Текст книги "Ford and Stalin. How to Live in Humaneness"

1. Globalization

as a Means to Counter Globalization

«Anti-globalists» are people who for various reasons oppose «globalization». But most of them don’t bother about understanding what precisely they are fighting for and what precisely they oppose to. Therefore they get nothing but hooliganism as a result. Given such an essentially vague and purely nihilistic attitude to globalization the «anti-globalists» are no smaller an evil than the historically real «globalization», which they are so unhappy with. In order to choose none of the two evils one needs to become familiar with the social meaning of both the words and the phenomena they signify.

«Globalization» is a term of political science, which became known to people interested in politics and economics in a few recent years. «Globalization» became the term for the economic and cultural phenomena that affect historically formed cultures of peoples living in different parts of the world (including the economic structure). Such phenomena on the one hand disrupt those cultures and ways of life and on the other hand integrate them into some global culture that is yet starting to come into being. In the historical perspective this global culture is to unite the whole of mankind.

Will this culture be bad or good? This is still an open question in many aspects.

But it is this very question that anti-globalists are not interested in, because they act on their prejudice of globalization being invariably bad. Such an attitude is bad in itself. The point is that:

Historically real globalization is the result of actions of many people who pursue their own interests or the interests of their groups. And those interests are mostly not of a global scale.

What is now being termed «globalization» happened before but did not have a name. Over the whole course of recorded history «globalization» appears to be a process of national cultures penetrating one another. In the past international trade and the policy of conquest stimulated it. Nowadays it is stimulated directly by the integration of technologies belonging to different national economies into a world economy of the mankind. The economic constituent of this process consists in concentration of control over the society’s productive forces. The mankind of today cannot exist without production and distribution systems controlled this or that way. In other words globalization is a historically objective process which takes place not depending on wishes and will of a single opponent to «globalization in general».

Thus, because globalization is the result of actions taken by many people seeking to provide for their private – and not in the least global – interests then it is really useless to fight it. In order to stop globalization one must totally ban all export-import transactions, do away with tourism, migration, concert tours of all performers, art and other exhibitions, translating business correspondence, works of art and academic papers, minimize diplomatic activity and eliminate mafias.

Judged on the basis of the above-mentioned vision a sincere effort of fighting globalization in general – as an inherent principle of civilization development on our planet – is a form of insanity. But to put up with globalization as it proceeds in the historic reality of today is to bring horrible afflictions to the mankind in future.

The point is that though globalization results from the social element of many people’s private activities of the people’s pursuing their own ends not in the least of a global scale, the historically real globalization is a controlled process. This happens because along with average people who devote themselves to vanity and avoid considering their private and largely social affairs on the global scale, there have been among the mankind from immemorial time more or less numerous social groups whose members in the succession of generations pursue some definite objectives regarding the entire mankind and develop and apply the means to accomplish those objectives. As the choice of objectives and means to accomplish them is subjectively determined by the «globalists»’s morals, globalization in itself may be directed towards accomplishing mutually exclusive objectives by mutually exclusive means following mutually exclusive scenarios.

But as globalization is generated by actions of many people who are not globalists and as it is impossible to stop it, only one option remains. Globalization proceeding toward accomplishing unacceptable objectives by unacceptable means following unacceptable scenarios must be opposed by a profoundly different globalization, acceptable from the point of its objectives, the means to accomplish them and scenarios along which those objectives are accomplished by those means.

This approach to the issue of historically real globalization and its possible alternatives leads us directly to the question of an objective, i.e. pre-destined for the man and the mankind, Good and accordingly of an objective Evil.

2. Henry Ford and Industrialization

in the USSR

In the 20^th century or at least its largest part the historically real issue of objective Good and Evil viewed globally always led to the question: which one of these two categories is represented by the «American way of life» and «American dream» and which one is represented by «the Soviet way of life» and «the ideals of bolshevism».

Many people including representatives of the well-read «intelligentsia» adhere to the view that history has given a final answer to this question even after September 11^th, 2001[1]. Namely, they think that the «American way of life» and the «American dream» suit human nature and the nature of human society better and therefore are universal and viable, while the Soviet way of life and the ideals of bolshevism are the product of a far-fetched social experiment and therefore are a historical bankrupt. This bankruptcy was manifested, and to many convincingly, by the irreversible failure of the USSR in terms of state institutions, social structure and culture. And the current status of the «former USSR» and the USA is one of the facts belonging to the globalization, which defines its future perspective.

