. The process of mastering freedom by a person is connected with the accumulation of material wealth, with the movement of property in social classes. The class that managed to take possession of property and preserve it became free. The people who made it up were free. This corresponds to Marx's understanding of wealth as an independent force standing above society. It consists in the fact that wealth is formed through direct forced labor-slavery or indirect forced labor-wage labor (slavery). Isn't this the key to understanding the principle of Marxism's approach to explaining the past, present, and future? According to the logic of Marxism, wealth is a consequence of forced labor in both its forms, if it is the property of a few owners and the majority of the people are deprived of it. This means that in order for wealth to become above society and not be formed by forced labor, so that the latter does not exist at all, it is necessary to make wealth the property of all, on which all would work freely. But the problem is, what is meant by "the wealth of all"? Communist (public) property, which arose on the basis of the abolition of private property, proved to be untenable. It is, by its origin, the result of the labor of the entire people, and it is primarily used by those who dispose of it, that is, by the bureaucracy, which turns the state and everything belonging to it into its own property, becoming the ruling class, the oppressor of the people-a mercenary deprived of property.

Russia's technical and technological backwardness is secondary. The primary and most important thing is a lag in social development (delay in the abolition of serfdom; its abolition with the infringement and ruin of the peasants, without affecting feudal property; strengthening and development of state ownership of land and the "military-industrial complex", preservation of communal land use, etc.). The main reason for the social lag is in property relations that do not correspond to the development of the economy, formation of a stable middle class of owners.

The Russian state is in a vicious circle and at an extremely low level of social development compared to highly developed democratic states. After all, according to synergetics, "... development is an increase in the degree of synthesis of order and chaos, due to the desire for maximum stability" (1). In Russian society, not only "maximum stability", there is no elementary stability. And more than one century! Because in the interaction of "order and chaos" as social phenomena, the second triumphs. Isn't this because, as he described the Russian nation

page 100

N. A. Berdyaev, does she not have a "genius of form"? Perhaps for this reason, the state became a form-forming factor in the Russian people, in particular, registering ownership of land and military production in its own name, consolidating communal land use, and after the revolution, turning everything into its own property. Property is a category that "requires" registration, introduction into a certain legal framework. The absence of form (formality) is a condition that creates "chaos"; the presence of form (formality) forms "order". Consequently, property is a factor that takes a decisive part in the conjugation of "order and chaos", in their interaction, which gives priority to the former. But there is "order" and "order": order achieved by the state, that is, by violence, and order resulting from the self-organization of citizens.

The abolition of serfdom, revolutions, " perestroika "and post - perestroika" reforms " (mostly false reforms) of the 90s indicate that Russia's development, despite all the deviations from global patterns, is belatedly moving towards the formation of a civil society with a market economy, with the dominance of private property. However, the desire to Europeanize Russia, which was determined by Peter I, cannot achieve the goal in a" European " way. We're hopelessly late... The stage of initial capital accumulation in Russia, which was not overcome in the conditions of capitalism of the late XIX-early XX centuries, is all the more insurmountable in the late XX century with its "capitalism" - the miscarriage of the post-communist regime. Before our eyes, the democratic West and some of the democratic states of the East are flourishing with capitalism, which has little in common with its beginning. Let us not forget the community-based"socialist" mentality of the people, which was historically formed and consolidated by the Soviet government. The West has been in a state of civilization, developing private property, and encouraging as many people as possible to become private owners. At the early stage of capitalism, adding to the ranks of proprietors by freeing citizens from feudal fetters, endowing them with property, then overcoming the stage of spontaneous monopolization of property by bourgeois capital, at the democratic stage (the second half of the twentieth century) dispersing property among the mass of proletarians. We will have to do the same thing that has been done in developed countries, but transform state ownership into private ownership. Its own, Russian method, different from Gaidar-Chubais, split the people into a handful of rich people and the majority of beggars. We have in mind the formation of the foundation of the future civil society, the creation of which, in my opinion, will be the implementation of the national idea of Russia. From my point of view, civil society is a society to which a democratic state governed by the rule of law is subordinated, in which the separation of powers is carried out not by establishing different branches of state power itself, but by separating the judicial and legislative powers from the state as the authorities of society itself, in which, consequently, representative legislative power is not state (the State Duma), it can be popular (parliamentary), directly representing the society. At the same time, the state is subordinate to society and serves it, not being the owner of national wealth. The latter is dispersed among the people, whose citizens are the owners of various ranks, for which reason they are independent of the state. It depends on them.

