Ideal state - utopia or reality? Current analytics.

It so happened that it is technically impossible to build a so-called ideal society in our world. Almost all the time that exists in the world, philosophy based on the dominance of the rational component has been put forward for discussion and development of the theory of building an ideal society. It is worth recalling in this connection at least Plato and Thomas More as the classics of such a theory in its diversity. Their theories, as practice and study have shown, are far from ideal and are more like a beautiful fairy tale. But is it for children?
A new milestone in the development of the theory of building an ideal society was the emergence of communist theory. It is not so far away in time from us, but just as far from reality as the brainchild of Plato and Thomas More. It assumes the absence of money in society, but this is just impossible. This will be partly discussed in my essay.
It’s one thing if money didn’t exist at all, that is, humanity would never have invented it. And the other thing is that sooner or later we would have invented them anyway, because we would have had to. The conclusion from this is this: of course, a person strives to make his life better and even easier, but according to his nature, he is by no means going to build an ideal society, because he knows that this will not end well for him.
Let's consider a situation where an ideal society, let's say, is built, and what is going on in people's minds in this case - ordinary people, all without exception and not in one generation. We all know perfectly well that a person, in general, is a mobile being, therefore he loves progress in absolutely everything - both physical and spiritual - and in this he partially sees the meaning of life. But now the pinnacle of progress has come, and where should humanity go next? Motivation to work and population growth are falling (gradually declining and then completely stopping). Families are dominated by an atmosphere of despondency and feelings of hopelessness. In teenage, elderly and even adult environment the number of suicides increases sharply. Dissatisfaction with the authorities is growing, riots and uprisings are taking place everywhere. After a certain time, humanity dies out, which means that power structures also die out, since there is no one else to govern, and those who worked in the sphere of power, the same people also died out. These are the main processes that will take place in a society if it reaches an ideal order. In other words, a person will be destroyed by the ability to invent, which distinguishes him from the animal and once saved him from extinction in the natural pre-money environment. Another question is where is the end of such an environment, and even more interesting, where is its beginning.
Money, if guided by the theory of socio-economic formations, was invented by society approximately at the junction of prehistoric and ancient formations - since egoistic (in good sense of this word) inducing a person to self-realization required the appearance of its material base. But the dominant in this case was human nature. In an effort to protect himself and people close to him in one way or another, he realized that in order to move forward, development and transition to a new evolutionary level of his activity is necessary. So there were three divisions of labor, social stratification, the emergence of money and the state. It is important for me that the state is indicated in the text after money, since without them it cannot exist. We absolutely do not care what kind of money it is - seashells, earthenware, gold coins or living creatures - no matter how they look and no matter what properties they possess, without them there would be no state.
In an attempt to build an ideal society, people have racked their brains more than once, both in theory and in practice. In my own opinion, a society that respects human nature and is based on it cannot be ideally arranged at all (I still do not say “ideal”). I would like to divide society into two conditional types - ideal stagnant and adequate. Under the ideal stagnant society falls under any theory - Plato, Thomas More, etc. - which is initially ideal, and for which further development would be impossible or otherwise fatal. An adequate society is a society with a normal, rational and consistent development, a guideline that has the nature of a person as a progressive being. Such a society has room to develop, and thus it is far from an ideal (stagnant) society. In other words, an ideal stagnant society is an unrealistic and technically impossible society, and our society is an adequate society, already implemented within the framework of humanity in practice.
In a certain way, with the help of virtual reality, he tried to make, so to speak, a model of an ideal society. It must be said that it took me some time to create an infrastructure that was at least somehow close to ideal. Moscow - and that was not built right away. During the construction of infrastructure, the economy slowly developed, and then stood still and began to mainly accumulate gold reserves. My goal was to ensure that the amount of raw materials in the warehouse was the same throughout the time, that is, so that I would not have to either buy it or sell excess, and also monitor the slightest changes in its quantity. I managed to achieve relative economic stability only after the final construction of the infrastructure, which lasted quite a long time.
My products of production were bread and metal armor, the raw materials for them were grain, processed into flour, which was already directly used for the production of bread, and iron. Bread production was many times higher than his double consumption rate, while metal armor was not in demand at all. According to the period of 100% (or not 100%) filling of storage facilities, these products were completely sold (but there was some bread left). The gold received for their sale was kept on and on in the treasury, and it was not clear what to do with it in such quantity, since the maximum possible salary for the peasants turned out to be not striking at all on the budget. What to do with gold, and stagnate the economy further? If you go a little fantasy, I imagine this: I destroyed all the gold, the peasants rebelled, overthrew the state and actually destroyed the ideal society. All this, of course, would be possible in reality... But then I think: what if suddenly my society is isolated from the outside world, then to whom do I sell bread and armor in such huge quantities? And what should I do if the barns and armories are full, the number of which is strictly limited in my virtual reality? To act as in the case of gold - the consequences would be the same. With the production of armor, the issue would still be somehow solved (my ideal society and state would not collapse), but not with bread (a vital resource without which the state would die out). What is the point of production if there is no one to export products to? In this case, production workers need to work in the areas of self-sufficiency of society - for example, in agriculture. By the way, in that society the principle of forced search for exclusively free work and immediate start to it dominated. Now it is worth describing the situation with raw materials in the warehouse. First about iron. Its number slowly grew, but after the construction of eight more armored workshops, this number began to gradually decrease. So the truth is somewhere in the middle. Grain and flour in quantity all grew and grew, and a sharp increase in the number of bakeries with an already huge production of bread did not solve it. This is the essence of the economy of that virtual "ideal" society. By the way, after some time I got tired of seeing the same picture in front of me, and I completed the “building of an ideal society” - in our reality, this will just as bother the Higher Mind, and it will most likely do the same as I.
Gradually bringing his work to an end, one cannot help but say about the impossibility of destroying money, since, in view of his egoism and relative fear for the future, a person will never and never go against his natural essence, just as a person who does not despair or who is driven mad does not go to suicide. Humanity will never see an ideal society. And this gives me faith in the right direction, in our time striding especially widely and into unknown distances, a truly great force, whose name is the progress of mankind. After all, it is done mainly for economic reasons. And if there were no economic sphere in society, it would be ideal, that is, stable and identical to its nature. It just so happens that romantic ideals are almost always unattainable in the face of harsh reality. From time immemorial, the ideas of thinkers about an ideal society have changed and progressed. It turns out that all this time there was no single and undeniable layout - a single ideal of an ideal society. And if one ideal is unattainable, what can we say about many, even those that existed in different periods of time. After all, a serious correction of the old already provokes the emergence of a new one, and this new one does not at all cancel the old that exists in theory.
Therefore, the pluralism of human thinking, so beloved and propagated today by all and sundry, will not allow building an ideal society, while it actively supports individualism and self-realization along the path as personal and unique as possible - and it corresponds to human nature, and to deny it's stupid and useless. By the way, a rather interesting natural phenomenon - the pluralism of opinions in one head - this issue requires a separate and separate discussion. To deny the ability of social thought to regress means to commit even greater stupidity. Along with this stupidity, this same person essentially admits that humanity has no other way of development other than pluralism. But in our case with an ideal society, and even with a transfer to the current reality, this is not at all sad, and pessimism on this issue is not able to offer humanity anything new.
As before, ideological thinkers and political leaders for the most part paint a wonderful and bright future for us in all colors. It seems to me that the future has always seemed bright to people, even if later it becomes the present, and then the past. But the essence of being is unchanging, and therefore, no matter how terrible, bloody, scary, etc., past, present and future, they have always been, are and will be bright, and they were, are and will be based on love and good. But will our future be great? Everyone sees the beautiful in different colors and images - the beautiful is not one. And light is the same for everyone, even if neither I nor anyone else even knows what color it has and whether it has at all. There is not one beautiful and one bright, therefore everyone will look at the future differently. For some it will be great, for some not so much - for every age, mindset, social position etc. Absolute and eternal unity of opinion on this issue (the situation is the same as with an ideal society) in the context of any situation, no one will ever see, and this is precisely the natural essence of man. I am ready to repeat that there is nothing tragic in this. It should be recognized that there will always be elementary unity on any issue from any point of view, thus mankind has forever protected itself from complete self-destruction, but such unity is sometimes very difficult or even impossible to see. But this unity exists, and I boldly assert it, even if I do not provide any evidence for it. Anyone who wants to prove this, it costs nothing to take any convenient example.
Research and reasoning on the issue of an ideal society, money and the future nevertheless give rise in me to two new extraordinary questions, which can be answered adequately only if they are correctly understood and the mind that answers at least some idea of ​​the proposed situation appears in the mind: “Can today money to exist outside the state? And is the existence of a society outside the state possible today? It is not worth answering them here, and the answers, I think, will turn out to be disappointing for the majority.
26.01.2012

