The Soviet people went on a false way?
Once, in far times there was the Soviet Union. This country left remarkable a mark in the history, but time passed it and she died. It turns out, socialism is an incorrect way?
As they say, nature abhors a vacuum. On the place of the Soviet Union several different countries were formed. The truth the right successor of the USSR became one of them - Russia, but it is clear, other splinters of the old country not really - that wanted to undertake old debts. But it is not money and the matter is that from the old country there was an inheritance. And the inheritance from it remained very much even interesting. For example, Soviet method of managing.
I will remind, at socialism the most part of means of production has to be under control of society. “Founding fathers“ of communistic ideology noticed that each certain owner pulls a blanket on himself and ignores needs of others. For counteraction to it it was offered to withdraw from all all means of production and to transfer them to possession to all society. Who has to represent “all society“ - already other question, but business was made also everything, at least formally, stopped being the owner of that plow which plowed.
Our grandfathers spoke: “We will destroy the whole world of violence to the basis, and then / we ours, we will build the new world, - who was nothing, that will become everything.“ And it turned out. In heavy fight the country destroyed itself. Destroyed itself aggressive and constructed herself new - democratic. In new, in the democratic country the management was assumed by people with, in general, insignificant motives.
But not all was destroyed. In inheritance from old system we got, for example, Communist party which continues the old song: “to the basis, and then... “ Except it also other splinters remained, in particular, still many enterprises continued to exist by the old principles which were created at the Soviet Union. It was necessary to these enterprises not easily, and over time they were forced to adapt to the general tendencies. I want to tell a little about one of such enterprises.
The competition - piece serious so even holding a monopoly position it is necessary to make concessions. First of all, the enterprise had to increase labor productivity. There are two main ways: it is possible to enter the new markets or it is possible to reduce the number of workers. To enter the new markets not so easily, especially if all available fields are already divided between other monopolists. Without having adequate knowledge it appears inconvenient to select even that it was necessary to roll under legs. So, the line of least resistance is a reduction of number of workers.
However, modernization after all happened in the unnamed company. If new technologies did not go a heavy burden on the budget, then the company willingly mastered them. This process went generally not according to directives of the management, and thanks to enthusiasm of certain employees, but the management, after all, did not avoid an opportunity in easy to lift the income. Especially, if this income flew in the necessary course. So, it is clear that it were not always advanced technologies.
Anyway, but first it was easy to reduce workplaces. Those positions which need was unevident were reduced. Reductions took place evenly and little by little, and first of all affected ordinary employees. However, it was not necessary to be sorry about their fate, after reorganization the set of the perspective directions appeared and it was possible to get new job rather easily. New work was quite often better than old.
Over time shifts began and above. The top - management of the company began to be updated at least once a year, and at least once a year structural transformations began to happen. Nevertheless, reduction of the management did not happen yet. There was even its blow-up. The result of it was predictable, some departments began to consist of three people including the chief, and some shops began to total fifteen people including the chief and his deputy. Ticklish staff list, isn`t that so?
And here, once in the company the CEO was again replaced. The first significant event after its arrival was what all employees were given out on a toilet roll. It did not happen in the unnamed company yet. Well, laundry detergent was given sometimes, alcohol for rubbing of contacts was given too, but to distribute toilet paper moreover and all personally! Nobody began to explain motives of distribution. Whether everything suggested to be wiped and get down to business, whether meant that ahead expect ticklish times... I do not know that wanted to tell this significant act, but that toilet paper is required, doubts did not arise.
Farther it became even more interesting. Suddenly from nowhere at employees neotgulyanny holidays began to appear. You represent? Say to you that your holiday which is due under the law remains, but this quarter you need to go on leave once again and this holiday will be paid! To a quarter of employees suddenly suddenly found out that they have an opportunity to have a rest once again and that they for it will be paid by a “lawful“ vacation pay. Next quarter history repeated, but next quarter, to other, large-scale start-up of the serious project went. That is, some part of employees was sent on leave, and still some was sent “to fields“ to installation of new service.
If the new management wanted to mock at all collective, and also at labor union, then it would hardly find the best way. The management directly and unambiguously showed that the reserve for reduction still is also that this reserve rather solid. Whether it is necessary to explain what in such conditions the company will hardly spend how many - nibud considerable funds for any intellectual systems? And roofs are so higher than workers! It is possible to remove part of them from the main production objectives and to send to be engaged in low-intellectual work. Well, though to poperedvigat cases to free rooms for tenants. Or to paint a grass that the company looked more respectable.
It is clear, that the enthusiasm of employees became something exotic. Well, and as the administration cannot follow everything even if there is too much this administration, then the company served the clients almost also clumsily, as well as in Soviet period. It is clear, that quality of services only worsened, and the company was deservedly approved in reputation of the supplier of low-quality services.
What future waits for this unnamed company? To guess on this subject there is no need. In the world there are several socialist countries economy of which already adapted to pressure of the world market. First of all it is China. To speak about Northern Korea there is no special sense as its enterprises survive only thanks to deaf defense against all other world. You should not speak about Cuba too as its existence is supported, generally thanks to feed from - for a boundary.