* * *

The collapse of the Gaidar-Chubais "reform" set the task of accelerating the creation of the social core of the future civil society - the middle class of owners. In the conditions of the anti-property mentality of our people, this "class" should embrace itself, if not the entire people, then its absolute majority. We are more likely to accept universal slavery, the equality of all in poverty, than the wealth of individuals, even if they come from the lower ranks of the people. We don't like the rich, and basta! We must not go head-on to enrich our people. The whole difficulty lies in determining the mechanism of turning the people into a" subject of development", so that someone does not create the conditions for their life, but, on the contrary, so that they become self-sufficient, establishing the economic, political and legal pillars of their development activities.

I propose a socially oriented reform that radically changes the paradigm of Russia's development in accordance with the idea of a "new humanism", a "new ideal social organization of people", put forward by the Club of Rome, which provides everyone with "equal opportunities ... based on universal human values" (2). The meaning of the "new humanism".

page 101

For Russia, I interpret" humanism " as the desire to turn every Russian into a self-sufficient figure, in order to bring him out of an incapacitated state, marching all his life with an outstretched hand turned to the state or to another (wealthy) person. We can make a theoretical breakthrough, create a new theory according to which the people themselves would take up the organization of their lives without revolution-counter-revolution from above. Without stirring up social contradictions, without counting on outside help, which sooner or later results in the aggravation of contradictions between peoples. No one will help us. Even the Club of Rome, which called for "bringing other regions of the world to an appropriate level of prosperity" with the help of the United States and the European Union, cannot be trusted to have good intentions. It is necessary to create an economic system in which it is possible to overcome the shortcomings of the market economy - to define the framework in which the market can function, to end the suffocating effect of bureaucracy. Russia should find a source of development within itself. This source is in the co-ownership of citizens in the national wealth through its individualization, formed in joint-stock and cooperative capitals.

All national wealth is inventoried. The initial "value" of each citizen is determined - his share in the entire national wealth, including land, mineral resources, water, forests, etc. The most correct would be to grant a voucher (bank account) to a citizen free of charge in accordance with his "value". But taking into account the psychology of the people, it is more expedient to sell this share at relatively low prices, and to those who are not able to buy - by lending at low interest rates. This security or bank account is guaranteed by the Central Bank with "live" money, which the owner can use only to purchase shares or start his own business, and not for anything else. In the first case, the owner of the voucher (bank account) acts as an investor. Corporatization (or cooperation) of state-owned enterprises or the creation of new ones is carried out as if from scratch, gaining the capital necessary for its activities by selling shares for real vouchers. The second case is adding your own savings or a bank loan to the voucher (bank account).

What does my suggestion do? The first and most important thing (meaning our mentality) is equality without equalization, social justice in the distribution of national wealth. "Social justice" is a category that includes material and spiritual, legal and ordinary, behavioral and moral, and many other aspects of being.

In accordance with the topic of the article, I would like to focus only on the foundation of the mechanism of its implementation, which makes a person self-sufficient, forcing society (society) to be fair to him, not allowing him to humiliate a citizen with his injustice. Moreover, it is self - sufficient on initially equal material conditions with others, provided by society, which belongs to the national wealth in the first place. It is a question of justice coming to a person from society as a whole, not from the ruling class and the state representing it. Social justice is possible in a society where the national wealth belongs to the people, not to the bureaucracy or the oligarchs. But it belongs to the people not impersonally, as the Soviet Constitution declared, but individualized, when each citizen receives his share in it. Then social justice will become a way of life - the dream of humanity will be realized in everyday life. This is one of the fundamental differences between the proposed form of economic organization and the previous and current ones.

If one phrase defines an insurmountable obstacle to our progress, it will be the desire to equalize everyone and everything, despite the seemingly stubborn struggle against this evil. Starting with the NEP, which placed the material interest of the worker and the self-financing of the enterprise at the forefront, the state, through the shock movement, the Stakhanov movement, and the movement for communist labor, seems to have continuously fought against egalitarianism. But to no avail. Why? Does not the Soviet experience indicate that this aspiration of people is eternal?

