Текст книги "Bureaucratic despair in Russia and global project “Obama”"

Автор книги: (IP of the USSR) Internal Predictor of the USSR

сообщить о нарушении

Текущая страница: 3 (всего у книги 5 страниц)

Consequently, all political and ideological conflicts between the U.S. and Russia (except for the period starting from about 1930 to 1953) are – conflicts over good and civilized, refined ways to implement the "elitist" slavery on the basis of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the U.S. against the ancient unabashedly naked "elitist" slavery in Russia.

Now we can go back to the essence of justice in society and its implementation.

–

Notions of fairness and injustice in life of society if double-conditional:

Firstly – from the Above, by humanity’s sole purpose (in atheist formulation – by genetic potential of personal development of all members of society, which it either allows to grow and realize in its full capacity or suppresses and limits it).

Secondly – by historical facts – by what of the already predetermined from Above is already implemented, what needs to be implemented and to which implementation is blocked by greed of some or the others social groups, often supported in written and unwritten social laws influencing personal growth of people in this society.

Therefore notions of justice in social life are, firstly historically concrete and secondly are changing from age to age according to the character of social development of degradation.

Besides, in its cultural conditioning they are the consequence of the answer on the question about relationship between body physiology and biology of Homo Sapience species and a raison d’etre of humans and society. History knows only two answers to this question:

Live to experience pleasure, including pleasure from food, sex, not necessarily aimed at reproduction.

Actually United States are programmed on it, and with more or less success are implementing it. This is a consequence of the fact that their cult Declaration of Independence and a Constitution, Bill of rights do not say anything about what objectively is dignity of a successful person, and even though the dignity is not defined, his pursuit of happiness can still be realized. Bus the USA do not know that[18]. In Russia “elite” also lives but this principle.

Eat and procreate to live: meaning to implement some higher plan.

In Russia the “Smerdyakovs” among common people as well as among the “elite” are more or less active in that direction.

And both principles are objectively and inevitably antagonistic to each other, in addition adepts of the first one are aggressive.

Then social life in civilization of technical-technological nature, where production is based on the organization and collective work, one of the aspects of justice is linked to an opportunity for a person to receive sufficient (in one of the above senses) part of the product, manufactured by collective work – whether directly (sharing the product in its natural state – when where is no monetary exchange) or in financial equivalent (when monetary exchange prevails products exchange).

Societies that have realized in themselves the meaning of human existence in all its fullness do not exist at the moment.

–

Now let us move to Obama’s statements on the questions of economical justice in social life.

In 1980, the average CEO made forty-two times what an average hourly worker took home. By 2005, the ratio was 262 to 1. Conservative outlets like the Wall street Journal editorial page try to justify outlandish salaries and stock options as necessary to attract top talent and suggest that the economy actually performs better when America’s corporate leaders are fat and happy. But the explosion in CEO pay has had little to do with improved performance. In fact, some of the country’s most highly compensated CEOs over the past decade have presided over huge drops in earnings, losses in shareholder value, massive layoffs, and the under funding of their workers pension funds.

What accounts for the change in CEO pay is not any market imperative. It’s cultural. At a time when average workers are experiencing little or no income growth, many of America’s CEOs have lost any sense of shame about grabbing whatever their pliant, handpicked corporate boards will allow. Americans understand the damage such an ethic of greed has on our collective lives, in a recent survey, they ranked corruption in government and business, and greed and materialism, as two of the three most important moral challenges facing the nation (“raising kids with the right values” ranked first). Conservatives may be right when they argue that the government should not try to determine executive pay packages. But conservatives should at lease be willing to speak out against unseemly behavior in corporate boardrooms with the same moral force, the same sense of outrage, that they direct against dirty rap lyrics.” (p.62)

Is there any Russian politician that has publicly brought up such questions? – No, there isn’t

Publicly discussing greedy ethics of ‘elite” of Russia and its basic flawed morality of praising itself and other hedonism – representatives of “elite” in Russia (inc. politicians) tend to avoid, although in doing that they can theatrically reproach so-called “social greed” – discontent of those who did not receive “elite” positions. So-called “social greed” in fact exists, because as it has been known or centuries, a large part of slaves are not dreaming about freedom, but about having their own slaves. However, reproach os social greed should not replace discussions of issues of justice and reproach of other forms of injustice, besides the “social greed”. In particular this concerns economic aspects:

Justice manifests in the fact that statistics of distribution of finances in executive level of sate and business should not be different from statistics of financial statistics in all other fields. Justice in this sense is really economically functional despite the Wall Street Journal’s opinion that effective management is army of “fat and nice” executives, and to make sure they are nice and fat their incomes must be many times the average salary.