Justice is the concept of due, which contains the requirement of conformity of action and retribution: in particular, the conformity of rights and obligations, labor and remuneration, merits and their recognition, crime and punishment, the conformity of the role of various social strata, groups and individuals in the life of society and their social position in it; in economics, the demand for equality of citizens in the distribution of a limited resource. The lack of proper correspondence between these entities is assessed as unfair.

Starting with Aristotle, it is customary to single out equalizing and distributive justice.

The first type of justice - egalitarian - refers to the relations of equal people about objects ("equal - for equal"). It refers not directly to people, but to their actions, and requires equality (equivalence) of labor and pay, the value of a thing and its price, harm and its compensation. Relations of egalitarian justice require the participation of at least two persons.

The second type of justice - distributive - requires proportionality in relation to people according to one or another criterion ("equal - equal, unequal - unequal", "to each his own"). A relationship of distributive justice requires the participation of at least three people, each acting to achieve the same goal within an organized community. One of these people distributing is the "boss".

Equal justice is a specific principle of private law, while distributive justice is a principle of public law, which is a set of rules of the state as an organization.

The requirements of egalitarian and distributive justice are formal, not defining who is to be considered equal or different, and not specifying which rules apply to whom. Different answers to these questions give different conceptions of justice, which supplement the formal concept of justice with substantive requirements and values.

Types of Justice

	Separating (geometric equality)	Leveling (arithmetic equality)
Distribution	The distribution of benefits in accordance with the accepted criterion (for example: "To each by his work")	Distribution of benefits equally
	Unequal proportional exchange (ex: exchange between master and slave)	Equal proportional exchange (equivalent barter)
Retributive	Unequal proportional retribution (punishment proportional to the degree of social danger of the act, and not the harm caused)	Equal retribution (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth)

John Rawls in his work "The Theory of Justice" formulates two principles for understanding justice:

1) Every person shall have equal rights in respect of the most extensive scheme of equal fundamental freedoms compatible with similar schemes of freedoms for others.

2) social and economic inequalities should be arranged in such a way that a) benefits for all could reasonably be expected from them; b) access to positions and positions would be open to all.

By injustice we mean the violation of the above norms. In particular, a society that cultivates class inequality and the techniques and methods used to maintain it is unjust. An unfair sentence is one that imposes a punishment that does not correspond to the gravity of the crime.

Details of the liberal theories of justice, with the "Theory of Justice" by John Rawls can be found in Backmology.

Model of an ideal society

In this article, we will try to build a simplified model of an ideal society - a utopia - within which the need for the concept of justice disappears. Why do we need it?

Comparing the ideal model with the real society, we, firstly, have the opportunity to better see the pain points of modern society, and, secondly, we can more clearly see which of the existing social problems are solvable and which are permanent.

From year to year, from generation to generation, people ask themselves the same question: why is there injustice in the world and how to resist it? But each time, in their copious debates on this subject, the public slips into particular cases, and the issue is essentially not resolved. And so after a while it rises again every time.

The presence of an ideal model enables us to consider the problem of justice in a general way. This means that we have a chance to understand the problem in essence, and not get confused once again in particulars.

Society is just our idea of ​​the forms of human relationships. In other words, society as such exists only in our imagination, and, consequently, its change is reduced to a change in perception.

An ideal society (or something else) is nothing more than a society that corresponds to the idea of ​​the majority about the ideal. Here we understand the ideal in terms of the absence of the problem of justice, i.e. people no longer need the concepts of "fairness" and "injustice".

Accordingly, there are two options: to form the necessary idea for an already existing society and to convince the majority of it. Or to rebuild society under some ideas (such as Plato, Thomas More, Kant, and others).

Both options come with their own challenges.

In the first option, it is difficult to convince people to do something that does not seem fair to them, that is, to change their perception of injustice.

If we switch to the language of law or, which may be closer to many, to the language of money, then the task here comes down to creating some harmonious combination of laws, customs and customs accepted by the majority. moral standards. And in this case, the ideal society is one in which there is a constant [financial] growth for those who have access to the formation of ideas about the ideal society.

The main difficulty in the second variant is to formulate representations that are equally valid for all.

Equally fair for all does not give grounds for differentiation. The need for the concept of "justice" exists only if there is a criterion for differentiating justice.

The second option also raises the problem of persuading people to do what at first does not seem fair to them.

It is important to note the following. If we have to force people to do what they do not think is fair, we are not achieving the goal of building an ideal society. Thus, it is only a matter of persuasion. In the first variant, we must convince of the justice of what already exists, in the second, of the justice of what is offered instead of the existing one.

We will focus on the second option. When building a model of an ideal society, it is important for us to pay due attention to the formation of people's ideas about their society.

So, let's try to describe in general terms the desired model.

Only two social systems that have achieved outstanding success are known to history: capitalism and socialism. And even despite the fact that socialism, as a world dominant, has now ceased to exist, its fierce incessant criticism from the apologists of capitalism - as if they are still afraid of its return - makes us take this ideology seriously, as if it has not lost its power and influence on the minds of the doctrine.

Darkened by the era of Stalinist terror and Brezhnev's stagnation, socialism provided an opportunity to discredit itself in the eyes of many enlightened readers, not to mention the unenlightened ones. Now almost no one wants or can not accept the arguments of evidence of the strength of socialism and, as a consequence of the presence of such arguments, the facts of undisguised hatred towards it on the part of capitalist ideologists and an irresistible desire to destroy it throughout the existence of the socialist system.

However, as soon as the capitalist crisis escalates again, here and there one can hear criticism of capitalism with intonations of clearly socialist slogans. As if there is no other way to get rid of social diseases, except for a return to the foundations of socialism. Apparently, the ideas of communism and socialism are so strong in the public subconscious that they involuntarily regenerate in moments of indignation against the next successful combinations of the oligarchic elites to ruin the people. Or maybe it simply cannot exist in the human understanding of other ideas about justice other than those that were formulated by the early utopians and developed ideologists of Marxism?

Capitalism is good for enterprising and talented people, because it gives them complete freedom of expression, supported by the possibility of obtaining fabulous earnings. The idea of ​​the American Dream, where everyone has the right to test their chances of success, is great in its content. Taken in isolation from the presence or provision of conditions for the realization of such an opportunity, it is, perhaps, in no way inferior in its strength of attraction to the idea of ​​universal equality and fraternity and fair distribution.

Both of these ideas are American dream and fair distribution are so abstract that they cannot even contradict each other. This means that we can try to find conditions for their joint implementation. It was this attempt that was made by us when developing a model of an ideal society.

The economy in the model consists of two sectors: public (analogous to the state) and market.

