 |
Articles and Publication  Economy and economic analyst ECONOMICS AND MORALITY
ECONOMICS
AND MORALITY
© A. Voin
Contact to the author:
alexvoin@yahoo.com
As for socialism, then
link the economy and morality declared to the tenets of Marxism and in
the folk sayings. "From each according to his
ability, to each according to his work" - is not only an economic postulate,
it is also moral one, establishing
economic justice in Marx's understanding of it. People saying of
the period over-ripe socialism
states: "If you think that you pay us, you also may think
that we will work for you”. This
is the appraisement by the people
of this most Marxian justice in its real incarnation, i. e.
it is once again the moral of the economy. In this passage from Marx's formula to
folk’s one we can see obvious
influence of the moral state of society on the success or not success of the
socialist economy. As long as people believed in the Marxist idea and honorably
served her, the Soviet economy was developing enough
successfully. When faith is gone and there was, therefore, the demoralization of
society, the economy collapsed, and behind her, and the Union.
______________________________________________________________
The main problem of Marxism was perhaps in a
misunderstanding of the relationship of morality and the economy. Marx believed
that morality is a function of the economic system, labor relations, is
completely determined by them. He
believed that under capitalism the workers, not being
owners of the means of production, are not interested in the result of labor,
but under socialism, they - the owners, working conscientiously for the benefit
of society and therefore the productivity of labor under socialism will
necessarily be higher. But it turned out the opposite. This happened because
under socialism the workers did not actually owners of the means of production, but
real owner of them is nomenclature. And when the workers
understand this, then come "if you think that you pay us, think also
that we will work.
But why, under socialism,
contrary to expectations of
Marx, the nomenclature, but not
workers became the real owners of
enterprises,?
Marx,
among other things, have the
theory of the gradual withering away of the state. It shall wither away under
communism, and then some kind of man-made
paradise on earth will come. But
under socialism state is still
necessary, because socialism – still
is not paradise, but better (so he thought) than under
capitalism.
But wh y,
one wonders, Marx was against state?
Well, Marx wrote that the state is a
violence, and therefore - not good. And it is absolutely true. But it seemed to
me that Marx had yet another
reason not to love the state, which he felt intuitively, but do not fully think
about it. The fact that the state is not just for no reason at all the violence.
It is primarily a management.
Society need
management always, including under communism, if it
is possible and will come someday.
But management is a power.
And here morality, independent, contrary to Marx, from
the system, intermeddle in the
case. Marx, based on its erroneous position on the dependence of morality on the
system, believed that the power under socialism would be absolutely moral,
and being able to manage the country in every way it
pleases, will voluntarily
relinquish plants, factories, etc.,
and give to workers themselves to
rule it.
But contrary to expectations of Marx, the moral nature of people in general and
in power, in particular, has not changed in the blink of an eye with the victory
of socialist revolution and the people who have received political power, did
not want to leave to themselves only
the general, the political administration of the country, and business
management to transfer to workers
. As a result they got "If
you're thinking ...".
The management
of common
property by the nomenclature was also
not effective. Nomenclature was even less moral than the
people. Actually, the decay of socialism, as shown above,
started from decay nomenclatura.
Although the financial position of representatives of the nomenclature was much
better than the people, but its representatives did not care so much about the
success of the common cause, but about personal promotion on the career ladder.
Ultimately, it came down to a total theft and idleness, as
on the top so
below. More precisely, were, of course, honest people, especially among ordinary,
not the nomenclature. They were
even not so little, but the tone was set by crooks and loafers mediocre, which
took seats not on law, not according to their
abilities. They also watch to power, taking care of their
personal interest, contrary to the interests of society. And it decided the case.
Thus, we can say that Marx's misconception
about complete dependence of the
moral from order of society have destroyed the real
socialism. The misconception,
which contradict to Marx's the
same, though borrowed him from
Darwin, conception of the origin
of man from apes. At all stage of evolution to man, no morality in animals,
including monkeys, was not. And in a
man it does not appear immediately
jump. It evolves gradually, with man and society. Therefore, there was no reason
to assume that under socialism the morality of people, especially those in power,
rises abruptly to absolute.