Along with that since the mid 19^th century and up to present time the course of globalization and its quality (goals, means to accomplish them, scenarios) has been determined by the extent to which the people of the USA and Russia have used their chances to provide mutual help and cooperation in developing the cultures of both two countries. That is why in order to understand the future trends of globalization and discover a variant of it that is objectively executable to the benefit of all the peoples of the world it is insufficient simply to proclaim the failure of the USSR and the seemingly cloudless future of the USA (even more so after September 11^th, 2001). One must turn to our common history.

Usually when one needs an example of a positive cooperation between Russia and the USA one recalls the World War II. But in our opinion the cooperation between Russia (the USSR) and the USA in that period is not the kind of phenomenon that is exemplary to the present and future politicians, businessmen and common people in both countries. The reason is that the unity between the USSR and the USA during the WWII existed due to a common enemy. The hypothetic victory of that enemy would have ended the history of both countries and their peoples. But to discover a way to a peaceful and bright future of all the peoples of mankind one needs not to answer the question «whom should we be friends against?» but the question «in the name of what ideals should we be friends and how could we make our common ideals a reality?» That is why we should find another example of fruitful cooperation in our past.

The industrialization of the USSR – new branches of industry coming into being and old ones being modernized – was going on simultaneously with the «great depression» in the USA and world economic crisis. While the crisis paralyzed the economies of all industrialized countries for many Western companies sales to the Soviet market became a way of surviving financially. The so-called «class interests», «class solidarity» of capitalists in the fight against the «world evil of communism» for many of them receded into the background. They were ready to work for the socialist regime of the USSR contrary to their class interests for the sake of preserving their firms and keeping their present social status.

In the years preceding the «great depression» the anti-Marxist nature of Stalin’s bolshevism[2] was yet unclear. That is why the struggle between Trotskyites and Stalinists in the governing bodies of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) [ACP (B)] and their struggle outside the party for control over the minds of Soviet citizens were taken by many people (including foreigners) for the customary fighting between leaders and their teams which is more or less in the nature of all political parties. Rearranging life in Russia on the principles of Marxist «socialism» was a part of the global project to rearrange relationships in societies throughout the world. Therefore there are reasons to believe that the «great depression» of 1929 itself was organized on purpose by the «world backstage»[3] in order to force the private capital of industrially developed countries under threat of bankruptcy to work for the benefit of building Marx’s model of the «socialism» in the USSR. Such were the immediate tasks of «globalization» in that historic period.

Consequently industrialization in the USSR was lent active political support by a part of the backstage masonry[4] and received investments from the foreign private capital, including the private capital of the USA that diplomatically acknowledged the USSR only in November 1933. Under those conditions the Soviet government enjoyed the opportunity to choose from among many firms eager to take part in building socialism in the USSR and those were the most advanced firms of every branch of industry. «Ford Motors» (founded 1903) was among the leaders of the automotive branch throughout the whole of the 1^st quarter of the 20^th century. Therefore it is not surprising that it was given preference over others and received an opportunity to contribute to the Soviet automotive industry’s coming into being.

As a result the foundation of the automotive and tractor industries of the USSR in the Stalinist period was heavily assisted in terms of technology and staff training by Henry Ford I (1863 – 1947), one of the most prominent businessmen of the first half of the 20^th century. The first Soviet mass-production tractor «Fordson – Putilovets» (1923) – a «Ford» tractor «Fordson» adapted for production and operation in the USSR – was designed and put into full production in the years of World War I. A car factory was constructed (1929 – 1932) in Gorky[5]; Moscow «ZiL» car factory[6] was modernized during the first five-year plan, staff for both of these factories received training. Everything mentioned above was accomplished with the help of Henry Ford and various experts from «Ford Motors» and their help played a decisive role in it.

But «Ford Motors» stands out among the many private firms that took part in the industrialization of the USSR because of Ford’s personality. Ford was its founder and chief executive for over 40 years. That Ford’s personality stands out against the background of many capitalist businessmen of the first half of the 20^th century was reflected in the Soviet propaganda in a peculiar way.

3. Marxism Talking on «Fordizm»

«FORDIZM, a system of organizing mass production on the line originated in the USA in the first quarter of the 20^th century. (…) The founding principle of Fordizm and of the new methods of organizing production and labor it gave rise to was the assembly belt. (…) Every worker placed along the assembly line performed one operation consisting in several (sometimes even one) working movements (for example turning a nut with a wrench) that required virtually no qualification. As Ford indicates 43 % of workers required one-day long training, 36 % – from 1 day up to one week, 6 % – one or two weeks, 14 % from one month up to 1 year[7].