Besides, there no biological or cultural objective reasons to lift top executives and their families according to their consumption above social statistics to the heights unreachable to the rest of the society.

However Russian political “elite” is fundamentally against public discussion of problem of social justice. Here is a recent example: Once a well-respected Russian newspaper “Vedomosti” published an article discussing injustice in relationship between bureaucracy and common people in conditions of crisis, it immediately received a warning “on necessity of strict obedience to the law of counteraction to extremism” from Federal Service on Supervision over the Legality in the Sphere of Mass Communications (). It seems that for Russian political ‘elite’ it is rather easy and common practice to issue a law of extremism counteraction. But it is a lot harder to raise and discuss the matter of social justice and expressions of injustice of system of social relations, inherited from soviet times, on the congress of “United Russia” and then take real binding decisions and implement them in life – for the ‘elite’ and its ‘entourage’, from party mass gathered at the congress. In such conditions issuing orders on “necessity of obiding the law of counteracting extremism” means purposefully charge revolutionary situation. And therefore it is those people who issued this order who should be taken to court.

More to the point:

From purely managerial point of view, price of a good in conditions of somewhat free market is a measure of its defecit. This also concerns the price of qualified personnel in all industries.

In other words, if a society is ready to pay executives according to “the higher in hierarchy – the deeper is the gap between your salary and average one” principle, then such society is experiencing an acute deficit of effective managers. Sittuation is aggravated by the fact that various aferists, that neither are able to nor are willing to learn to do anything useful, can successfully penetrate managerial field driven by greed for high incomes and irresponsibility in the face of their employees and hard workers.

This is exactly the reason, according to Obama, why it was namely high-paid executives that made the worst mistakes in their company’s management

It is no surprise that Barack Obama noticed this – at least for those who are familiar with articles of Concept of Social Security. They described this phenomenon already back in 1994 in the paper of IP of USSR “Short course…” giving examples of USA, then GDR and Japan.

However such materials are only an obstacle for Russian bureaucrats and top executives crushed by their ethics of greed in their work of dividing the budget and obtaining gigantic salaries on the basis of the laws taken by themselves and in their task of extortion of bribes.

And we repeat:

Subject of justice in specifics of displayed injustice – is also a banned subject for public discussion amongst all representatives of “elite” (political, corporate, “intellectual”) in post-sovier Russia, including editors of mass media under their control.

And if in non-public circle of representatives of political “elite” they were forced to address the issue of injustice in its full, then instead of dialogue and talking to the point we would receive only cheap talk of the sort “those people deal with increased responsibility, and therefore to reward them for taking such burden we have to pay substantially higher salaries”

But when directly asked “which of those bearers of “enormous responsibility” has actually been called up on their mistakes? Which of them have actually paid for making mistakes of strategic gravity?“ those adepts of inflated salaries get stunned, often turning to hysterical remarks that “repeats of Stalinism must not be allowed”. And even less often some of them start mumbling something incoherent on “guilty conscience” and mistakes they have made (M. Gorbachev, B. Yeltsin, A. Yakovlev, A. Tchubais, E. Gaidar, B. Berezovsky and many others – those are just victims of their conscious???). But agree with us, please, that real victims and real tortures of guilty conscience are actually beneficial and priceless and therefore cannot be financially estimated and paid and therefore – super-incomes of top executives as compensation for “damages caused by guilty conscience” are inappropriate.

Besides, in such extent of income comparison of top executives and other people manifests deviation from God. In particular, Koran clearly expresses on the choice of leaders: “Follow those who do not ask you for reward and who is on the straight path!” (Sura 36:20) – in other wards managers should be as righteous as possible and do not ask for any consumption privileges from the rest of society.

–

From above arguments it is clear that in public discussion of the problems of social justice Obama, if necessary, can beat any Russian politician (Putin, Medvedev, Zuganov, etc) either because for them social justice is a banned topic because of their “elite’-corporate obligations and deeply rooted psychological blocks, or because their understanding of the problem is very vague because they see the world from the window of their corporate cars and luxury apartments and from behind the backs of bodyguards, living in the conditions that everything they need is already prepared for them and paid from state funds.