In the public sector, the economy is planned. There is a social order for the performance of work and the production of goods that are significant for the life of society, of a certain range and volume. This social order is distributed among enterprises. The goods produced under this order are sold at fixed, pre-planned prices.

The market sector is represented commercial enterprises. These enterprises can produce products and provide services that are priced based on supply and demand.

The reorganization of society is possible by creating new mechanisms for the redistribution of limited goods. Simply dividing all the benefits equally, we again come to inequality. Their negligent use by some and prudent use by others will sooner or later do its job, and the benefits will again be distributed unevenly. It is possible, of course, when such a point is reached, each time to divide them again equally. But then those from whom the benefits are taken away will be able to declare their exploitation - it turns out that they work for idlers. To prevent this from happening, it is necessary to include in the program of reconstruction measures for training, accounting and control over the use of benefits. Every rogue or profane must become a master, and every master must help the profane not to be one.

Distribution. The society has a developed system of accounting and control. Each type of socially significant work is standardized, and there is some individual production plan for it. The implementation of the plan for any type of work is compensated equally. This principle of distribution is called: from each according to his ability, to each - in an equal share (equally).

All are expected to work honestly and to the best of their ability. Any work - be it digging or exploring the microcosm - is considered worthy and therefore compensated for the implementation of the plan in the same way.

Any overfulfillment of the plan is compensated proportionally. If, for example, an employee fulfills two plans without overspending resources according to the standards, then he receives for two employees.

However, for underfulfillment of the plan, the employee's compensation is not reduced. An employee with poor performance may be retrained and sent to another job.

So that the problem of retraining occurs as rarely as possible, society helps a person in choosing the most suitable profession for him from childhood.

Production standards are periodically adjusted. So the rules must be revised in connection with the introduction of new technologies.

It should be noted that rationing is possible for absolutely all works. Even in the field of art, which at first glance cannot be assessed, it is possible to form effective and easy-to-understand norms based on such indicators as public attendance, readability, citation, etc.

Control. There are four (at least) skill levels. The hierarchy of levels is necessary for the implementation of comprehensive management of people's activities.

Thanks to the hierarchy, mandatory top-down control is supported. The upper levels control the lower levels, that is, the degree of independence of the employee increases with increasing levels. The highest level is not necessarily controlled by anyone and must exercise complete self-control. However, the company has the right to request a report on the activities of top-level employees, that is, to exercise “bottom-up” control.

Top-level workers are wise men, people whose opinion is listened to by all members of society. The instructions of the sages must be carried out, but they can also be challenged in special arbitration boards.

Freedom of creativity and self-realization is supported by the possibility of a person's transition to higher levels. The higher the level of the worker, the more degrees of freedom he has in choosing decisions.

The individual characteristics of people are taken into account when providing them with training and work, and are also reflected in the level of mastery achieved.

Finance. Money is the universal equivalent of consumed goods and serves as a tool for their distribution. Since everyone is compensated equally for their work, then everyone has the same salary (if the plan is not overfulfilled).

Money is not subject to inflation. All transactions with money (savings, lending) are carried out only on an interest-free basis.

Let's say I want to buy a car, but I don't have the money to buy it. Then I go to the bank and get a loan (interest-free loan). The money received will be further deducted by the bank from my salary.

Society sets reasonable standards for the consumption of scarce resources. For example, a person cannot purchase a second car or have two apartments.

Accounting and control over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption is an important component of society. The regulator of the distribution of labor and the distribution of benefits among members of society are special bodies, as well as a system of hierarchy.

There is no incentive or reward system. The incentive to work is the understanding instilled from childhood that you work for the welfare of society. The idea that talent can become a source of wealth is considered immoral.

However, differences in labor indicators are compensated proportionally, i.e. a person who fulfills two norms is equal to two workers, and so on.

The employee does not pay any taxes. Upon retirement, all employees receive the same benefit.

There are a number of restrictions on the transfer of savings. This is due to the need to maintain a stable financial situation in society (no inflation).

Eliminate imbalances. The individual needs of people in especially limited resources are satisfied in the order of priority established for the provision of these resources.

In the case of a high demand for certain resources (a long queue for them), society directs its efforts to their expanded reproduction.

If any work is harmful to health, correction factors are introduced - the employee works fewer hours and receives the right to undergo periodic rehabilitation.

Society guarantees work for all capable people. The problem of employment is solved with the help of a system of long-term planning.

Various social, demographic and production disproportions are eliminated with the help of a system of plans and quotas.

Compensation for the shortage of specialists of a certain profile is carried out through retraining. In the absence of volunteers, the decision on who to send for retraining from the list of the most suitable candidates is made by lottery.

When organizing production in difficult conditions - for example, in the Far North - workers are sent there on a rotational basis. This allows you to proportionally distribute the burden of hard work.

Overpopulation of certain regions is not allowed. People evenly populate areas suitable for normal life. There is no concept of a prestigious place of residence.

However, in each region there is a certain number of places of residence in which people live on a rotational basis, i.e. during some specific period of time. This provides an opportunity for people to live in different places.

The most comfortable places of residence are transformed into recreation areas with sanatoriums, boarding houses, etc.

Punishment. A dishonest worker identified as a result of control is deprived of the right to work and receives benefits from society at a reduced rate. He is not allowed to work, because he can harm others. Thus, in society there is only one type of punishment - deprivation of the right to work. The possibility of receiving such punishment acts as a means of negative motivation of people.

A person who does not want to work is equated to the unemployed.

Single errors and negligence are not punished. A person cannot help but make mistakes, and sooner or later everyone faces this. In case of massive errors, a person is invited to change his occupation. If a person fails to find himself in any business, he is equated to the unemployed.

Domestic conflicts are settled by the individuals themselves - society ignores these conflicts.

People with mental disorders are isolated. They are assigned a minimum content. Crimes (murder, theft, profiteering, etc.) are equated to mental disorders. Isolation is not a punishment. This is one of the protective measures of society against adverse effects on it. Unfavorable impacts also include anomalous natural phenomena, man-made disasters, accidents, etc.

Protests against existing social structure equate to crime.

Employees at all levels enjoy equal respect from society. The systematic display of disrespect for someone can be regarded as a mental disorder.

In the event of economic difficulties in society (crop failure, natural disaster), the norms for the unemployed and isolated members of society are reduced first of all. Thus, these groups of people are socially unprotected.

family paradigm. It can be said that society is becoming one big family, where all its members have equal obligations to each other and the same opportunities for consumption.

Such a society is freed from many functions: incentives, motivation, rewards, marketing (in terms of stimulating consumption), power, financial instruments and leverage. This also means liberation from the problems associated with the implementation of these functions: corruption, careerism, bureaucracy, maintaining statuses and roles, envy, inflation, etc.

In this society, there are no mechanisms of material interest, there are no financial institutions to support the slogan "the ruble must work." Securities and derivative financial instruments do not exist.

It is difficult for a modern person to imagine such a thing. To make this task easier, we will give a simple recommendation: take a close look at your family (of course, if it is real family). Analyze what relationships it is built on. Surely, this is trust, equality of distribution, openness of communication, transfer of experience (education). Accordingly, it is difficult to imagine corruption, bureaucracy, manipulation, struggle for power in the family. The subordination of children to parents is based on common sense (parents know more). Note also that families can get along very well different tempers, different points of view.

By the way, the underworld is the most successful of its groups (for example, Italian mafia) builds precisely on the principle of the family, and not the state. Built on the principles of the modern state system, i.e. on hard power, the group cannot exist for a long time.

market sector. Now let's briefly discuss the market sector. It is based on private property. Society does not hinder the development of this sector, but does not give it preference either. Priority for the implementation of the social order always has a public enterprise.