So, we will look at China. This country took the specific place in world economy. Perhaps, all know that in it catastrophically low norm of compensation keeps, and from - for it many productions gradually migrated in its borders. At the same time, China appeared almost incapable to create own advanced technologies and is engaged generally only in mass production of the goods developed in the West, and also their mass cloning.
It is obvious that such future expects also the unnamed Russian company. The truth it can avoid it, but for this purpose she should create some advanced decision or, as a last resort, to acquire it for very round sum. However, motions neither to that nor to another in it are not observed so probably it should make much for very ridiculous money. So ridiculous that buyers reconciled to ridiculous quality.
In what a problem? There can be a problem in socialist model of managing? Perhaps, no. After all, the largest companies have more opportunities for a survival, than a great number of small owners. There can be a problem in workers? But now, in most cases, direct work is performed at all not by people, and the automated systems. And that work which is performed by simple workers in most cases it is not so critical. There can be a problem in the management? Too it is unlikely. The management, after all, is more brought closer to financial streams and especially it is favorable to them that these streams were the most powerful. There can be a problem in the accepted methods of management?
Perhaps, the problem consists in it. After all, the management, as a rule, makes the decision not somehow and not by means of a playing cube, the management applies techniques which have prospect. And what techniques have prospect? Those in which operability the administration believes. And in what the administration trusts? At the time of the Soviet Union the communistic ideology dominated, she unambiguously prompted to the management a right way. It turns out what the problem proceeds from communistic ideology? It turns out that yes, as also the Communist party could not sustain the competition to other ideological systems and keep in power.
Alas, it turned out that the socialist model based on communistic ideology is incapable to sustain free competition. Actually, the communistic ideology is not based on freedom, it allows only one organizational form - collective. It initially deprives of the Soviet person of the right to possess property, first of all means of production. For maintenance of it she just should use force that is pleasant to not everyone. And when a suitable opportunity appears many Soviet people seek to jump off from the socialist ship.
But if to jump, then where? To the deep blue sea of free competition? No, very few people will want to float alone and without watercrafts. Therefore, free competition generates the new enterprises which unite with time (if carries) in the largest holdings. Well, and besides are in the largest holdings of means of production not under control of workers, and belong to joint-stock company. Also it turns out that in conditions when the private property is allowed, we come besides most that was proclaimed at socialism! Actually, what difference - you work for the state and for party which dictate to you what to do, or you work for owners who dictate to you too what to do?
In Russia reorganization was resulted by change of the owner: the Communist Party was replaced with United Russia party into which large shares holders enter. However, change of parties did Russia good as if the Communist party aspired to abstract, not to all clear, and therefore to the strange purposes, then businessmen were engaged in more essential and therefore more clear problems - a raising of welfare and increase of return from work. First of all they, of course, were accepted to increase of the welfare, but remains from a master`s table fall intermittently and we designate. Welfare and return make practical sense so it is not surprising that the majority, as a result, chose oligarchs, but not the Communist Party.
Nevertheless it is obvious that the socialist way merges together with capitalist over time. Nuances of each ideological system, of course, remain, but these nuances are rather similar to a rounding error. It seemed, world socialism fell, and actually world socialism so deeply got into capitalism heart that capitalism mutated and turned into the ideological contrast.
So it is necessary to recognize that the socialist way is a continuation of a way of capitalism. Then that creating the Soviet Union the Russian revolutionaries anticipated future type of capitalism. The truth history showed that anticipated in general unsuccessfully and therefore when capitalism grew to the socialist stage, the Soviet Union was won by counter-revolutionaries. Here it is interesting and that if someone else time anticipates the future and will show his earlier Western competitors? Before competitors who will hobble to the inevitable future by trial and error?
So, the socialist ship still floats and from it there is no place to jump off. The ideological basis, but the same ship was replaced and everything floats there. If you want to jump off, then back as a result and you will return to system of collective work. There below, in storming sea waves, do not wait for us a lodchonka with the joyful freedom-loving people ready to shelter us and to celebrate with us our escape on freedom. And why do not wait? Yes because it is not favorable to sit there below as as a result of nothing plainly you will see and you will not make in life. And why the desirable costs so much? Yes because its finding is complicated. And why we meet on the way of difficulty? Yes because different roads are crossed, and going different ways face with each other preventing everyone to move ahead to the purpose.
Here the problem also consists in it. Throughout almost all the history people clashed with each other. Cain clashed with Abel, Babylon clashed with Judea, Rome clashed with Carthage, the USA clashed with the USSR. And now the Arab countries actively clash with Israel. My words, quite possibly, entered the conflict with your own outlook.
And here tell me please if we are not able to come to a common denominator, then how to us to be? All right I. Well I will lose support in your eyes and I will acquire to myself one more discordant in your person, but the same will happen also to you! It is possible to bend, of course, the line so far it still will remain possible, but it has the price. As it is told above, it is necessary to pay in the fact that it will be impossible to escape from the created system. And if so it happens that you will be bothered by that atmosphere in which you are forced to exist, then you should clench teeth and to bite tongue. It is pleasant to you?
It is obvious that once both I and you should make concessions. In the same way as drivers had to reconcile to existence of the traffic light on roads. Doing concessions to commands of the traffic light the transport stream becomes maximum, and the number of accidents in it becomes minimum. As well to us, it is necessary to agree about that, as if I could advance the ideas, and you could realize the dreams. We will agree?