MANIFEST OF THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOLIDARISM
– 2019 –
Ghosts that roamed Europe more than 170 years ago, as is known, acquired their place and time of existence and development in 1917 in Russia, and then in the republics of the former USSR and the countries of the socialist camp in Eastern Europe. In the 90s of the 20th century, all these countries returned to the bosom of the world order prevailing on earth.
With all the diversity and with all the breadth and depth of their achievements, the general condition of this world order has become the obvious fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Cataclysms, shaking the foundations of world civilization since its inception, splashed onto the shore of history the products of environmental, genetic and political half-life.
The arrogance and aggressiveness of modern human civilization of the conquerors of nature led to the grotesque and strategically self-destructive form of its further history. The uniqueness of the situation in which modern society lives is that there is a combination of civilizational and formational universal crises.
The civilization of the conquerors of Nature, in which countries live and which has dominated the planet for the last few thousand years, has become obsolete. It has brought humanity to the brink of exhaustion of natural resources, to the catastrophic polarization of society and to the unprecedented collapse of the habitat, which is threatened by irreversible clogging with waste and garbage. Capitalism, on the one hand, today is the main generator and culprit of the impending ecological and social disaster, and, on the other hand, torn by an irresistible antagonistic contradiction, has exhausted its internal resources to ensure the social and economic development of society. In this regard, the need to change the existing civilization of the conquerors of nature coincided with the death agony of capitalism, as the last exploitative formation, and the objective need to develop a new conflict-free paradigm of the formation and development of a civilization of coexistence with Nature.
Attempts to pass off socialism as a model of the future salvation of humanity are historically and scientifically unproductive. If we consider the mode of production as a classic interaction of the productive forces and production relations, the Bolshevik experiment on the construction of socialism in the USSR and other countries ended ingloriously.
At the same time, the formation of transnational corporations and a financial oligarchy took place in the west, which exploited both their citizens and the population of other countries. This allows us to assert that socialism and capitalism were only two extreme models of a single formation, in which the social nature of production was combined with the selfish and unjust principle of the distribution of its results. In this regard, the authors are deeply convinced that today it is necessary to simultaneously ensure the transition of civilization to the path of coexistence with Nature and the humanistic replacement of the relations of modern capitalism by a fundamentally new mode of production, which we call GOODNESS SOLIDARISM.
The formation of the ideology and philosophy of solidarism began at the time of the French Revolution, when the French utopian philosopher Pierre Leroux introduced the word “solidarism”. Since then, over 170 years of solidarity has been formed in various European countries as a doctrine that substantiates the principles of building social systems (local, national, global) based on a balance of individual and universal interests.
The weakest link in the theory of solidarism of the past is the lack of scientific substantiation of the political-economic platform adequate to it. It should be noted that all previous judgments relied on the inevitability of preserving private capitalist and state capitalist property and the market with a kind of “invisible hand”, which did not allow eliminating exploitation and moving from antagonism inherent in capitalism to solidarizing relations between the authorities and the people. As a result, solidarism appeared in the form of a special structure functioning within the framework of the capitalist mode of production. The latter did not allow to lay down its main postulate — the goodness creation as the basis for building a solidarity society.
The scientists of the International Academy of Solidarism have developed the necessary scientific base for a peaceful, excluding catastrophic cataclysms, the transition to a joint mode of production. (see Koshkin V.I., Kretov S.I. Basics of the political economy of solidarism. M .: LENAND, 2017, 400 p. and Koshkin V.I., Kretov S.I. Solidary economy – the path to the future. M. : LENAND, 2018, 304 p., V.I. Koshkin, S.I. Kretov Solidarism. RADIX, spol.sro, Czech Republic, Prague, 2018, 244 p.)
1. Solidarism as a mode of production
(solidarity goodness creation)
The whole history of modern civilization of the conquerors of nature is characterized by a historical change of various modes of production. The basis of this shift was the development of productive forces, production relations and changes in the names of members of power structures, seizing ownership of production resources. Slave owners, feudal lords, capitalists, and socialist-oligarchs always dominated from the position of general owners and imposed their “rules of the game” in the form of paper laws and rules to the majority of society.
The productive forces of the civilization of the conquerors of nature were considered by scientists in the trinity of natural resources, including land; labor and capital resources. Resources that are connected in the reproduction process are considered as factors of production. To conceal the exploitative character of capitalism, its apologists are aggressively putting forward the thesis of management as a productive factor of the XX-XXI centuries.
When slavery, the critical productive resource was the low productive physical labor of many slaves. Accordingly, the dominant group of owners were slave owners. They adopted paper laws, according to which not only labor itself, but its bearers are slaves and the results of their work were the absolute property of slave owners.