Entrepreneurial activity can be carried out by any person: working in the public sector or not working.

If the entrepreneur does not work in the public sector, then he is accordingly equated to the unemployed.

The market sector has a simple form of taxation. The entrepreneur pays tax on the difference between the selling price and the cost of production. However, the cost does not include wage entrepreneur.

An entrepreneur can buy land or an enterprise, create his own production and produce socially significant or marketable products. For the first type of product, he must first receive a social order.

If an entrepreneur produces socially significant products, then he will be compensated according to the norms of the public sector, i.e. with a volume of ten production standards, it will be compensated tenfold, and so on.

If the entrepreneur does not fulfill social significant works, then it is not compensated by society in any way (with the exception of unemployment benefits). He has to produce products for the market and sell them at market prices.

The market method of managing the economy is due to commodity-money relations and the operation of the law of value. At the same time, the law of value is used both for accounting and comparing costs and results, and for economic stimulation of production. The sale of products shows how much the individual costs of a given enterprise correspond to the socially necessary. Depending on this, there is also material remuneration of employees.

As already mentioned, money is not subject to inflation, and all transactions with money (savings, lending) are carried out only on an interest-free basis.

In order to fulfill these conditions, all transactions with property are carried out under strict public control.

The entrepreneur is deprived of the opportunity to engage in usury, speculation, resale of goods produced in the public sector, and many other financial transactions from the “ruble should work” series.

Thus, the land acquired by a businessman cannot be sold to him at an inflated price.

Expropriation of property is not allowed. If necessary, the company itself can apply to the entrepreneur with a proposal to organize the production of the necessary goods and provide him with an interest-free loan. At the same time, the cost at which the production can be redeemed is stipulated.

Transferring a public order to the market sector for money (corruption) and lending money at interest is considered a violation of social norms.

An entrepreneur or an employee of the public sector caught in a deliberate violation of established norms is forever deprived of the opportunity to engage in entrepreneurial activity and is forever transferred to the category of unemployed.

The market sector is constantly controlled by society. However, the public sector itself, as already mentioned, is controlled "top-down" and "bottom-up".

The division of the economy into two sectors does not have a class character, because the market sector lacks many of the opportunities characteristic of capitalism.

Class was characteristic of undeveloped production relations. But with the development of technology and the possibilities of production planning, the role of the owner is increasingly losing its significance, and the traditional class system is gradually becoming the property of history.

On the present stage In the socio-economic development of human society, material production as such (both agricultural and industrial) is step by step receding into the background, and the production of knowledge-intensive services becomes more important. This stage is often called "post-industrial society", "information society" and "service society".

Changes in the modes of production are destroying traditional hierarchies and forms of social stratification. Fewer people belong to manual labor due to the rapid development of new forms of employment related to the management of industry and services. However, the erosion of old social structures does not mean the emergence of classless societies. Individuals classify themselves and are classified by others, occupying certain places in social structure, and those who occupy similar places may form a class.

Upbringing. From early childhood, a person is instilled with a love of work and respect for social rules and norms. Society provides a person with the opportunity to maximize self-expression through creativity, work, service to society.

Norms are not regarded by people as prohibitions and restrictions on their freedom. From early childhood, a person is brought up on the principles of submission to a single moral law, which is at the same time the basic law of practical reason. This means that this law requires all members of society to act in such a way that the dignity of none of them as a rational being is infringed upon. In order to ensure this requirement, a code of specific moral norms is developed, corresponding to the general moral law and not contradicting each other, such that with their help any act of any person can be assessed as to whether it is moral or not. It is assumed that each member of society voluntarily imposes on his actions such restrictions as to ensure that he is able to act in such a way that the dignity of other members of society does not suffer.

Entrepreneurship is not subject to any discrimination and anti-propaganda. It is explained to the younger generation that certain individuals, due to their mental characteristics, propensity for risk and independence, work most effectively in the market sphere.

We have briefly described a rather complex ideal model in which the ideas of communism and capitalism, the views of Kant and modern theorists of economic science coexist. It can be said that our model contains almost all public attributes, around which there are endless discussions. Some of them seem to be incompatible. But it is precisely their seeming incompatibility that makes one seriously think about finding the possibility of their peaceful coexistence in one social system.

We saw such an opportunity in the selection of the values ​​of those parameters for which incompatibility is manifested. It is quite easy to find such parameters. To do this, it is necessary to analyze the discussed problems and highlight the most emphasized concepts. The list of these parameters includes unemployment, inflation, motivation, distribution, speculation, power, corruption, etc. The initial list can be quite long and should be ranked first and then limited in a reasonable way. This operation is not trivial - the future model will depend on how to prioritize. Therefore, it is worth preparing several variants of the list. But, one way or another, there are the most obvious parameters that cannot be ignored in any of the options.

For example, socialism does not allow inflation, and capitalism is its true initiator. At the same time, capitalism recognizes inflation as harmful and fights against it. By deciding to freeze inflation, we opened the way for socialism, and did not greatly reduce the chances of capitalism to be reflected in the model.

To freeze inflation, we had to make all financial transactions interest-free, as well as impose some restrictions on savings. If this harms capitalism, it is not so much that it ceases to exist. Capitalism manages to survive in the most adverse conditions, because it is built on the ingenuity of the entrepreneur, who knows no bounds.

We deliberately excluded motivation from the model, i.e. reduced the value of this parameter to zero. In our opinion, motivation under capitalism is nonsense. Already at its core, capitalism contains the most serious motivator for vigorous activity. The need for motivation under socialism testifies to the problematic nature of certain principles of the socialist structure. In other words, if you have to motivate, then the system of basic principles of social organization is built with flaws.

What did we want to show with our model?

First, there is a theoretical possibility of building an ideal society. With knowledge, desire and a free mind, it is not difficult to create a fully functional model that is close to ideal. Our test model does not claim the first prize, as it was created in one day and not thought out to the smallest detail. Nevertheless, it clearly demonstrates that modeling is quite accessible, and with due diligence can lead to very productive results.

Secondly, the existing countless conversations about the justice or injustice of certain social rules and mechanisms will never lead to a comprehensive "improvement" of society. They only confuse and complicate an already overly complex public organization. The solution of social problems requires a systematic approach, in which all components are taken into account, and not individual social components and class interests. This is what model building is for.

Lenin, as is known, in constructing his theory proceeded exclusively from the interests of the proletariat and the peasantry, which was the source of many problems in his version of socialism. The creators of the perestroika program - Gaidar, Chubais and others - were also guided by class interests, which led to well-known consequences.

I would like to say a few words in defense of Lenin. He was building something completely new, unparalleled in history. In addition, Lenin had to act in an underdeveloped economy, which modern critics, looking at history from the standpoint post-industrial society, can never understand. However, these words are unlikely to find any understanding among the current public!

Why is there only a purely theoretical possibility of building an ideal society?

The answer to this question again lies in the plane of knowledge. Even if someone can build a really good social model, it is unlikely to be appreciated and supported by the poorly educated majority.

Tired of endless manipulations and information wars, people fall into social apathy, stop believing in the power of knowledge. The maximum that is enough for them is to say: “I like it,” or unsubscribe in the comments with angry cries with the often repeated word “nonsense”.

People learn only as far as it obviously contributes to the increase of their material condition. Everything else is discarded or criticized as unnecessary.

Even a primary school student is capable of criticism. To say that the government is not working effectively is like saying nothing. One might as well say that the government is doing everything possible, but the people are holding on to the old and do not want to support it. In any case, a vicious circle is obtained, when criticism leads to reciprocal criticism, and so on.

However, it should be noted that criticism also requires knowledge. But this knowledge is likely to be one-sided. As, for example, knowledge of one Bible leads only to orthodox judgments.