Social justice is dispassionate: it requires an equalization of everyone's consumption, which, sooner or later, leads to an equalization of everyone's contribution to productive activity, that is, to a delay in the growth of labor productivity - the decisive factor for progress. It is absurd to demand equality of people who are absolutely unequal in their abilities, abilities, diligence, needs, etc. The problem is that a person has a desire for self-realization, for self-affirmation, and it is impossible to accurately determine their abilities.-

page 102

human capabilities are not allowed. In addition, small abilities can develop under the right conditions, and large abilities will come to naught if there are no conditions. This circumstance obliges a democratic and socially just society to provide citizens with basic equality of opportunities (no more), without claiming to equalize the latter in the process of their implementation. A market economy cannot support the material equality of all: the return of people in labor is inherently different. For the market, equality of opportunities for the realization of everyone's abilities is immutable. This is the primary source of the democratic organization of society. It provides social justice in the real form of "rewarding justice" for the maximum of diligence, integrity, honesty, talent, etc., and ultimately-the possibility of helping the successful and society to the weak, losers, etc. Since economic inequality is inevitable, it should only be the result of differences in the labor contribution of each and-partially - received inheritance acquired by the labor of our ancestors. This would encourage productivity, entrepreneurship, frugality, etc.

The desire for human equality is natural and irresistible. All the revolutions of history were made not for the sake of establishing inequality, but for the sake of eliminating it. Now the welfare of a citizen of our society is formed from two sources: 1) the personal consumption fund " 2) the public (depersonalized) consumption fund. If the differences in the first source stem from differences in the labor contribution of citizens, are related to the individual, its characteristics, then the differences in the second source are imposed on the individual by the state, its general disadvantage. Therefore, they are unfair. Thus, education, health care, environmental "consumption", improvement of housing, communications, etc. differ in the amount of consumption and quality by region. At the expense of public funds, therefore, the satisfaction of citizens ' needs is absolutely uneven. Before the August 1998 crash, per capita spending on healthcare in Moscow was 1,360 rubles a year, and in the Tver Region-174 rubles. Let us not forget that public consumption, being "free" (completely devoid of competition), has proved a practical failure. One of the most important reasons for the disastrous state of the culture fed by the public foundation is "free" and non-competitive. Therefore, the bureaucracy, especially in the upper and middle echelons, has found a way to meet the needs by creating special clinics, special hospitals, special schools and other "special services".

Apparently, the public consumption fund should cover only what is indivisible, not personified, for example, ecology, certain types of communications, national defense and public order protection. Everything else should be carried out through buying and selling, a system of personal consumption regulated by market relations, which are available to everyone without exception, if everyone becomes the real owners of their share in the national wealth of the country, they will receive it in their hands. In healthcare and education, for example, this can be solved with appropriate vouchers. Medical vouchers would be issued to every citizen, spent as needed, and the unspent amount would go to the personal pension fund to replenish the pension, or be handed out at retirement. An obvious incentive to "get sick" less! Educational vouchers would be issued to everyone upon admission to study, and the unused amount would be returned to the state free of charge. An obvious incentive to learn more! And most importantly, the possibilities of spending each person on their own needs, which were previously poorly met by the public consumption fund, are leveled across the country.

The transformation of the company's members into shareholders of an all-encompassing cooperative or shareholders of firms (companies) will allow literally everyone to be connected to the means of production. First of all, in terms of social class. The principle of co-ownership solves the problem of connecting people with the means of production, regardless of age. The basis of economic equality of the members of society is created, because everyone will initially have an equal share of public property. This will be a prerequisite for a person's real freedom, his right to choose to work where he would like in accordance with his abilities. For he is a shareholder-owner, a shareholder, a master-worker!

Everyone's well-being is thus directly linked to their efforts, which in turn depend not only on diligence, but also on opportunities. The latter, however, are individual and differ from others, which is a circumstance that focuses on the development of productive forces through the desire of each to assert himself, not to be worse than others. Consequently, the original human desire for social justice, through equalization in the distribution of national wealth belonging to society and inherited from previous generations, receives material support from the state.

page 103

a base on the basis of which it has equal starting opportunities and gets an incentive to realize its abilities. Conditions arise for overcoming equalizing psychology.