Introducing the assembly line along with several other technical innovations (product typification, standardization of component parts, their interchangeability and so on) enabled a sharp growth of labor productivity and decrease in manufacture costs[8] and initiated mass production (…) At the same time Fordizm intensified labor to an unprecedented extent, made it dull and mechanical. Fordizm counts on turning workers into robots and requires an extreme nervous and physical exertion. Compulsory pace of work set by the assembly line made it necessary to substitute piecework payment by payment by the hour[9]. The word «Fordizm» like «Tailorizm» before it became synonymous to exploitation of workers characteristic of the monopoly stage of capitalism, which is bent on increasing profits of capitalist monopolies.

Seeking to suppress the feeling of discontent among workers and to prevent them from organizing a fight for their rights and interests Ford introduced a military-like discipline in factories, encouraged spying among workers, ran his own police for severe punishment of active workers. For many years Ford did not permit trade unions at his factories.

In his book “My Life and Work” Ford claimed to play the role of some «social reformer» and asserted that his methods of production and labor organization could turn a bourgeois society into a «society of affluence and social harmony». Ford praised his system as the one catering for the workers making special emphasis on wages at his factories being higher than the average wage in the industry. However higher wages are connected with higher working pace, quick wear of workforce, the task to attract more and more new workers to substitute those put out of action.

Bourgeois ideologists regard the workers’ opposition to destructive social consequences of Fordizm as an opposition to technical progress. Actually the workers fight not against technical progress but against the capitalist way to use its achievements. Modern technological revolution, improvement of the workers’ education and training, strengthening of their struggle have turned Fordizm into an obstacle for labor productivity growth.

In the early 1970-s some capitalist firms are conducting experiments on modernizing assembly line production in order to make the work less monotonous, more meaningful and attractive and consequently more effective. To that end assembly lines are restructured: they are shortened, operations are combined, workers are moved along the line to perform a cycle of operations and so on. Measures of this kind are often depicted by bourgeois sociologists as the concern businessmen have for «humanizing labor». But actually they are caused by the urge to adapt Fordizm to the present conditions and thereby improve the methods of exploitation of the working people.

Only within socialism can labor be truly humanized. The man becomes a creative personality and is sure that his activity is socially valuable. He comprehends the science of controlling[10] production, state, society. Any form of technical progress including the assembly line is applied with the average socially normal labor intensiveness and their application is accompanied by facilitation and improvement of labor conditions» (“The Big Soviet Encyclopedia”, pub. 3, v. 27, pp. 537, 538).

It is typical of the “The Big Soviet Encyclopedia” in the third edition to have plenty of articles that only inform of the viewpoint one should share on this or that natural or social phenomenon in order to be loyal to the stagnant regime but give no information on what the phenomenon that the article is devoted to is in essence.

The article «Fordizm» quoted above with minor abridgements can be placed among the same kind. Consequently it does not contain a single word of gratitude to H. Ford for the support he lent in motorizing Soviet agriculture and for his contribution to establishing the Soviet automotive industry on the basis of «Fordizm» principles that were so severely condemned by Marxist talkers. According to the logic of the article’s authors’ argumentation one must admit the following: at Ford’s own factories «Fordizm» principles are bad, and at the Gorky car factory they are good, though work is organized pretty much the same way. Both factories have an assembly line that sets the pace of work for the entire collective, and the management seeks to increase the line’s speed. Labor discipline is demanded or otherwise the assembly line will stop or rejects will be plentiful. Manufacturing process is divided into most simple operations that are monotonous to perform throughout the working day and do not require long-term training or higher education and so on.

On the whole this article is a fine specimen of Marxist propaganda slandering anyone who thinks differently and independently and therefore is able to solve the problems that one faces in life inventively. And this is one of the things that H. Ford and J.V. Stalin have in common. The historic myth claims that H. Ford and J.V. Stalin are very different people and the only thing that unites them is that they were contemporaries. Actually they are united by something else: in the dominating cultural tradition their aspirations and deeds are in the same way deliberately either buried in oblivion or obscured by lies. And believing those lies and myths results in misunderstanding their visions and doings equally by those who admires both of them and those who slight or hate them.

In order to understand the place they hold in history and the momentum their aspirations and deeds had in regard to the future one must turn to their own sayings. And if this is done we shall get a chance to experience a globalization of a totally different nature, of the kind that only parasites can oppose to.

4. A Campaign for What: for Capitalism?

Or for Socialism?