True knowledge is vast. They cover whole line disciplines and interdisciplinary connections, in which there is no division into important and secondary. They are free from the class approach and class interests. Such knowledge allows you to make sober judgments and make informed decisions.

Only true knowledge frees the mind from existing historical stereotypes that support the inviolability of the most orthodox principles of social order. A free mind initiates the desire to build a better society. Desire leads to the construction of an adequate model, and then on its basis - society.

Without such knowledge, a person, like a piece of eternally undercooked meat, will be strung on a skewer called "Gorbachev-Yeltsin-Putin-Medvedev." He will always have to fry on the fire of "injustice" and quarrel with neighboring similarly undercooked pieces of meat about the torments of hell called "life".

Without true knowledge, there will be only demagogic criticism and patching and patching of holes.

Let's see what heights the criticism has reached, on the example of only two topics: private property and consumption.

First critical article written in defense of capitalism, the second - for the sake of its denigration. After reading both articles, it seems that you are in a madhouse inhabited by sluggish schizophrenics, and you - the same schizophrenic - will forever swallow neuroleptics, and they will never let you out.

Private property in controversy with communism

A number of critical considerations are put forward that show the historical futility and inferiority of communism. He who rejects private property rejects the beginnings of the personal spirit, and thereby undermines society and the state, not to mention the economic life of his country. Therefore, communism leads people down a false and doomed path. There are several reasons why communism is considered unpromising and can be rejected.

Point one: "Communism is unnatural." Communism does not accept the individual way of life given to man by God. It extinguishes a person's personal initiative on all paths of his creativity.

People are initially, genetically very different and even opposite. The difference in their personalities gives rise to the difference in their interests. And the difference of interests gives rise to clashes between people, their mutual struggle.

Second: "Communism is anti-social." This seems paradoxical: after all, communism is just portrayed as the realm of publicity, communality, the unity of people. However, communism cannot but create a system that rests on the principles of hatred, mutual persecution, general poverty, dependence and the complete suppression of the human person. Communism is based on the idea of ​​class hatred, envy and revenge, the idea of ​​the eternal class struggle of the proletariat against non-proletarians. Education, upbringing, economy, the state and the army are built on this idea. Hence the mutual persecution of citizens, mutual denunciation. The idea of ​​national solidarity and brotherhood, repeatedly proclaimed, is discredited. A general confiscation of property is carried out: the conscientious and obedient lose everything, the unscrupulous rob and secretly profit.

Third point: "Communism is a waste of strength." Man is endowed with the creative power of a living instinct, a mass of energy that is connected with his inner and innermost being. But communism, by introducing a hopeless way of managing and proclaiming it the best and most productive, suppresses and squanders people's real natural life energy.

Fourth: "Communism, because of its unnaturalness, is feasible only with the help of a system of terror."

Fifth: "Communism does not lead to justice." Communism begins with a call for equality, for for communists equality means a just way of life. However, in reality, all people are by nature unequal, and it is impossible to equalize their natural properties.

Sixth: “Communism does not liberate people at all. It is introduced forcibly and forcibly, and for this it abolishes all vital rights and freedoms.

As a justification for private property, after the polemic with communism, the following principles are singled out, which show how hopeless is the exclusion of private property from the economic mechanism, the attempt to get rid of it. For private property is natural.

First, private property corresponds to the individual way of being that is given to man by nature. It goes towards the instinctive and spiritual life of a person, satisfying his natural right to independence and self-activity.

Secondly, private property evokes in man instinctive impulses and spiritual motives for strenuous work; in other words, there is a connection between individuality, private property, and good work.

Thirdly, the owner also acquires confidence in people, things, land, a desire to invest his labor and his abilities in the economic process.

Fourthly, private property teaches a person to creatively love labor and land, and therefore, his hearth and homeland. It is the basis of settled life, and culture is impossible without it. This is the basis of the family. The state instinct of a person is also associated with the development of the institution of private property. And finally, one more argument. Private property reveals to man the artistic depth of the natural process, teaches a religious perception of nature and the world.

Fifth point: private property is related to legal awareness, because when a person knows how to separate “mine” and “yours”, strictly follow the laws that determine their relationship, this educates him in the spirit of political freedom, gives him the much-needed legal awareness.

And sixth: private property educates a person in the spirit of economic solidarity, which does not violate economic freedom. Each private owner enriches himself and thereby enriches his environment: the national economy grows richer; there is a competition of owners and, thus, a creative tension is created, so necessary for the people. The final point is the organization of the world economy, which is also possible as a cooperation built on private property.

Homo economicus analysis

Any thinking about consumption, whether it is a layman's or a scientist's thinking, is built in this sequence: a certain person is "endowed" with needs that "push" him to an object that "gives" him satisfaction. Since one is never satisfied, the same story begins again and again.

This is what is called "inverted sequence" as opposed to "classical sequence", where the initiative was assumed to belong to the consumer and influenced through the market to manufacturing enterprises. Here, on the contrary, it is the production enterprise that controls the behavior in the market, manages social positions and needs and models them. This leads, at least in a trend, to a total dictatorship of the production system.

The system of needs constitutes the product of the system of production. By producing goods or services, enterprises produce at the same time all the means of suggestion that can force them to be accepted, and thereby "produce" the needs that correspond to them.

Consumption is an active and collective behavior, it is a coercion, a morality, an institution. It includes the entire value system, together with its function of group integration and social control.

The consumer society is also a society of learning to consume, social training in consumption, that is, a new and specific way of socialization that has emerged in connection with the emergence of new productive forces and the reorganization of the economic system with high productivity.

Credit plays a decisive role here, even if it only partially influences spending budgets. His concept is revealing because under the guise of monetary support creating easy access to abundance, a hedonistic mentality freed from old taboos of thrift, etc., credit turns out to be in fact the systematic socio-economic training of generations of consumers who otherwise eluded guidance in their existence from demand planning and were inaccessible to exploitation as a consumer force. Credit is a disciplinary process of soliciting savings and regulating demand.

The whole ideology of consumption wants to make us believe that we have entered into new era and that a decisive humane "Revolution" separates the heroic and brutal Age of Production from the euphoric Age of Consumption, where Man and his desire are finally given rights. There is none of this. Production and Consumption constitute one and the same large logical process of the expanded reproduction of the productive forces and its control. But here we are talking only about the appearance of a humane revolution: in fact, within the framework of a single process and essentially an unchanged system, the replacement of one group of values, which had become (relatively) ineffective, by another. What could have been a new goal, having been freed from its real content, became an inevitable link in the reproduction of the system.

The needs of people and their satisfaction are productive forces, they are currently subject to coercion and rationalization, like other forces (labor, etc.). Whichever way you look at it, consumption appears to be an area of ​​coercion.

Concerning consumption as civil coercion, Eisenhower spoke in 1958: “Government in a free society best encourages economic growth when it encourages the efforts of individuals and private groups. Money will never be properly used for the state, unless it is spent by the taxpayer, who in turn is free from the burden of taxes. It is as if consumption, not being a direct taxation, could effectively replace the tax as a social benefit. “With their $9 billion in tax rebates,” adds The Times, “consumers were about to shop at two million retailers… They realized they had the power to make the economy grow by replacing their fan with an air conditioner.” . They provided the boom of 1954 by purchasing 5 million miniature television sets, 1.5 million electric meat cutters, etc.”

The individual serves the industrial system, not by bringing his savings to it and providing it with his capital, but by consuming its products. There is, however, no other activity - religious, political or moral - for which he is prepared in such a complete, scientific and expensive way.