This is achieved by everyone's co-ownership in public property, their progress in plus or minus. It is documented and tangible, establishes the" value "of the worker, determines his place in social production not only and perhaps not so much as a "commodity" in the labor market, but as one of its owners. It focuses on highly evaluating the worthy and, accordingly, others.

Second. Highly developed democratic states are now socially oriented. They have created a contradiction that is practically insoluble, due to the growing numbers and "influence" of the state bureaucracy. The bureaucracy disposes of huge sums intended for social purposes; it has great opportunities to abuse its position, to increase its influence on the state in an anti-social direction. There is another problem, especially undesirable for Russians, - the consolidation of dependency that is already expressed in our psychology. In general, wouldn't it be better to follow the example of nature? How does it educate the younger generation and prepare them for life? She proceeds from the principle of "self-standing", "self-sufficiency"; takes care of, feeds for the time being, for the time being. And then: you can live - live, you can't-die. We sometimes take care of our heirs until retirement. The same principle is adopted by the state. It turned the people into dependents (though poorly cared for). Infantile descendants of the human race are nurtured. We are surprised: where do we get non-independent, irresponsible people? Our task is to educate people to be free, independent, and capable of self-reliance, which they can only become if they are self-sufficient, which happens when a person has property. A co-owned economy is aimed at the well-being achieved by each capable person himself. State approval is provided to a limited circle of people.

A citizen with property receives a material basis for self-realization, self-affirmation, becomes self-sufficient and self-organizing. The category of hired labor (mercenary) organized by another, a forced form of introducing people to work, is abolished, since there is no other possibility of existence. The fact that we sell ourselves to an employer doesn't change the situation. The cause of the deadly disease of society, the "ulcer of the proletariat," which feeds crime until it becomes a cancer of the revolution, is eliminated. The current managers of state property-officials - are equated with citizens in relation to the means of production and manufactured products. The material basis of the eternal opposition between the interests of managers and the managed disappears: everyone becomes owners-employees. The economic bureaucracy, which maintains the rest of the bureaucracy, is being abolished, while the non-economic bureaucracy is being sharply reduced. The desired "democratic counterbalance to the power of the bureaucracy" is created, which in this case becomes, firstly, necessarily elected or hired by shareholders, and therefore accountable: secondly, it becomes directly interested in the success of the economy it manages, where its share of ownership is invested. As a result, managers lose their bureaucratic interest in pleasing their superiors and opposing the interests of producers. The interest becomes the same for everyone.

The third. Unlike state production, which is incompatible with private ownership (business) due to the inevitable loss-making and therefore inevitably monopolistic under the Communists, the private economy can be represented by all forms of management: joint-stock, cooperative, individual, family, etc.Therefore, it is decentralized. The transformation of the majority of state property into national (joint-stock, cooperative), without dividing it into individual owners, prevents negative private property manifestations, in particular, in connection with its pre-disaster situation.

Fourth. Communication with the production of citizens working in the non-material sphere is carried out through the investment of their share in the national wealth in certain industries.

Fifth. Today, there are centrifugal forces in the relations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation with the Center due not only to economic problems in the Center and in the localities, but also to significant differences in the development of regions that depend on the nature and level of productive forces. There are several regions within Russia that are rich in natural resources, but there are some that are deprived of them. But mastering and developing the former is the work of all Russians, and

page 104

benefits are mainly enjoyed by their residents and the center. The organization of the economy on the proposed basis equalizes the amount of material goods - their initial share received by citizens from the unified national wealth of Russia, regardless of their place of residence and activity. One country - one initial opportunity. But there is still a difference associated with labor input, production culture, etc., which will serve as an incentive for efforts to overcome differences in the standard of living of our peoples, will encourage the mobilization of intellectual resources, talents, skills, and conscientiousness of each nation and region. The main source of people's well-being and its degree will be labor, skillful management, and not only natural properties, much less the bureaucratic twists of the Center to create benefits or discrimination. Improving the standard of living of the population in any region will depend on it. At the same time, it will strengthen the understanding that the well-being of the population of any region is linked to national wealth. Hence, everyone's interest in the integrity of the state.

