Divine works


eng deu рус


Alternative Rebuild:

Problem: Soviet Anti-Economy:

Soviet enterprises went bankrupt not in the 1990s, but in the 1980s.
What was it?:
Directors of state farms, for example, received bonuses for the "development" of investments.
At the same time, the mechanism for monitoring the use of investments was extremely inefficient. You could say it wasn't there.
The resources allocated by Gosplan, the "funds" had to be burned, buried, or limed by any means.
The art of directors was to waste money so that the reports had the appearance of a rational use of investments.
The share of "additions" sometimes reached 90%.
For example, drivers were given diesel fuel. In fin. the report wrote that the driver drove 250 km. In reality, the driver drove 2.5 km, and the diesel fuel was drained and burned.

The biggest waste of resources was in the agricultural sector .
Efficiency of use, agricultural productivity. technology in the USSR was 10-20 times lower than, for example, in West Germany.

In the construction sector, directors of enterprises were also stimulated to maximize costs, to bury iron, concrete, etc. in the ground.

They were waiting for the road to be asphalted in order to immediately dig it out - then the road workers and repairmen of the heating main would receive a salary.
Heating mains broke through every day - it was also possible to earn money on this.

Where today 1 person with a portable welding machine solves problems - in the 1980s 7 people went out on a truck with a trailer.
The term "mismanagement" is not accurate - inefficiency was an economic rational calculation of benefit. The name "Cost economy" is more adequate.

The result of the costly anti-economy was a shortage of goods - an excess of money from the population with a lack of consumer goods.

Alternative: "self-supporting":

Even at the dawn of Soviet power, the idea of \u200b\u200b"Hozraschet" appeared.
It consisted in market relations between enterprises.
They tried to partially use cost accounting in the USSR - in the 1960s, in the 1980s - during the "Perestroika".

"Restructuring":

However, it was not profitable for the heads of ministries and departments to let go of centralized management and distribution of resources.
When shortages of goods caused the popularity of the CPSU (Communist Party) to fall, the bosses chose to retain control of the economy by appropriating it. -
The "means of production" were " grabbed " - registered to various swindlers who "unfastened " - paid money to the bosses ex-communists=anti-communists.

" Voucherization ":

Formally, the "means of production" were distributed to the population.
But the population got only unprofitable enterprises.
The bosses kept the profitable resources for themselves.
But even unprofitable enterprises were at the disposal, in informal ownership - of their directors.

The bosses managed to fool the population, promising, for example, that in "500 days" the economy and living standards in Russia would become "like in the United States."
1st case " liberalized " prices. The trade deficit has disappeared. But goods at the same time became even less than before. It's just that the population now could not buy it.

Alternative history:

What could have been done differently?:
First - democratization, and only then - privatization.

1. Carry out a "Treaty Campaign". -
In the USSR, there were centralized plans for the supply of resources between enterprises.
It was possible to replace obligations to central authorities with horizontal, direct obligations directly between enterprises.
2. Create "Exchanges":
Create a legal mechanism - free choice of counterparties, as well as a mechanism for the search and selection of trading counterparties - by the enterprises themselves.
3. Implement economic democratization:
To create a legal mechanism for realizing the interests of "labor collectives" contrary to the interests of directors of enterprises.

Another question is that all this was unreal. - It was not profitable for the bosses to let go of control over the economy.

The only possibility was to create an "Deliberative Structure" so that people themselves would figure everything out and realize their own interests, contrary to the interests of their superiors.
Unfortunately, people are easily fooled and made into beggars.
Fortunately, "poverty" today is not what it was just 1000 years ago. - Almost no one died of starvation in the 1990s in the former USSR.

End of story. Fenita la comedia :

The real threat is different - existential - a threat to the existence of a free civilization and even the physical existence of Mankind.
If the rulers could so easily manipulate people with the help of traditional, ancient means of propaganda, then using Super- AI , the rulers will have absolute control over the people.
While maintaining 100% of formal freedoms, people will actually lose 100% freedom.
To make matters worse, humans will become a nuisance to the " symbiotes ". As a result, people are greatly artificially degraded - in fact, they will cease to be people, and will almost completely die out.
Moreover, formally the people themselves will be to blame for everything. – " Symbiotes " will only create opinions with "opinion leaders"

" Konnor "

4208

 

Communist tragedy:

In history, there was no such enthusiasm as in the 1920s in Russia, neither among patriots nor among religious fanatics.
Propaganda became a mainstay of communism only in the 1970s.
In 1932, Komsomol members really sacrificed themselves for the sake of communism at its many construction sites.
For example, in Ukraine, during the Holodomor, Komsomol members asked only to save children, while they themselves voluntarily died of hunger, since it was necessary to build communism.
Komsomol executioners killed thousands of innocent people, too, not because they were sadists, but because this sacrifice was necessary for building communism.

The corrosion of communism occurred in the 1970s, not because people were disillusioned with communism, but because people wanted to be led by fanatics, not pretending to be careerists.
When, in a rigidly hierarchical system, the elite lost the support of ordinary communists-Komsomol members, then the rest of the people considered themselves simply deceived.

The original idea of communism was extremely noble - freedom, equality, fraternity (It was precisely these slogans that attracted the working communists).
It was not the fault, but the tragedy of ordinary communists that their sacrifice was in vain. “There was no freedom, no equality, no fraternity.

It would be nice to translate these thoughts into an artistic form, for example, in a film script.