Under capitalism, at first
glance it seems that morality has no relation to the economy,
to crises and to the present one,
in particular. The dominant view that the capitalist engine of the economy is
not morality, not a conscious concern of each of the interests of society as a
whole, but the selfish interest of
each and the capitalist and the worker. Some chases
for profits, others for high wages, and as a result of the whole society gets
richer. Everyone cares about their interest, but this
interest, unlike socialism, coincides with the interests of society as a whole.
And in certain situations, at certain times it is true. But not always. That is,
in fact, a complete coincidence of interests of economic actors, whether
capitalists or workers, with the interests of society as a whole is not never,
in principle, but there are times when these interests coincide more or less,
and there are times when they are
far apart.
And the capitalist and
socialist economy can be represented as a game according to certain rules. Only
rules in each case are different, such as in one case, football, another chess.
In every game you can play according rules, and then the one who plays better
wins, and
common interest wins - the level of play increases. But
it is a shame for those who played worse. And, as under
any system of morality in society there
are people who don’t fulfil norms of this morality (a.
e., rules
of the game) or part of it, they
always have been violated: the step and the invisible play
a hand in the game of football, quietly steal the rook
or smoke smelly cigars opponent in chess, etc. Of course,
there is a difference between the games in this sense:
breaking the rules in one game easier
than the other (easier to quietly play a hand in football than quietly steal a
rook in chess). And in this sense we can speak about the advantages of one game
over another. (Although it is clear that a comparison can be conducted not only
by this criterion). But, nevertheless, in any game is possible in principle to
break the rules and get through that
individual win at losing common cause.
Under capitalism in general, stress ,
in general, i. e.
for some, we assume, normal
circumstances, violating of the
rules of the game on the one hand more difficult to participants
than under socialism, but on the other hand, they have less motivation to do so.
Working harder to steal from the capitalist than socialist director, because in
the first case the stolen belongs to the capitalist and there
is effect of personal interest, he stands out not to
steal. In the second case, stolen belongs to the whole state, which is unable to
keep track of all it’s
property. Further, a capitalist in general has
no reason to steal from himself and he straining
for his own enrichment.
He is in the best of his capability
effective. A Soviet director cares not about the real
effectiveness of company, but about how to make
impression of effectiveness on superior
power. I am not
wishing to further develop this comparison because, in general, it is all well
known (though some seem to begin to forget about it).
But it should be noted that even
in normal situation we can not say that the capitalist
and his workers just do not have the motivation and opportunities for violations
of rules of the game in capitalism. First, under capitalism
also there is the state, which (allegedly) represents the
interest of society at large and intended to take care of him. And the
capitalists and workers have relationships not only with each other but also
with the state. And then there mentioned subjects have interest and ability to
violate the rules of the game. This is - tax evasion, corruption and other
economic crimes. Dishonesty is possible and in the relations between capitalists
and between capitalists and the workers. But here market apologists
are right arguing,
that the market limits the dishonesty of this kind. Indeed, in
relations with partners more profitable to be honest,
otherwise sooner or later no one wants to carry with you affairs. As for
cheating the workers with wages, then under normal
competition that is also not
profitable to do, the workers will
go to whoever pays them better. Ability of capitalists
and workers to violate rules of the game reduces the
potential effectiveness of the capitalist system, but not to such an extent as
under socialism. That is, under capitalism, economic efficiency also depends on
the moral state of society, from the conscious implementation of the rules of
the game by all the players, but in
normal situation it depends
less than under socialism. But all this - in normal condition.
Without specifying what
is a normal condition under capitalism, I want to draw
attention to the fact that no society resides permanently in the same condition.
Change, development, evolution is a universal law of nature, extended to society
also. And it
covered capitalism maybe more than
other formations. Capitalism is
the most dynamic compared with the previous formations and with socialism. In
different countries, the evolution of capitalism has gone in different ways and
I will not give here its review in all its diversity at times and countries. It
is not for this article, not for one article and it is the task of the historian,
not a philosopher. I will take the general scheme, borrowed from the historian and
philosopher Y. Pavlenko. (Ю. Павленко
“История мировой
цивилизации”, Киев,
2004) and
outlined it brief (and in my understanding).
Independent
economic entities, farmers and artisans lived in
the part of the planet, where capitalism was developed.