Sixth. Since both the employee and the pensioner's share of property is constantly moving, an important problem is solved: along with the growth of the welfare of society, the standard of living of pensioners increases (not indirectly, but directly).

Seventh. Since everyone's income regularly changes depending not only on the degree of labor contribution, but also on the share in the national wealth, a personal interest in increasing it is formed. This interest goes beyond the formation of a group interest, perhaps identical to the successful Japanese "group cooperation". The co-owner is interested in developing, expanding, and strengthening his share of the national wealth, and works to expand it. Personal, group and public interests are combined in a way that penetrates all the pores of society. It turns out a new version of Adamsmith's "invisible hand".

Eighth. Co-ownership of citizens will slow down the exodus of people, the leakage of" brains " abroad. Moreover, the reverse process will begin. Our people will get a second wind in their sense of patriotism. After all, what is a "patriot"? Its original meaning is "Fatherland as property" (P. Struve). The fatherland, the material essence of which is national wealth, should go from being virtually nationwide to actually nationwide, belonging to every citizen and everyone without exception. The threat of Russia's disintegration is not limited to regional separatism; it is also present in the state secession of citizens. I think this applies to all people who are pinned to the wall by need, going to the revolution or leaving their homeland. Marxism is right: the proletarians have no fatherland. There can be no fatherland where a person has no roots, where his well-being does not depend on the wealth of the country, which is managed by the official standing above him. Moreover, the welfare of the latter is all the higher, the lower it is for ordinary citizens who are robbed by the state and its servants.

The ninth. Ownership is a responsibility. The psychology of the owner is fundamentally different from the psychology of the non-owner or mercenary. The latter is concerned with one thing: to consume as much as possible with the minimum return; the former-the desire to preserve and multiply property by diligence in work and frugality in consumption.

Tenth and last in a row, but not in importance. The concept of co-ownership will put an end to the cursed cycle: the enrichment of the few, the ruin and moral degradation of the majority, and as a result - revolutions-counter-revolutions. The initial share of the citizen's property in the national wealth is excluded from the market turnover; only the share increased by the citizen himself participates in it, which is physically inalienable neither from the national property nor from himself (including himself). This property facilitates the formation of a mass middle class - "subjects of development". What is required!

The way to prevent the replacement of one totalitarianism by another is to transform the post-communist state into a society of owners (not just oligarchs, whose formation in a market economy is apparently inevitable, but in the overwhelming majority-small and medium-sized ones). There is no other way to move towards progress, towards a democratic state governed by the rule of law. The other is back to the past ... with all the ensuing troubles, one way or another revolving around the redistribution of property. This we have already "passed" and "pass" in all its demonic glory. Isn't it time to take a break from the robber "works"?!

Materials of the Club of Rome (report by B. Gavrilishin) draw attention to the Japanese production experience, in which "the values and norms of group cooperation prevail."-

page 105

they "live in any society, although they are often either dormant or neglected in an atmosphere of feverish competition. If you awaken them, then a social system based on these values will eventually be established all over the world... " Another speaker of the club is Ed. Pestel calls the Japanese economic system "joint private enterprise" (3). In a co-owned economy, I draw attention to the fact that here personal interest develops into a group interest, reaching out to the general interest of progressive development, expanded reproduction of national wealth.

Today, humanity is building a new global community, which is best formed so far in Western Europe, in those countries where democratic capitalism with a socially oriented economy has established itself. Apparently, the answer to these "human" (cooperative) processes was the spread of the synergetic approach (synergetics as a general theory of Self-organization), the birth of the science of synergetic sociology (synergy is a word of Greek origin meaning joint activity), and, apparently, the science of joint activity of people (in local, regional and global dimensions). Hence the co-ownership of citizens in the national wealth is the core of the joint activity of self-organizing people as owners for their own and other members of society's benefit.

list of literature

1. Bransky V. P. Theoretical foundations of social synergetics // St. Petersburg Sociology. 1997. N 1. P. 152.

2. The Club of Rome. History of creation, selected reports and speeches, official materials, Moscow, 1997, p. 113.

3. The Club of Rome, pp. 118, 173.

page 106

Permanent link to this publication: