THE GROWING CONTRADICTIONS OF PRODUCTION AND BUSINESS

Modern society is forced to believe that production and business are practically the same. That all production is for profit. That a businessman is not a thief and not a speculator, but on the contrary, a respected person who contributes to the progress and development of the economy. The simple-minded man in the street takes such statements for granted, and the associated costs, such as poverty, devastation, unemployment, the arrogant luxury of “businessmen”, with their palaces on the Cote d’azur and yachts in the Atlantic, is regarded as an inevitable evil, as a fee for the lack of “deficits” and queues for sausage.

Is that so? Does production make a profit? No. Nothing but the cost of production does not bring. The profit is provided as a result of the sale of the produced product on the market. Only as a result of commodity exchange the surplus value appropriated by owners of means of production is formed. To increase their profits, every owner seeks to reduce production costs, often with direct damage to consumer product quality.

It is easy to notice the direct contrast between the interests of society, materialized in the process of production with the interests of “business” – the superfluous, parasitic element of social relations. It’s not a secret. The process of production, the birth of commodity circulation, the focus on profit – making-all have long been studied by Marx and do not raise any questions even among bourgeois economists. No one today argues with either Marx or Lenin, they are simply silenced, pretending that there is not even the science of political economy. Any conversation is translated into the plane of “economy”, and the problems arising under capitalism are called “economic”, although there are no economic problems. There are problems of non-compliance of production relations with the level of development of productive forces.

Why are there no “economic problems”?

Because they are all derived from the prevailing commodity-money relations, but not from the nature of things. What “economic problem” can be in the production of, for example, aircraft? There are technical documentation, production facilities, raw materials, equipment, energy, skilled workers and heads on their shoulders. Which of the following may constitute a “problem”?

Oh, no “money“? No “investment”? Is the Bank rate high? So this is a manifestation of antagonistic, shkurnichesky “interests” of the business, nothing to do with the production no.

The hopes of naive perestroika simpletons for an all-powerful “material interest”, for business, for an “effective owner”, only testifies to the inexcusable illiteracy of “scientists” who called themselves “economists”. All these aerial intellectual dreams of “competition”, of “the invisible hand of the market”, of energetic business people did not concern production, they belonged to commodity-money relations, and if you call a spade a spade, then to speculation on a particularly large scale. Bought, sold – made a profit. That’s the whole “business”, for which, incidentally, in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR was punishable by up to 7 years in prison with confiscation of all acquired “hard work” property. This is the whole economic “science” that studies the redistribution of the already produced product. There is no market, there is no commodity-money relations – there is no “science”. Production interests “economists” only insofar as it provides a product for exchange, for profit, for the enrichment of owners of factories, plants, land, oil fields, captured by them as a result of the deception of the century – the “privatization” of Soviet public property.

But, let’s digress from the ethical side of the issue

Suppose that deception, theft, acts, though not quite moral, but justified and even necessary for the common good. That without clever dealers production will not know what and in what quantities should be produced. That all-powerful law of value will balance inter-sectoral proportions, will determine the socially necessary labour time, will print the price tags on all things, will fill the shelves of supermarkets better than any golanov and state Committee on supply. And, as the authorities assure, without the beneficial effect of this objective economic law, the whole of Africa risks being overwhelmed by millions of pairs of the world’s best galoshes of the same size.

Is that so? Suppose, from the practice of a number of years, we reliably know the need of society for electricity, distributed geographically, by seasons and time of day. There are peak loads, equipment failure time and hundreds of other indicators needed to fine-tune the entire energy sector of the country. Do you need an electrician in this case, the law of cost? No, it takes a lot to provide the country with electricity. We need power plants, power lines, Supervisory communication channels, telemetry and telemechanics, modern equipment, fuel, qualified personnel and much more, but not money. Money does not participate in the production of not only electricity, but in General of any product. There is a question, and how power plants will acquire coal, oil, gas, nuclear fuel, than to pay with the workers? As it happens under capitalism, it is clear, but in the planned national economy, what will be the replacement of the law of value?

CAPITALISM AS THE REALITY OF THE SOCIAL NATURE, THE MAIN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, THE CURRENT GLOBAL CRISIS

Remains to be seen whether the very concept of value under socialism?

Yes, it does. In relation to capitalism, value is the social work of commodity producers embodied in the commodity and embodied in it. But, since under socialism there are no commodity-money relations, the cost can be determined by excluding the commodity content of the produced product, i.e. as embodied in the product and embodied in it social work. In this case, we can talk about the cost of production or the cost of working time that make up the estimated cost of production in man-hours. What is important, all the “economic”, monetary values under socialism give way to physical, natural indicators. Production is freed from its financial wrapper and focuses directly on the satisfaction of social needs in kind.

What are the advantages of non-commercial organization of the national economy? The element of uncertainty in production planning is eliminated. If all social needs, including long-term development, are known, the future becomes controlled by the present. The place of vague economic “forecasts” is occupied by production plans, tasks, schedules – all those attributes of the real world, which in the economy of money are a “burden”, “costs”, an annoying necessity.

Liberal fiercely object – needs can not be known in advance!

Science does not stand still, discoveries and inventions are made, new materials and technologies are created. How can all this be squeezed into the framework of five-year plans?

I note that no market can also provide for any discoveries or inventions. This is the prerogative only of the human mind, not commodity-money speculation. Modern means of information processing are quite capable of coordinating the work of the entire national economic complex at the physical level, in real time, to take into account all the operations of each workplace, to optimize all logistics up to minutes and seconds. By eliminating the financial components that hinder the development of production, it is possible to achieve an unprecedented leap in the growth of the productive forces of society not by a miserable percentage of GDP, but at times, rapidly bypassing the most developed countries of the world in labor productivity. However, Russia has no other alternative.

THE WAY OF THE FUTURE: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF NON-VIOLENT DEVELOPMENT

Blind adherence to liberal dogmas will only exacerbate the technological backwardness of the country, preserve the backwardness and archaic social relations, in full accordance with Marxist-Leninist theory. And humanity will get a convincing example of what leads arrogant leaders unlearned lesson in political economy.