The system needs people as workers (wage labor), as contributors (taxes, loans, etc.), but most of all, as consumers. The productivity of labor falls more and more to technology and organization, investments are more and more made by the enterprises themselves - the individual as such is today required and practically indispensable precisely as a consumer.

Personalization.“There is no woman, no matter how demanding she may be, who could not satisfy her personal tastes and desires with the help of a Mercedes-Benz! Everything works for it, from leather color, trim and body color to the wheel cover and those thousand and one amenities that the equipment offers, standard or selected. As for the man, although he thinks first of all about technical qualities and the efficiency of his machine, he will gladly fulfill the desires of a woman, as he will also be proud to hear compliments on his good taste. You can choose your Mercedes-Benz according to your desire from 76 different variants and 697 ranges of interior accessories…”

“To be truly yourself, to have this pleasure, you need to find your personality, be able to approve it. Little is needed for this. I searched for a long time and noticed that a small blond strand in my hair is enough to create perfect harmony with my complexion, with my eyes. I found this light tone in the range of Recital coloring shampoo ... With this natural light color from Recital, I have not changed: I have become more myself than ever.

These two texts (and there are so many others) are the first to be extracted from the Mond; the second from a small women's weekly. They reflect different levels of life and different prestige claims that have no common measure: from the magnificent Mercedes-300 SL to the “little light strand” obtained with Recital shampoo, the entire social hierarchy is built, and the two women in question in two texts, of course, will never meet (perhaps only by chance?). They are shared by a whole society, but united by the same desire for difference, for personalization. One belongs to the "A" group, the other to the "non-A" group, but the scheme of "personal" value is the same for both and for all women who pave the way in the "personalized" jungle of "chosen" goods, desperately looking for a liquid powder that will bring out the naturalness of the face, a trick that will demonstrate their deep selectivity, a difference that will make them themselves.

All the contradictions of this main topic for consumption are felt in the desperate acrobatics of the vocabulary expressing it, in the constant striving for a magical and impossible synthesis. If there is one, can he "find" his identity? And where are you while this personal is looking for you? If you are yourself, do you still need to be "really" - or then, if you are deceived by a false "you", is a "little bright strand" enough to restore the wonderful unity of being? What does this “such” natural light tone want to say? Does it bring us selfhood, yes or no? And if I am myself, how can I be so "more than ever": then I was not quite so yesterday? Can I double myself, can I fit into the value added to mine as a kind of surplus value to the asset of an enterprise? We could find a thousand examples of such alogism, of this internal contradiction, which gnaws at all those who speak today about personality. “The pinnacle of this magical litany of personalization is this: personalize your home!”

This "superintelligent" formula (to personalize oneself ... into a person, etc.) reveals the end of the word "history". What all this rhetoric, which struggles with the impossibility of saying what is implied, says is precisely that there is no one. "Personality" as an absolute value, with its indestructible features and specific meaning, such as it was forged by the entire Western tradition in the organizational myth of the Subject, with his passions, will, character or ... his banality, this personality is absent, it is dead, swept away from our functional universe. And it is precisely this absent personality, this lost instance, which seeks to "personalise itself." It is this lost being that is going to be re-constituted abstractly with the help of signs, a multiplied set of differences, Mercedes, a "little blond strand" and a thousand other signs, collected to recreate a synthesized individuality, but mainly to destroy it in total anonymity, since difference is by definition that which has no name.

The real differences that marked individuals made them creatures that contradicted each other. "Personalizing" differences no longer oppose individuals to each other, they are all hierarchized according to an endless ladder and converge through models, depending on which they are cleverly produced and reproduced. Therefore, to differentiate means to draw closer to the model, to define oneself depending on the abstract model, on the fashionable combined image and, because of this, to renounce all real difference, from any singularity that can develop only in a concrete conflict attitude to others and to the world. This is the miracle and tragedy of differentiation. It is in this way that the whole process of consumption is subordinated to the production of artificially multiplied models (like brands of washing powder), where the same monopolistic tendency exists as in other areas of production. There is a monopolistic concentration of difference production.

This formula seems absurd, since monopoly and difference are logically incompatible. If they can be combined, it is precisely because differences do not exist and that, instead of marking a being in particular, they, on the contrary, testify to his obedience to the code, to his integration into a mobile scale of values.

The logic of personalization is the same: it is simultaneously naturalization, functionalization, culturalization, and so on. General Process can be defined historically: monopolistic industrial concentration, destroying real differences between people, makes personalities and products monotonous and at the same time sanctifies the realm of differentiation. It is almost like in religious and social movements: it is because of the outflow of their primary impulse that churches and institutions are established. Here, too, it is precisely because of the loss of differences that the cult of difference is established.

Modern monopolistic production is thus never only the production of goods, it is always also the production of relations and differences. A deep logical unity eventually connects the mega trust and the microconsumer, the monopoly structure of production and the "individualistic" structure of consumption, for the "consumed" difference from which the individual reappears is also one of the key areas of comprehensive production.

Personalization consists in the daily development of LMR (Least Marginal Difference), namely, in the search for small qualitative differences through which style and status are manifested.

Of course, "marginal" differences are themselves subject to a subtle hierarchy. From a luxurious bank with Louis XVI-style safes, serving 800 select clients (Americans who must keep a minimum of $250,000 in their checking account), to the cabinet CEO, decorated in antique or first empire style, to the richly functional arrangement of the offices of senior leaders, from the high prestige of the villas of the poor to the casual class clothes - all these minor differences mean the strictest social distinction. This is the essence of the general law of distribution of distinctive material (a law that no one can ignore). Violations of this code of difference, which, though mobile, is nonetheless a ritual, are suppressed. An example of this is a funny episode with a sales representative who, having bought the same Mercedes as his patron, was soon fired. On appeal, he received damages due to the intervention of the conflict commission, but was not reinstated in his position. Everyone is equal before objects as a use value, but not at all before objects that play the role of insignia, which are deeply hierarchized.

metaconsumption

It is important to understand that the noted personalization, the desire for status and a high standard of living, is based on signs, that is, not on things or goods in themselves, but on differences. Only this makes it possible to explain the paradox of prestigious over-differentiation, which now manifests itself not only through boasting, but through modesty, austerity, obscurity, which always testify to even greater luxury, to an increase in boasting, turning into its opposite, and, therefore, to a more subtle difference.

At the level of signs, there is no absolute wealth or absolute poverty, there is no opposite between the signs of wealth and the signs of poverty: it is only sharp and flat on the keyboard of differences. “Madame, it is at X that you will be the most disheveled in the world.” "This very simple dress has all the features of high fashion."

It is important to understand once and for all the social logic of differentiation, to see in it the basis for analysis and the foundation on which the use of objects as a force of differentiation is built as a result of forgetting use values ​​(and the needs associated with them). Objects act as signs - it is this level that uniquely and specifically defines consumption. Consumption preferences do not represent an improvement in the human capacity to establish a conscious relation between the individual and the differentiating value. They are a means to profitably get in touch with others. On the whole, the valuables have lost all humanitarian significance: their owner makes a kind of fetish out of them, allowing him to maintain his position. This could be illustrated by the example of a mining town in the Quebec taiga, where, as the reporter says, despite the proximity of the forest and the almost negligible use of the car, every family, however, has its own car. “This car, washed, slicked, in which from time to time they make several kilometers around the city bypass road (for lack of other roads), is a symbol of the American way of life, a sign of belonging to a mechanical civilization (and the author compares these luxury limousines with a completely useless bicycle , found in the Senegalese province of a former non-commissioned officer who returned to live in the village). Pure prestige differentiation is at work here, and the "objective" reasons for owning a car basically play only the role of an alibi for a deeper determination.

