Ownership and power:
§ Deception "Democratic propaganda":
The influence of large owners on politics, even in "democratic" states, is highly disproportionate not only to the share of these owners in the population, but even to the share of taxes that come from them.
And the reason for this is not lobbyism and hidden corruption, although this is also present, but economic power. -
The main factor of policy is the economy.
- Who owns the economy, he has the main levers of influence on politics. - Politicians are simply dependent on large owners.
These theses, unfortunately, are poorly substantiated. – Despite the fact that the relevant branch of sociology is the most important, especially in anticipation of the use of IT to manipulate people, it remains the most underdeveloped.
By the way, this indirectly confirms the above theses.
"Democratic propaganda" deceives Americans by portraying that US policy depends only on them - through the electoral and generally democratic system.
see: " Democratic " propaganda.docx
§ Inadequacy of "Class Theory":
Marx's theory is inadequate in yet another sense:
Indeed, the "closure" of the interests of the state is characteristic. authorities and "capitalists", especially in authoritarian countries.
However, Marxists endow the "owner class" with power quite a priori - not on the basis of a study of all existing social mechanisms.
In addition, if there is a unity of the state. power and property, then it refers not to the "class of owners" in general, but to especially large owners and politicians.
§ Power - money - power:
In political "competition", the winner is the politician who uses the most money to :
- Propaganda,
- Violence.
In "economic" "competition" the winner is the "businessman" who supports the winning politician with money.
There cannot be many winners-politicians, usually it is 1 terrorist at the head of the hierarchy.
Accordingly, there are not many "businessmen" built into this hierarchy.
Using monopoly political and economic conditions - small businessmen are "exploited" as well as "proletarians".
However, there is a continual distribution among businessmen. -
If competition among hired workers concentrates the ratio of their income to labor in a very narrow range, then "businessmen" are distributed - along the entire hierarchy, symbioses of state terrorists with "businessmen" are created - at all levels of the hierarchy.
True, this distribution is very uneven too.
§ Monopolism:
More adequate is the analysis of the causes of inequality - in terms of monopoly, not ownership.
Property is only a secondary instrument.
As a result of natural social selection, large states were formed.
The big states themselves were a factor favoring monopoly.
In large states, the rulers were interested in the unity of law.
The forms of monopoly have changed, but not its essence.
The level of freedom grew, but the factors favoring monopoly also grew:
1. Technological factors of production concentration;
2. Unity, connectivity of the economy.
However, in the 21st century, a new factor - informatization - has created the opposite trend:
1. Technological de - concentration ;
2. Reducing the costs of connectivity, globalization of the economy.
§ Technological de-concentration :
The microprocessor revolution has made small-scale manufacturing leading again.
1. Even purely production costs are often lower than those of large-scale industries - by reducing the distances and volumes of transportation of intermediate materials,
2. Reducing trading costs, however, is the main factor.
- In authoritarian, corrupt countries, production costs are often only 1/3 of the price.
§ Reducing connectivity costs , globalizing the economy :
Informatization - cheaper global communications and automatic economic analysis have eliminated the informational advantage of a large organization over a small one.
Large organizations began to rely more on - artificial methods of monopoly such as - Intellectual "property" and hiding information.
In this, the interests of the owners of large "production" organizations coincide with the interests of large state organizations.
§ Musk and NASA:
Justification, "cutting" unnecessary work for the salaries of their "teams".
And the larger the team, the higher the salary of the boss.
Collective farms and factories in the USSR.
§ "Property of labor collectives" during Perestroika in the USSR:
"Property of labor collectives" - in fact, meant the ownership and disposal - of the "Red Directors".
In fact, most of the production property was not divided by the "bandits", but remained at the disposal of the former management, which was restructured only - from party supervision - to state corruption.
§ Liberalism and socialism:
Liberalism is more effective than socialism in reducing inequality.
And, most importantly, socialism is dangerous because it retains monopoly and hierarchy.
It is more profitable for rich groups to buy off the poor than to agree to the de-monopolization of the conditions of production.
I do not want to offend philanthropists, but a true philanthropist should not give handouts, but should abandon the monopolistic conditions due to which he receives excess income.
§ Liberalism and property:
Freedom is limited by the freedom of another person.
"Neo-liberalism" is anti- liberalism .
It asymmetrically shifts freedom in relation to property to such an extent that it turns it into unfreedom.
"Defending" private property" is incompatible with and liberalism. It is anti -liberalism .
But without the protection of "private property" is an efficient economy impossible? -
This is another question that has nothing to do with liberalism.
And this is a sphere of great demagogy and deception. -
In fact, rules and institutions are more effective than monopoly "private property".
And this is not communism, which is an even greater monopoly, but true liberalism.
This is, for example - Competitive Use of Production Tools.docx
§ Pseudo- " Free contract":
"Free contract" is not free, because it comes from unequal conditions.
§ Analogue: Gangster and Hostage:
The hostage freely chooses life.
However, the Gangster owns an unequal condition - a gun.
§ Freedom inversion:
The trick of Equal Opportunity is the inversion of opportunity and freedom.
The possibilities of social position strongly depend on the already achieved social position.
- The higher the social position, the more opportunities.
However, the "fee" for entering the level of freedom is actually prohibitive.
§ Racketeering and security - after Perestroika in the USSR:
§ Kolkhoz Disadvantages:
(Not a Soviet pseudo-collective farm, but a real one = independent)
1. Difficulty to agree. Part of this problem is solved by AI network tools.
2. Not taking risks - most people.
3. Just economic literacy.
In a "free" legal environment, as a rule, it is more profitable for employees to give part of their profits - to a manager - for a high salary than to solve operational issues themselves, but at the same time asking this manager - the optimal criteria for stimulating him.
That is, as a rule, employees would receive the maximum income - in an "intermediate" enterprise - in which employees would determine only - the key rules, but - according to their free choice.
That is, the workers themselves are not profitable - neither a "democratic" enterprise, nor one where they have no rights.
Ownership, on the other hand, is usually really and is a guarantee of the freedom of workers to control their enterprise.
But how will illiterate workers develop the optimal basic laws for their enterprise? - "Market" - the best experience would be quickly selected by natural selection.
Why then are collective farms not in vogue in the USA?
- They really do not benefit the "class" of owners who control politics.
Criticism of Kolkhozes in "democratic" countries is simply anti-liberal propaganda no "worse" than communist propaganda.
§ Marx was right:
Marx was right about "capitalism" being just another stage of monopoly.
However, the communists turned - in the opposite direction.
§ The Importance of Property Liberalization:
"Economic democracy" is needed today - not for economic equality, but - for the survival of a free Civilization.
"Economic democracy" - should not be the participation of workers in the management of their enterprises, but - the reduction of economic power - in a broad sense.
The liberalization of property is necessary precisely to reduce the objective influence of property.
§ Anarchy and property:
7290
|