In the future, as the means of production developed, land and other natural resources became a critical productive resource. At the same time, the feudal governing subsystem replaced the paper laws for seizing land and the subsoil, and the labor force from the slavish form of personal dependence turned into feudal form of serfdom.
Beginning with the textile industrial revolution in England, capital gradually became a critical resource for production. The capitalists again changed the system of paper legislation, which guaranteed them ownership of all productive resources and put the carriers of labor in harsh conditions of economic dependence, by depriving them of their rights to unconditional and guaranteed satisfaction of vital needs. The labor force, as a carrier of knowledge of the commodity producer and the main production resource, formally being the property of an employee, was turned into a commodity for sale in the capitalist market, where the rules were set by buyers, according to capitalist paper legislation.
The idea prevailing in bourgeois science about the equivalence of the production relations of capitalists and hired workers was used to justify the “justice” of a capitalist market economy. In fact, the two main subjects of this economy were equal investors in the production of goods. The capitalist advanced the means of production. The workers-commodity producers credited the production process with their knowledge and skills. As a result of joint interaction, a product was born. However, the capitalists imposed paper laws that allowed under the “shadow” of a legal entity to completely deprive workers of the rights of the commodity owner. It is precisely in this robbery during the day that the quintessence of crime of capitalist relations in the economic sphere is hidden. That is why modern bourgeois scientists in every way hush up the essential aspects of property relations.
So, it becomes clear the fundamental basis of the centuries-old domination of capitalists and other seniors over the majority of society. The first is the deprivation of the majority of citizens of the right to unconditional satisfaction of their organic vital (vital) needs after birth on the planet, which is guaranteed by the fundamental laws of nature. The second is the shameless robbery of real commodity producers under the guise of capitalist laws on legal entities.
In the second half of the 20th century, under the threat of the victory of the Bolshevik model of socialism in the United States and Western European countries, the processes of socialization of capitalism began, expressed in giving employees an share, creating national enterprises and partially attracting personnel to profit sharing and corporate management. However, by virtue of the internal capitalist essence of the mode of production, these measures were fundamentally not capable of resolving the main contradiction between wage workers and owners, which is characteristic of all capitalist models. At the same time, these processes, forced by the Soviet example, significantly influenced the change in the class structure of capitalist society. The proletariat of the epoch of classical capitalism to a large extent began to merge into the composition of the so-called middle class, and modern capitalist society itself was de facto divided into two subsystems: the governing (appropriate) and the managed (alienating). At the same time, the interaction between the governing and managed subsystems is built on the principle of “won governing – lost managed.”
The governing subsystem of any model of capitalist society is a collection of individuals, institutions, and bourgeois laws that perform the function of subordinating the managed subsystem of society for the purposes of the self-serving redistribution of natural resources, property, and wealth created in their own interests.
The controlled subsystem of society is all people and structures of civil society, as well as communities and subcultures that have not gained their place in the management subsystem and therefore do not have access to decision-making processes about the distribution of natural resources, property and wealth created. The controlling and controlled subsystems together constitute the entire population of the Earth, countries, enterprises, etc. at every moment in time.
Starting from the primitive state, before communities of people, their main task was to satisfy their vital (vital) needs. In all previous methods of production, most people were forcibly deprived of their legitimate rights to unconditional and complete satisfaction of their vital needs, which are guaranteed by nature itself as a result of the birth of every living creature on the planet. The development of capitalism led to the emergence of a special group in the structure of needs, which can be called “snobbish needs.”
Snobbish needs are needs that are not related to maintaining the viability of a person or society and are manifested in a selfish public demonstration of their superiority over other people not due to their personal knowledge, moral and moral, etc. qualities, but due to the transformation of expensive goods into a fetish of superiority. Today, this type of need is mainly characteristic of owners of large capital and management and bureaucrats serving their interests.
The profits and growth of business capitalization today are being imposed by supporters of neoliberalism as the main driving motives of capitalism. Realization of such a goal allows the members of the governing subsystem to fully satisfy their vital and snobbish needs, and the “leftovers from the master’s table” are given to the representatives of the managed subsystem of society in the form of a subsistence minimum or, to put it scientifically, in the form of “price of labor”
In the case of solidarity as a new mode of production, the associated private property of citizens (hereinafter referred to as ASGS) will prevail. ACSG is formed through the solidarity of capitalist private and bourgeois state forms of ownership. Solidarization of property is fundamentally different from the privatization of property under capitalism. If capitalist privatization is essentially a redistribution of property within the framework and primarily in the interests of representatives of the management subsystem, then the meaning of solidarization of property is to give private ownership of the resources and product created by all citizens of the country.