Difference or correspondence? Traditional sociology notes the "need for the individual to be different," that is, another need in the individual list, and makes it alternate with the opposite need to adapt. At the descriptive psycho-sociological level, they fit together so well that they have been baptized into the "dialectic of equality and difference" or the dialectic of "conformity and independence," and so on. The main logic of differentiation/personalization belongs to the sphere of the encoded sign.

In other words, correspondence does not consist in the equalization of statuses, not in the conscious homogenization of the group (then each individual would be equal to the others); it consists in the possession by all in common of the same code, in the acceptance of the same marks, which make all different from some other group. It is the difference from another group that determines the parity (rather parity than conformity) of the members of the group. It is through differentiation that a consensus is established, and the effect of conformity only follows from it.

Thus, the function of the system of differentiation goes far beyond the satisfaction of needs for prestige. The system is never based on real (single, irreducible to each other) differences between individuals. As a system, it is based precisely on the fact that it excludes its own content, the own being of each (of course, different) and replaces it with a differentiating form that becomes the object of industry and commerce as a distinctive sign. The system excludes all original quality, retaining only the distinctive scheme and its systematic production. At this level, differences no longer have an exclusive character, they not only logically combine with each other in the combinatorics of fashion (as different colors “play” from the proximity of each other), but also combine sociologically: it is the exchange of differences that cements the integration of the group. Differences encoded in this way far from separating individuals, on the contrary, become material for exchange. Here is the main point by virtue of which consumption is determined:

1) not as functional practice with objects, not as possession, etc.,

2) not as a simple function of individual or group prestige,

3) but as a system of communication and exchange, as a code of continuously emitted, received and newly invented signs, as a language.

Differences of birth, blood, religion were never exchangeable: they were not differences dictated by fashion, and concerned with the essential. They have not been "consumed". Modern differences (in dress, in ideology, even in sex) are exchanged within a vast consortium of consumption. There is a socialized exchange of signs. And if everything can thus be exchanged as signs, this is not due to the "liberalization" of mores, but because differences are systematically produced according to an order that integrates them into the field of signs, and since they are interchangeable, then the tension disappears. , the contradiction between them, such as exists between top and bottom, left and right.

The ideological function of the consumption system follows from the definition of consumption as a sphere where a common code of various values ​​and a system of exchange and communication operates.

In modern social systems, social control, the conscious regulation of economic and political contradictions, are based not on great egalitarian and democratic principles, but on this entire system of ideological and cultural values ​​that are scattered and active everywhere. Even the egalitarian values, the values ​​of law, justice, etc., seriously mastered at school and during the period of social apprenticeship. remain relatively fragile and always insufficient for the integration of society, that objective reality, which they too obviously contradict. It can be said that at this ideological level, contradictions can explode again all the time. But the system is much more effectively based on the unconscious mechanism of integration and regulation. And the latter, in contrast to equality, consists precisely in the inclusion of individuals in a system of differences, in a code of signs. Such is culture, such is language, such is “consumption” in the deepest sense of the term. Political effectiveness does not consist in establishing equality and balance where there was a contradiction, but in making difference appear instead of contradiction. The solution of social contradiction is not equalization, but differentiation. Revolutions are impossible at the level of the code - then they would happen every day. These are "fashion revolutions", they are harmless and hinder the implementation of other revolutions.

Supporters classical analysis there is an error in interpretation ideological role consumption. After all, consumption eliminates social danger not by immersing individuals in comfort, pleasure and high level life (this point of view is associated with a naive theory of needs and can only lead to the absurd hope of rebellion due to the spread of poverty among people), but by subjecting them to the unconscious discipline of the code and competitive cooperation at the level of this code, and not by creating more ease life, but, on the contrary, forcing people to accept the rules of the game. It is in this way that consumption can replace all ideologies and take full responsibility for the integration of any society, as hierarchical or religious rituals did in primitive societies.

"The body you dream of is your body." This excellent tautology, which probably ends in a bra of one form or another, collects all the paradoxes of "personalized" narcissism. It is by approaching your ideal standard, that is, by being “truly yourself,” that you better obey the collective imperative and coincide very closely with one or another proposed model. This is diabolical cunning or the dialectics of mass culture.

We see how the consumer society presents itself and is reflected narcissistically in its image. The process extends to each individual without ceasing to be a collective function, and this proves that it does not contradict conformism at all, everything happens on the contrary, as two examples well show. The narcissism of the individual in the consumer society is not the enjoyment of singularity, it is a refraction of collective traits.

This invitation to narcissism is especially powerful for women. But such pressures take their toll through the myth of the woman as a collective and cultural model of self-admiration. Selling a woman to a woman. Thinking that she takes care of herself, perfumes herself, dresses herself, in a word, "creates herself", the woman consumes herself. This corresponds to the logic of the system: not only the attitude towards others, but also the attitude towards oneself becomes a consumed attitude, which should not be confused with the desire to please oneself on the basis of belief in such real qualities as beauty, charm, taste, etc. There is nothing in common here, because in the latter case there is no consumption, but a spontaneous and natural relationship. Consumption is always determined by the replacement of this spontaneous relation by another, mediated by a system of signs. In this case, if a woman consumes herself, then this means that her attitude towards herself is objectified and nourished by those signs that make up the Female model, which is a real object of consumption. It is her woman who consumes, "personalizing". Ultimately, a woman cannot have reasonable confidence in either the fieryness of her eyes or the tenderness of her skin: her inherent properties do not give her any confidence. It is quite different things to appreciate natural properties and to force oneself to appreciate as a result of joining the model and, accordingly, the established code. We are talking here about functional femininity, where all the natural values ​​​​of beauty, charm, sensuality disappear, giving way to the indicative values ​​of naturalness, eroticism, "grace", expressiveness.

Like violence, seductiveness and narcissism are picked up primarily by models that are industrially produced by the media and have become hallmarks (in order for all girls to be able to see themselves as Brigitte Bardot, you need hair or a mouth or some kind of clothing feature to distinguish them, that is, you need one and same for everyone). Everyone finds their own personality in following these patterns.

Functional femininity corresponds to the male model or functional masculinity. Quite naturally, models are offered for both. They grow not from the different nature of the sexes, but from the differential logic of the system. These two models are not descriptive: they organize consumption.

The female model instructs a woman to like herself to a greater extent. Not choice and exactingness, but courtesy and narcissistic solicitude are required of them. In essence, they continue to invite men to play with soldiers, and women to play with dolls with themselves.

An article from my old blog, slightly modified and supplemented. In our time, as before, many are asking the question: is it possible to create an ideal society? Many philosophers, religious figures, politicians, and ordinary people thought about this. Philosophers like Thomas More, Tommaso Campanella, Plato have scribbled millions of kilobytes of electronic assets under the name "Utopia". No wonder “Utopia” is translated as “masto that does not exist”. In this post, I want to fully express my thoughts on this topic, and prove that there really is no ideal society and cannot be. I do not at all consider myself the bearer of absolute truth, but I will give arguments, and I hope that they will be convincing. I'll start right now.

Can there be an ideal society consisting of not ideal people? Each of us is unique in our own way, and this is both our perfection and at the same time our shortcoming. I have already expressed one thought, and I will express it again:

How perfect is a hare in the forest? Enough to run away from a wolf. How imperfect is a hare? Enough so that the wolf could catch up with him. We can say the same about the wolf.

But we are also perfect in what we can and imperfect in what we cannot, and maybe this is not necessary. But the problem is different - can we collectively be an ideal society? Let's say you have a glass of water. Is this a glass of water? Yes. What if you throw in a dollar? It will be a glass of water and a dollar. But the contents of the glass will become already heterogeneous. Similarly, a society that consists not only of perfect people is already imperfect.