4.1. Humanism in Deed and in Word

Let us turn to the book by H. Ford “My Life and Work”[11] which was published in the USA in 1922 and first came out in Russian translation in the USSR as early as 1924. Let us start by dealing with the simplest issue of «humanizing labor» keeping in mind that H. Ford himself was not a «Fordist» in the very same way that Marx was not a «Marxist» and Muhammad was not a «Mohammedan».

In other words Ford’s own creative approach to life and business distinguishes him from many others who imitated him in introducing assembly line, «scientific methods» of organizing labor, etc. But they did not understand that what Ford did was inspired by a true concern about improving the life of common people by the means available to him and not by a hypocritical wish of a self-seeking financier to present himself as a humanist, reformer and «benefactor».

The proportion of disabled people among healthy people in a society and their actual way of life are universally recognized indicators, which tell how «humanistic» this society and labor in this society are. Henry Ford writes the following about this problem that is becoming more and more actual as medicine is becoming more and more capable of forcing a human soul to live in a maimed or ill body:

«We have always with us the maimed and the halt. There is a most generous disposition to regard all of these people who are physically incapacitated for labor as a charge on society and to support them by charity. There are cases where I imagine that the support must be by charity – as, for instance, an idiot. But those cases are extraordinarily rare, and we have found it possible, among the great number of different tasks that must be performed somewhere in the company, to find an opening for almost any one and on the basis of production. The blind man or cripple can, in the particular place to which he is assigned, perform just as much work and receive exactly the same pay as a wholly able-bodied man would. We do not prefer cripples – but we have demonstrated that they can earn full wages.

It would be quite outside the spirit of what we are trying to do, to take on men because they were crippled, pay them a lower wage, and be content with a lower output. That might be directly helping the men but it would not be helping them in the best way. The best way is always the way by which they can be put on a productive par with able-bodied men. I believe that there is very little occasion for charity in this world – that is, charity in the sense of making gifts. Most certainly business and charity cannot be combined; the purpose of a factory is to produce, and it ill serves the community in general unless it does produce to the utmost of its capacity. We are too ready to assume without investigation that the full possession of faculties is a condition requisite to the best performance of all jobs. To discover just what was the real situation, I had all of the different jobs in the factory classified to the kind of machine and work – whether the physical labor involved was light, medium, or heavy; whether it were a wet or a dry job, and if not, with what kind of fluid; whether it were clean or dirty; near an oven or a furnace; the condition of the air; whether one or both hands had to be used; whether the employee stood or sat down at his work; whether it was noisy or quiet; whether it required accuracy; whether the light was natural or artificial; the number of pieces that had to be handled per hour; the weight of the material handled; and the description of the strain upon the worker. It turned out at the time of the inquiry that there were then 7,882 different jobs in the factory. Of these, 949 were classified as heavy work requiring strong, able-bodied, and practically physically perfect men; 3,338 required men of ordinary physical development and strength. The remaining 3,595 jobs were disclosed as requiring no physical exertion and could be performed by the slightest, weakest sort of men. In fact, most of them could be satisfactorily filled by women or older children. The lightest jobs were again classified to discover how many of them required the use of full faculties, and we found that 670 could be filled by legless men, 2,637 by one-legged men, 2 by armless men, 715 by one-armed men, and 10 by blind men. Therefore, out of 7,882 kinds of jobs, 4,034 – although some of them required strength – did not require full physical capacity. That is, developed industry can provide wage work for a higher average of standard[12] men than are ordinarily included in any normal community. If the jobs in any one industry or, say, any one factory, were analyzed as ours have been analyzed, the proportion might be very different, yet I am quite sure that if work is sufficiently subdivided – subdivided to the point of highest economy – there will be no dearth of places in which the physically incapacitated can do a man’s job and get a man’s wage. It is economically most wasteful to accept crippled men as charges and then to teach them trivial tasks like the weaving of baskets or some other form of unremunerative hand labor, in the hope, not of aiding them to make a living, but of preventing despondency.

When a man is taken on by the Employment Department, the theory is to put him into a job suited to his condition. If he is already at work and he does not seem able to perform the work, or if he does not like his work, he is given a transfer card, which he takes up to the transfer department, and after an examination he is tried out in some other work more suited to his condition or disposition. Those who are below the ordinary physical standards are just as good workers, rightly placed, as those who are above. For instance, a blind man was assigned to the stock department to count bolts and nuts for shipment to branch establishments. Two other able-bodied men were already employed on this work. In two days the foreman sent a note to the transfer department releasing the able-bodied men because the blind man was able to do not only his own work but also the work that had formerly been done by the sound men.