It should be borne in mind that solidarization is fundamentally different from the socialist nationalization of property. This difference lies in the fact that socialist nationalization involves the transfer of private property into the hands of the socioligarchy – decision-makers in the state, with all the ensuing negative consequences, and the solidarization of property is the personification of livelihood for every citizen.
Property can be of two types. The first. Natural property owned by someone by force and protected by force. Second. Private property is secured to people and protected from other claimants through paper laws.
The dominant species of ASHS should be:
a) jointly and severally public property (SPS) – equal share, assigned personally to every citizen of the country for the entire term of his life, not inherited and not alienated to anyone’s benefit;
b) jointly and collectively property (SCS) – the associated diversified property of citizens, including those working in this business unit, without the right of anyone to a controlling interest in the authorized capital of business units;
c) jointly owned family property (CAS) – the associated property of citizens in small and medium production with the right to hire non-family members while simultaneously giving them a share in the fund of an economic entity.
With solidarity, along with the dominant forms, individual private property of citizens functions, ensuring their right to satisfy vital needs.
Restoration of the rights of ownership of production and consumer resources granted by nature to each person, their consolidation in specific formats of the ACHSH allows to formulate and realize the main goal of reproduction of the common mode of production – unconditional and guaranteed satisfaction of the rising organic vital needs of all citizens of the country.
Vital (vital) needs are a historically determined category that characterizes the socially acceptable level of needs (organic structure of vital needs), ensuring a decent existence of people at each given historical level of evolution of consciousness.
The natural structure of the organic vital needs of each person depends on many factors, including age, gender, region of residence, established traditions, the severity of the climate, etc. Products to meet the vital and snobbish needs have always been. That is, the categories themselves were objectively present in life throughout the existence of Man. Another thing is that they were not identified and presented as scientific categories. The scientific concepts “vital needs” and “snobbish needs” are not artificial categories for apologetics of a certain position, but objective phenomena, such as, for example, radiation, which were not first known to Mankind, but were subsequently discovered in the course of scientific research. The structure of vital needs, expressed at any scale of joint prices, satisfied by an identical set of benefits, may vary in different regions. For example, the vital need for the use of fur boots in Greece and Canada differs due to spatial and geographical features. And this is just one product that satisfies vital needs. If we also consider their structure, a set of various benefits to satisfy vital needs, their interchangeability and variability in time, etc., then the situation at the level of functioning processes becomes practically insoluble. At the same time it is necessary to use the category “organic structure of vital needs”. It implies a certain averaging of the structure of goods that satisfies the vital needs of people according to significant parameters.
Thus, the organic structure of goods to meet the vital needs of the population will characterize the average level of well-being of a typical representative of a given country. The natural and value structure of the vital needs of particular people, depending on many factors, will be different. But in each region with the same type of reproduction conditions, the structure of vital needs for the same population groups will be the same type. Not the same for the locksmith and the doctor, namely, the same type in its base part. The factor of professional specificity of vital needs of various categories can also be taken into account with a high approximation to the specificity of vital needs.
This is not a return to socialist nomenclature planning and leveling, since then the governing subsystem, the socioligarchy, regulated the upper limit of consumption in the interests of withdrawing, through public consumption funds, a significant proportion of the benefits created in favor of snobing consumption of a narrow circle of the party-nomenclature governing subsystem. At the same time, there were people who, even with a socialist leveling, could not adequately satisfy their vital needs.
In the case of solidarity, the concern of society should not be “pulling the rope of consumption” between the snobbish needs of the representatives of the leading subsystem and the vital needs of the members of the managed subsystem, but the steady rise of the organic structure of the vital needs of all people. The most significant vital needs in this system of coordinates are civilizational benefits and free time, which will allow each person to fully realize the unique abilities inherent in it by nature to work together for the good of other people.
Sources of realization of the main goal of solidarism are the joint income from the reproduction of associated private property of citizens on natural resources and income from the use of knowledge. At the same time, in the conditions of solidarism, the prosperity of citizens and their families will also be formed at the expense of the income from their participation in the production of material and civilizational goods.
The snobbish needs inherited by future society are inherited from capitalism will be met on special conditions. A joint community of resource owners will put snobbish consumers in a position where they will be obliged to pay an increased fee for natural resources taken away from future generations of people.
Solidarity mode of production, based on the ACHS, is fundamentally different from all previous antagonistic modes of production, including capitalism.
Firstly, it eliminates the antagonism between the participants in the creation of material and civilizational benefits, since all people will be owners of both material and informational natural resources.
Secondly, the fair distribution of property and benefits of social reproduction will create the basis for the formation of a new type of socio-economic relations between representatives of the governing and controlled subsystems of society and the economy according to the principle of “win-win”.
The main postulate of a joint socio-economic model is: “From each according to his ability – to every life prosperity.” The transition to solidarism involves the formation of a planned exchange model of a new type of economy.