–

Only one politician could adequately and convincingly stand up to Barack Obama – Joseph Stalin:

“You have the point, Mr. Obama, but you do not go to the limits in your argumentation: in economy, that operates in best interest of workers, increase in production will inevitably involve decrease of prices, as peoples needs in certain products are being met, and the state objective is to manage the extremes of profitability in industries, based on price dynamic. But in your countries economy usury and stock speculations. However you are right in general: to make economy work for people, and not for small group of parasites, it is necessary to increase general culture and improve upbringing of children, as you put it “in right value systems””

Now in your (Russia) country’s economy the main obstacle for this is the ethic of greed of all generations of post-stalin ‘elite’, multiplied by impudent parasitism and stupidity of economic science, and add here indifference of the majority of population too involved in their routine business or slaving on several jobs at the same time to somehow provide for their families.

2.2.3. An individual and culture

The question of ‘right value systems’, which is essentially the question of ideals and ethics, that should be the key values of the society and in children’s upbringing are also taboo for Russian ‘elite’. Therefore in Russia there is not and cannot be public discussion on right values and culture that should normally form the foundation of child’s personality and which he should carry on in his life and express in his ethics, independently from his family, ancestors and chosen sphere of work.

When Russian ‘elite’ representatives, including politicians, talk about supporting cultural development, their speeches are restricted to:

Issues of funding: realistic and possible

However, support of development of culture itself, meaning “right value system’ in which kids should be brought up, is avoided, or expressed with meaningless phrases unrelated to reality – when this is a question of outmost importance for society.

In this topic, Barack Obama is more independent that any Russian ‘elite’ activist, ‘patriot’ and ‘mecenats’:

“ Dr. King once said: “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also”

Sometimes we need both cultural transformation and government action – a change in values and a change in policy – to promote the king of society we want. The state of our inner-city schools is a case in point. All the money in the world won’t boost student achievement if parents make no effort to instill I their children the values of hard work and delayed gratification. But when we as a society pretend that poor children will fulfill their potential in dilapidated, unsafe schools with outdated equipment and teachers who aren’t trained in the subjects they teach, we are perpetrating a lie on these children, and on ourselves. We are betraying our values.

That is one of the things that makes me a Democrat, I suppose – this idea that our communal values, our sense of mutual responsibility and social solidarity, should express themselves not just in the church or the mosque or the synagogue; not just on the blocks where we live, in the places where we work, or within our own families; but also through our government. Like many conservatives, I believe in the power of culture to determine both individual success and social cohesion, and I believe we ignore cultural factors at our peril. But I also believe that own government can play a role in shaping that culture for the better – or for the worse.” (p. 63)

And on the first pages he talks about culture:

“I think much of what ails the inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP.” (p. 11)

And further he points out that key to solving all social problems is in proper upbringing of its children. (“instill values of hard work and delayed gratification..” ). If kids are brought up with right values they can do better job for the good of the society they live in. But only those parents that have right value system can instill it in their children. And if for some reason parents do not have such values – then it is a work of government to teach kids a love for work and patience through day-care, school and arts.

Can anyone recall Putin or any other Russian ‘elite’ politician raising the issue of “hard work and motivation for creative activities as critical factors of stability of social system and development of its culture and economy”? That’s right – it has never happened. And even so-called “fighter for the good of people”, (now First secretary of Communist party of RF) avoids this topic.

And main reason for avoiding this subject is that talking about it will inevitably lead to discussion on what is fair and what is unfair in social life. And as we know, this is not their favorite topic. Because historical facts of life of civilization, whose economic prosperity is based on collective work, and not just some abstract hard-working and motivation, but very concrete motivation to work for the system of inner-social relationship of people. Therefore,

If the workers find the system fair and satisfactory of their needs, then work motivation exist and their diligence is rewarded by the result of their work.

If workers find the system unfair because all their lives it cannot satisfy their primary needs, then work motivation disappears and the less diligence, supporting the system, there is, the quicker it moves to full collapse. However, here some part of residual ambitions can be directed on destruction of current system and its substitution with another one, or on efforts in cleansing this system from its flaws.

In accordance wit this B. Obama many times turns to the subject of work ethics and personal initiative (entrepreneurship in its wider sense) which in the context of his books is strongly tied to the subject of fairness.

“I believe in the free market, competition and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised. I wish the country had fewer lawyers and more engineers.” (p.10)

As long as individual men and women are free to pursue their won interests, society as a whole will prosper, Out system of self-government and our free-market economy depend on the majority of individual Americans adhering to these values. The legitimacy of our government and our economy depend on the degree to which these values are rewarded, which is why the values of equal opportunity and nondiscrimination compliment rather than impinge on our liberty”. (p/54)

Obama reproaches the situation when in the USA for many people “politics became business rather than mission”, and further down the text, talking about the role of money in his campaigns, he reminisces on some of his sponsors: “As a rule they were smart, interesting people, knowledgeable about public policy, liberal in their politics, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class: the top 1% or so of the income scale that can afford to write a $2,000 check to a political candidate. They believed in the free market and an educational meritocracy; they found it hard to imagine that there might be any social ill that could not be cures by a nigh SAT score. They had no patience with protectionism, found unions troublesome, and were not particularly sympathetic to those whose lives were suspended by the movements of global capital.” (p. 114).

And further down he characterizes social consequences of such human behavior.

“…the Ownership Society doesn't even try to spread the risks and rewards of the new economy among all Americans. Instead, it simply magnifies the uneven risks and rewards of today's winner-take-all economy. If you are healthy or wealthy or just plain lucky, then you will become more so. If you are poor or sick or catch a bad break, you will have nobody to look to for help. That's not a recipe for sustained economic growth or the maintenance of the strong American middle class. It's certainly not a recipe for social cohesion. It runs counter to those values that say we have a stake in each other's success.

That is certainly not who we are as people”

However, let’s come back to the subject of how money influence politics. Further on, Obama describes his relationship with unions and their leaders, that also financially supported his campaigns through the course of his political career. Here is his conclusion:

«So I owe those unions. When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don’t consider this corrupting in any way. I don’t mind dealing obligated toward home health-care workers who clean bedpans every day for little more than the minimum wage, or toward teachers in some of the toughest schools in the country, many of whom have to dip into their own pockets at the beginning of every school year to buy crayons and books for their students. I got into politics to fight for these folks and I’m glad a union is around to remind me of their struggles.

But I also understand that there will be times when these obligations collide with other obligations – the obligation to children not yet born whom we are saddling with debt.” (p.118).

So this is to say that problems of upbringing, teaching kids diligence and maintaining fairness are connected from the point of view of Barack Obama and his voters. And although these issues are broadly discussed in public, very little is done in real politics in order to enforce those values, which only brings problems both for Americans and the USA as a state. Obama writes that upon his initiative was passed a bill protecting Americans from loosing their jobs to immigrants, willing to work for smaller wages. And then he cites a part of conversation he had with one of his colleagues:

“ – My small business guys are still going to hire immigrants,” he said. :All your amendment does is make them pay more for their help.”

“But why would they hire immigrants over U.S. workers if they cost the same?” I asked him.

He smiled. “’Cause let’s face it, Barack. These Mexicans are just willing to work harder than Americans do.” (p. 266)

For Russian “elite” however, the question is different: “How can we make or trick people to work for our own prosperity in conditions when we deliberately impose injustice?” This problem has no solution and all attempts to solve it, as history shows, have only led to political suicide of some “elite” representative and of “elite” as a social class.

2.3. Top secret: mentality of state power in the USA and in Russia

In the works of the Concept of Social Security concerning global historical process from the point of view of Sufficiently Universal Theory of Ruling, as early as in 1991 we defined hierarchy of instruments for ruling social systems in the continuity of generations (from most to least powerful):

1. Information of worldview nature, or methodology, which, once adopted, allows men to project – individually and socially – their “standard automations” of identification with regard to particular processes within the completeness and integrity of the World, and to define in their individual perception the hierarchic order of these processes in their mutual interconnection. This information lays foundation for the culture of thinking and for the completeness of ruling activities including also intra-social absolute power both on regional and global levels.

2. Information of annalistic, chronological nature, in all do-mains of Culture and all domains of Knowledge. It allows seeing, in which direction the processes are developing, and to correlate particular domains of Culture as a whole and of branches of Knowledge. To those, whose worldview is based on the sense of proportion and is conformable to the World, this information allows identifying particular processes while sieving the “chaotic” flow of facts and phenomena through the worldview “sieve” – subjective human measure of identification. (Within the present context the culture means all information, which is not transferred genetically in the succession of generations).

3. Information of fact-descriptive nature: description of particular processes and their interconnections constitutes the substance of information of the third priority, which includes the faith-teachings of religious cults, secular ideologies, technologies and facts of all domains of science.