Some of them manage to become successful and rich, others were ruined. The first
began hiring employees from within the
last and so developed capitalism.
This very early capitalism, when there was a laissez-faire and the spontaneity
of the market and competition in its purest form, I had in mind when we speak
about a normal game of capitalism. Normality here is that in this phase
interests of individual players - the capitalists, mostly
(although still not completely) coincide with the interests of society.
But sooner or later, competition leads to
the fact that, as previously independent peasants and artisans formed the
capitalists, and now monopolists
are crystallizing from
within the capitalists. The interests of the monopolists under
the rules of capitalist
game, existing before they
become, i. e.
laissez-faire, far apart from the interests of society as a whole. This was the
main cause of the crises of the period when the monopoly has already arisen, but
antitrust laws have not yet been adopted. This couse was eliminated
by means of the adoption of antitrust laws, i.
e. changing
the rules of the game. This again
brought into line the interests of the capitalist game players and
the interests of society as a whole. But before antitrust
laws were adopted, the monopolists,
not burdened, stress, by moral,
under the old rules of the game were
able to inflate as they like their
prices, so robbing the rest of society and making the
harm to society as a whole. This enabled Marx and his followers speak of monopolism,
as the last stage, the decay of capitalism, etc. In this case Marx had not
occurred, that if the monopolists
were morally and do not inflate prices for their product in excess of the
average profitability, then all it would be normal and would not be
need any socialism. But Marx did not believe, and rightly
did not believe in the possibility of absolute morality
of monopolists. But in absolute morality
of superiors under socialism, for some reason,
he believed.
Marx made a mistake also,
assuming that the situation with a monopoly can not be corrected without
overthrowing capitalism and replacing it with socialism. In
fakt the situation was eventually corrected in the
framework of capitalism by
adoption of antitrust laws, then capitalism has continued its successful
development and win socialism
economicaly. But apologists of capitalism,
who believed and declared that the antitrust laws - the final amendment of
capitalism and then everything will go smoothly, if not to communism, then to
any Omega (according Teyar de Sharden), in
any case, the crisis already will no longer be, also were
not right. Crises, as we know, have continued and the
current one threatening to surpass
all previous ones.
The reason for this is that
after the adoption of antitrust laws, capitalism continued to evolve and the
interests of so-called oligarchs under today's existing rules of the game (laws)
again strongly disagreed with the public interest. What kind of changes have
taken place in capitalist society since the adoption of antitrust laws and in
what is now the divergence of interests of oligarchs with the interests of
society as a whole, I described in the article “Современная
олигархия”
(www.philprob.narod.ru) and therefore are not going to describe
it here. Ibid, I set about how to correct the law,
so the interests of the oligarchs came again in line with
the interests of society. We need not
only create new laws, but also new
institutions, and not only in
countries but in the
world, because, as a result of
globalization, oligarchy crossed
national boundaries and only national
laws and institutions can not control it.
I contend that if all it will
be done, the situation will be better,
the economy will again become more efficient and crises will
draw on time. But unlike the authors of antitrust laws,
I'm not saying that it would eliminate all crises in
future. No, the evolution of society continues, the
divergence of interests of individual and groups
with the interests of society as a whole will
begin to increase again and eventually will require changes in legislation and
institutional. And if they are not made on time, then again there will be a
crisis.
Moreover, the farther away,
the less all these amendments will be effective. Even
the first reconstruction of capitalism with antitrust laws and antitrust
committees and other bodies did not return to him the pristine performance, in
terms of convergence of interests of all players in the interests of society as
a whole. Did not return, because the market has not returned to its primordial
spontaneity, to unlimited freedom of entrepreneurship. These (and similar) laws
have expanded the role of the state, the capitalist state in regulating the
economy, multiplying the number of bureaucrats to manage the economy. The
farther, the more free businessmen, now "free" in quotes, must
coordinate their actions with officials to get them all
sorts of permits: a license, quota, etc. And in some ways, those who argue that
capitalism is shifting towards socialism are right. Moreover, I note, he shifted
to the negative side, taking over, above all, the shortcomings of socialism.
Since the freedom of entrepreneurship limited more and more, as human nature
remains the same, then the motivation to violate the rules of the game is
increasing. And at the same time the possibility of this
violation also increases. For more
officials, the more bribes. As a result, in countries
such as Russia and Ukraine, not to mention the former republics of Central Asia,
honest business is simply impossible, and major officials at a relatively modest
salary live richer capitalists.
But to give up
control of the market economy is also impossible, because
that once again
increases the divergence of
interests of various economic entities with the interests of society as a whole
(as in the case with monopolists).
And, more and more and more often we have
to enter the new species state management,
creating more opportunities and motivation for the violation of the rules of the
game. It turns out a kind of evolutionary trap
for humanity. The solution of
this problem, I see,
is to strengthen the morality of society. As I said above (and substantiated
this in my book “Неорационализм
", Kiev, 1992), morality does not depend on the system. But is
there something, that influence
at morality of society? A cursory glance at history to
see that, historically, morality was not just influenced,
but to a large extent determined by philosophical and religious ideas that are
adopted by any society. The adoption of Christian morality was one of the
components of the economic success of Western society until recently. And the
demoralization of the society under the influence of philosophical ideas of
existentialism and Freudianism facilitated and contributes to the current crisis.
Similarly, Confucian ethics, whose roots are still alive in Chinese society,
contributes to the economic success of China today.
But it
is insufficient or even impossible to simply return to
the Christian or Confucian morality. The fact is that never before moral was
formulated and justified as a rational scientific theory.
That led to
situation, when any moral concept,
whether it is Christian and Confucian or any other, allowed a different
interpretation. In Christianity, in particular, that
led to the emergence of myriad denominations, each with its own understanding of
the teachings, different from the other sometimes to the contrary. And since God
is single and the truth is single,
then the question arises, does even one of these religions posseses
the truth. In addition, as I said, life develops and puts
in front of society and individuals questions,
to which no answer in the Bible or from Confucius, because at the time of Jesus
Christ and Confucius, there were no such problems. There were no monopolies and
oligarchs, no the financial
pyramid, not the issues, refinance or not refinance thievish or incompetent
banks at the expense of the poor taxpayers in a situation where, unless they are
refinanced, the economy falls, etc. Moreover, here were no
question: to clone or not to clone,
to allow or deny GMOs, etc. On these
questions are impossible to obtain unambiguous and meaningful answers, based on
the Bible or Confucius. Such responses can be retrieved only from a moral theory,
built as a rational science, i. e.,
based on a general method of substantiation,
worked out the most rational science, but finally articulated by
my (Философские
исследования, ,
№ 3, 2000, № 1, 2001; № 2, 2002). Based on this approach, I developed a
theory of optimal morality (“Неорационализм”,
Kiev, 1992, part 4) and showed that it basically coincides with the Christian
morality, but it allows you to extract conclusions from it, projected on
contemporary reality. In addition, I applied a general
method of substantiation to
the study of Bible scholars that allowed for a clear and reasonable
interpretation of this doctrine. (“От Моисея
до постмодернизма. Движение идеи”,
Part 1,"От Моисея до Иисуса
Христа", Kiev, 1999, Part 2,
"Христианство").
If the Fathers of the Church (churches) have been able to understand and accept
this approach, it has used the long-awaited unification of Christian faiths,
which supposedly crave their leaders. In the latter, however, I highly doubt,
because of their hypocritical belief that God is single
and the truth is single, and
because a thirst-man rule, which they would lose by joining,
is their moto.
Practical application of my
approach in the current circumstances, I illustrated from the case of Hodorkovsky
(“Дело
Ходорковского” and
“Дело Ходорковского
2 ”, www.philprob.narod.ru). If case of Hodorkovsky
would solved with a single to all
business entities and a fair approach, based on my theory, Russia would pass the
current crisis is much easier than it is to pass. Similarly, Ukraine
is now severely affected economically because when refinancing its banks are not
applied my approach. Injustice of
refinancing greatly undermined public confidence to the authorities and to
the banks. This increased the outflow of deposits from
banks with all the consequences from that.
No account the moral
aspects also
takes place in foreign policy the major players in this
arena in the world, especially America and Russia, and this leads to an
aggravation of the global crisis and increases the risk of military conflict.
03/02/2009
Publishing date: July 28, 2011
Source: SciTecLibrary.ru
Back
|  |