Parasitizing on good:

Why didn't they rebel against Stalinism in the USSR?
This is usually explained by repression and propaganda.
However , I think the main factor was "Parasite on good":
In the 1920s and 30s, Soviet people sincerely believed in the truth of communism, that communism was good for all mankind.
At the same time, the ideologists explained that in order to receive good, it is necessary to temporarily endure, to make sacrifices.

I think that among the ideologists themselves there were few obvious demagogues, hypocrites in the 1920s and 30s. – Ideologists themselves believed in what they convinced other people.
"Parasitizing on the good" was a social effect, a phenomenon, and not a real parasitism, not a real exploitation of people's aspirations for the better.
Yes, it was convenient for the bosses to exploit the belief in communism.
But at the same time, the Komsomol members consciously and voluntarily sacrificed themselves.

In the 1970s and 80s, when faith in communism was lost, communism had to prove its viability to people in practice.
This was partly successful in China, but it did not work out in Russia.
And the main fault for this was the inertia of the theory of communism.
Perhaps it was in the "Deliberative Structure" that communism had a chance to survive through a radical transformation.

The role of the party in history:

Communist propaganda proved the high role of the Communist Party and, in particular, its Central Committee (Central Committee) in the 1917 revolution in Russia.
In fact, they played no role. -
The revolution of 1917 in Russia was a spontaneous phenomenon.
The population of Russia, and, above all, its capital, Petrograd, was dissatisfied with social polarization - the hunger of some people while the luxury of others.
The population of Petrograd (and it played a role) supported the Bolsheviks=Communists only because their populist program accidentally turned out to be the most consistent with the opinions of the people themselves.
The seizure of power was not an end in itself for the Bolsheviks, unlike the Putinists of 1999. - The Bolsheviks had a conservative ideology, which they almost did not adapt to seize power.

The theory of communism is not scientific:

The "leaders" of communism (Lenin) are not profound theorists.
It's just that their theory turned out to be the most consistent with the shallow opinions of the people of Petrograd. -
People did not like the luxury of hunger, which were visible on the surface.
People associated wealth with political power - as a result of the psychological mechanism, confusing cause and effect.
The Bolsheviks turned out to have a rather harmonious theoretical tightrope-scholasticism, most suitable for the superficial views of people.
The theory of communism won not because it was "true", but because its bearers seized power.
Further, under the dictatorship of the communists, their theory could not become scientific - because of the dictatorship itself - despite the powerful academic structures of the Institutes of Marxism-Leninism subordinate to the K PSS in the USSR .

In Russia, the opinion "bourgeois is to blame for everything, we will eliminate them and everything will work out " won.
In Germany, the opinion "the Jews are to blame for everything, we will eliminate them and everything will work out " won.

See also: Alternative Restructuring Anti-economy.docx

Revolution is the collapse of power, and the period of its instability.

In Petrograd, the period of social revolution lasted from the abdication of the Tsar from the throne in February until the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in October 1917.
On the territory of Russia, the revolution continued - throughout the Civil War - until 1920.

" Konnor "

4000

 

Pragmatism and communism:

Pragmatism is optimization. Optimization is the maximization of a process with respect to a certain parameter.
Here it is considered - minimizing the killings of Ukrainians.

Prehistory of Donbass:

In the USSR, Donbass was one of the richest regions.
Some of the richest working people in the USSR lived in it.
- The main thing - "supply" in it was - in the same regulatory category as in Moscow.
(There was no freedom of trade in the USSR. The standard of living of the local population was determined by the "supply" - the "plan" for the delivery of consumer goods to a given area).
In general, the supply in the national republics was better than in Russia itself, not counting the Moscow region.
In the republics, it was a "carrot" against separatist sentiments.
But even in the relatively prosperous Ukrainian SSR, the Donbass was the most prosperous.
Although in the same Western Ukraine the supply was better than in Siberia, but the industry was more developed in the Donbass, and, accordingly, salaries were higher in the Donbass.

The state in the USSR is often criticized - unfairly.
State. standards - consumer, medical, educational, labor - in the USSR were, as a rule, higher than in Europe.
Another issue is that progressive standards were not observed in many areas, they did not "work".
Theft flourished. Especially in the public sector. trade.
Not on such a scale as today in the post-Soviet countries, but it was ubiquitous.
The main drawback of the political system of the USSR is its repressive nature.
- In the absence of freedoms, including freedom of enterprise, everything rested on fear and repression.
Fear is not an effective motivator.

Legislation in the USSR was indeed pro-worker.
The workers only abused it.
In Russia, the supply was worse than in the Caucasus, for example, but there was no unemployment.
- Investments were made mainly - in Russia, and in "enclaves" - Donbass, Northern Kazakhstan, Riga - additionally tying the national republics to the USSR.
More housing was also being built there.
(Housing, as well as medicine and education in the USSR, was distributed free of charge, but in turn. If in the Donbass in the queue for housing they stood for 5-10 years, then in Western Ukraine - over 20 years).
Workers in state farms in Russia did not want to work - there was a significant shortage of workers.
( State farms are agricultural enterprises subordinate to Moscow. Farming was banned in the USSR).
Directors of state farms in Russia were forced to hire workers from the Caucasus.

The USSR was not destroyed by the people, but by the traitor and the "communists". - The bosses in the USSR had unlimited power, but they could not monetize it.
As a result, they monetized it with the help of "counter-revolution".

Donbass in the former USSR turned out to be the most effective time bomb.
- In Riga, the standard of living has now risen to European levels, and in Northern Kazakhstan, emigrants to Russia have been replaced by immigrants from the South.