4. Economic processes, as an instrument of influence subordinated to purely informational instruments of influence through finances (money), which embody a totally generalized type of information of economic nature.

5. Genocide practices, affecting not only those who live today but also the generations to come, eliminating the genetically determined potential for learning and for development by them of the cultural heredity of ancestors: nuclear blackmail-threat of use; alcohol, tobacco and other kinds of narcotic drugs genocide, food additives, all ecological pollutants, some medicines-real use; “gene engineering” and “biotechnologies” – potential danger.

6. Other instruments of influence mainly by force – weapons in traditional sense of this word; killing and crippling human beings; destructing and exterminating material and technical objects of civilization, cultural monuments and bearers of their spirit.

Although there are no evident distinctions between the instruments of influence because many of them, by their capacities, could be related to different priorities, their classification in hierarchical order, as presented above, allows nonetheless to identify the dominating factors of influence that may be used as instruments of ruling, and in particular, as instruments of suppression and elimination of those phenomena in the social life that are conceptually inadequate in the sense of ruling.

Although there’s no certain differentiation between named instruments of influence, because many of them hold qualities allowing us to classify them to different priorities, but this hierarchically organized classification allows to define dominating factors of influence, which can be used as instrument of ruling, particularly for suppression and elimination of conceptually unacceptable events in the life of society.

This set of instruments when used inside a social system is just a general way to manage it. However when used by one social system towards another and provided that their concepts of ruling are the generalized weapons, meaning warfare in its widest definition; or those are the means to maintain self-ruling in another social system, provided that there is not conceptual incompatibility between their systems.

Above mentioned order defines priorities of names classes of instruments of influence on a society, because any change in the condition of society, caused by the instruments of the highest priorities, will have much worse consequences than those, caused by the instruments of lowest priority. Therefore

In long historical intervals efficiency of instruments grows from the top to the bottom, and irreversibility of the consequences of their use (predominantly defining how effectively states goals were reached – meaning once and for all) – declines from the first to sixth. The same is fair in majority of cases and how noticeable they are.

In our culture it was made public back in USSR era in “Young Guard” magazine #2, 1990 in the article “Conceptual power: myth or reality?” published in 700 000 copies, distributed mainly among patriotically concerned and politically active audience. Reaction of more than 700 000 “patriots” was close to zero, as many of them were either atheists or controlled by biblical-“orthodox” conceptual power, equating it (power) to the Gods will. Since than, although some people often mention terms “conceptual power” or “conceptual independence of Russia” none of the public politicians neither political analysts ever go into details of these social events, as they never realize the real outline of internal and external policy of Russia and foreign countries according to six priorities of universal instruments of ruling / weapons.

Russian ‘elite’ can acknowledge instruments of sixth tier priority as means of reaching political goals (meaning as means of management both inside and outside our country), but they never realize potential of instruments of higher level of priority.

Fifth tier priority is actually a total mess made out of “individual rights”, people claiming that it is unacceptable to force alcohol/drugs detox and rehabilitation, and whose right to see explicit sexual and violent scenes on TV should not be violated, same as their right on depravity – on the one side and on the other – on social needs of sobering all people from all addictive substances (drugs) and protection of young generation from corruption (including concept of “safe sex”) coming from both older relatives and from society, mass media and school.

As reality shows – financial crisis is unquestionable prove to it – credit-financial system (forth tier priority) for Russian political ‘elite’ is not an instrument of ruling, but an analogue of natural disasters.

Third tier priority is the state’s ideological position – state (national) idea, which is in fact banned by Constitution of RF, and the way it is formulated is a manifestation of outrageous stupidity of those who agreed on it, and a sabotage act by those who pushed it into the constitution. But despite this, Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is still very persistent in trying to make its ideology a state religion.

Second tier priority is taken by parliament, ROC and RAS and also their representatives in power. In the same way as in A. Gertsen’s times, they are concentrated on “improving the past” according to their wishes for the future, which actually only puts obstacles on the way of improving unavoidable future.

The first tier priority comes from Lenin’s saying “Marks’ doctrine is omnipotent because it is right”, which meant only that at least politically part of society should study dialectic materialism as a method of learning – ‘elite’ abandoned this principle, but has not come up with any alternative. Current communists – Zuganov and his comrades – being deeply in opposition still have not reported to people why and how even armed with “omnipotent” doctrine they managed to lead USSR to stagnation, after what they ruined perestroika seizing their power to all the bad guys.