You know, it's like that utopia where they say that a society can exist without the poor. How can society exist without the poor? What if I'm an alcoholic, a drug addict and don't want to work? I don't want to, I won't, at least kill me! And I'll be poor, and if I'm not the only one? But at all times and all peoples had such people, and therefore, not a single society (except for primitive ones, they had no property anyway) could not be deprived of poverty. That is, the poor, alcoholics, drug addicts, perverts and other typical citizens - have been and will have a place in life. Is it possible with their presence to create an ideal society? No, no, a thousand times no.
The communists believe that they are moving towards communism - an ideal society in which it will not even be necessary to die. But I repeat - an ideal society is a society that consists of ideal people. And they dreamed of creating ideal people (superhumans) in the Third Reich. Therefore, the communists are pursuing the ideas of... the Third Reich, and Adolf Hitler! I do not blame them at all, but I think that they should consider whether it is worth striving for what is unattainable?
I hope my arguments have convinced you. I am not at all an enemy of romantics and dreamers, and I believe that it is always possible and necessary to make life better, but you should know that there can be no ideal in our mortal World even in theory, and therefore, if we want to live better, we need to start with ourselves , and perfecting your mind and, most importantly, your Soul. This concludes the post, and I wish you all good days and pleasant nights.

P.S. Also, recently in one of the dialogues I remembered the phrase of Vladimir Solovyov:

The task of law is not at all to turn the world lying in evil into the Kingdom of God, but only to ensure that it does not turn into hell before its time.

And I fully share this idea.

Tell me, please, is it possible to create such a society or a state in which everything would be fine with the help of the economy? Is it possible to create heaven on earth?
- In fact, all my life I thought that paradise is a place where the righteous see God. Accordingly, it is very difficult for me to find an equivalent to seeing God in earthly life.
Probably, in the correct formulation, this question may sound like this: “How realistic is it to provide such economic conditions under which the desires and needs of people would be fully satisfied?”. Here, of course, the key problem is what is meant by full measure. Human needs, by definition, cannot be fully satisfied. A person who has satisfied those requests that he has today does not stand still, he has new requests.
What needs to be done to get closer to meeting the needs of people? From the point of view of economic science, this problem has two aspects: it is necessary to ensure the most efficient use of available resources and the optimal distribution of what is the result. In other words, there are two questions: how big a cake can we bake with the available amount of firewood, flour, oil, etc. - and how this cake will be divided among those who wish.
It is important to understand that these issues can only be resolved as a whole. You can’t say: “You first produce, and then we will divide.” To truly create effective system you need to divide the pie in such a way that, on the one hand, the people who consume it are as satisfied as possible, and on the other hand, so that those people who contribute more to the creation of the pie have incentives not to cut next time their efforts, but on the contrary, to increase them. Because if we take too much from them and leave them disproportionately little relative to their contribution, they may just decide that next time they don't have to work so hard, and the pie will be correspondingly smaller.

- Is it possible to create an economy that, relatively speaking, would bake a very big pie?
- Of course, from the point of view of economic science, a whole set of recommendations can be offered to ensure that resources are used efficiently, that they are directed to those projects that give the minimum return, that they are not wasted or stolen. But that's only part of the problem.
Suppose we have produced the maximum possible volume of goods and services with the available resources. Does this mean that the requests of citizens will automatically be satisfied to the maximum extent? Obviously not. There are many countries in the world - and Russia among them - where, in conditions of rapid economic growth, a disproportionate part of its fruits ends up in the hands of political and economic elites. But at the same time, a significant part of the country's citizens cannot satisfy their economic needs even though they honestly, conscientiously and work hard.
This problem is related to value categories such as justice, social protection, assistance to the poor and the needy. These are no longer categories of pure economics.
For many years now there have been disputes in our government as to where to invest the funds of the Stabilization Fund - the additional income received from the export of energy resources. We can ask Finance Minister Kudrin - and he will readily explain why one direction of spending is more profitable or more beneficial for the budget than another. But if you ask him: is it right to send funds to the Stabilization Fund that could save someone's life (for example, by paying for an expensive operation) - here, I'm afraid, Kudrin will not answer anything sensible. To answer this question, one must go beyond a purely economic vision.

- Is there an economy and a distribution system in the world today that would approach the ideal?
- We cannot say that any economy is superior to all others in all criteria, we can only say that some economies provide a higher level of per capita income or a higher level of social benefits than others. However, it is important that people can agree to receive a lower income in exchange for receiving a larger social package. Finland, for example, has a very high level of income tax. But when I asked my Finnish colleague if there was an influential political force in the country that would advocate their reduction, she replied: “No, we have no opposition to this kind of policy. After all, we get a very large social package!”
Now there are three centers in the world with efficient economies - the USA, Western Europe, and East Asia. But I cannot say that the French economy is “closer to ideal” than, say, the economy of Germany or, moreover, Japan or South Korea. Everywhere has its own specificity. AT Western Europe very good system social security. But it undermines the incentives to work. This is not the case, for example, in the USA. When I was in Boston for the first time, I was very struck by the fact that everyone works on the day off. Someone is loading something, shops and restaurants are open, builders are building a bridge… In Europe, this is unthinkable: labor laws are so strict there that an employer will most likely be held liable for such events on a day off. And if you come to Japan, you will also be amazed by a lot of interesting things there. Let's say you see some construction work and a few workers. But at the same time, two will work, and the remaining five will listen carefully to the boss, who will give instructions with an important look. Such a work culture. And at the same time, mind you, everything will be built on time and with high quality.
The merits of an economic system must be judged by its fruits. The results of the three economic systems that I am talking about are very impressive, and we can say that these kinds of economic systems can be oriented.
A very interesting trend is now being observed - a sharp reduction in the period during which there is a doubling of per capita income of citizens in those economies that demonstrate high rates economic growth. Let's take the developed countries who began the transition to what is called industrial economy, late eighteenth - early nineteenth century. In fact, for them, the entire nineteenth century is a discussion about what the industrial revolution brought to the working class: did its situation improve or worsen, if improved, by how much? And the discussions were by no means always peaceful - suffice it to recall Marxism with its radical slogans.
But for countries that have begun the transition to a market economic system after World War II, this period of doubt was much shorter. For example, South Korea and Taiwan have achieved progress that economically developed countries have been making for almost a century, over several decades. When we look at the current economic growth in Asian countries - from communist China to monarchical Thailand - which began the transition to the development of a market system in the 80s and 90s, we see that they have gone through that path. , which South Korea and Taiwan went through in a few post-war decades, for 10-15 years. Growth is slower in Latin America, but look at Chile, where strong efforts to develop a market economy began in the 1970s: compared to its neighbors, the progress is enormous.
At the same time, it is significant that in Asian countries the initial level of income inequality and the level of income inequality in the process of economic growth was significantly lower than, say, in Latin American countries. By what means is this achieved? A purely economic explanation cannot be given here. This problem is not economic, but cultural, ethical and social.

Is it possible to say that one political system provides greater proximity to the earthly paradise than another? For example, that socialism is closer to the ideal than capitalism?
-- You can't say for sure. A huge amount of research done to date shows that there are no universal patterns that would allow us to conclude that a certain set of political institutions - parliamentary democracy, presidential democracy, monarchy, and so on - is objectively the best and provides the maximum the pace of economic development.
It all depends on what set of problems the country has to solve. For solving some problems, in some societies one set of institutions is more effective, and in other societies, a completely different one. We cannot choose, as in a store: please give us this political system, and we will be fine. The same political system produces completely different economic results in different countries.

Caring for the welfare of citizens is the principle of any state, or does the history of the economy know states that would not set themselves such tasks?
-- Improving the well-being of citizens can be considered as a task of the state only in accordance with a certain system of values. You and I believe that it would be good and right if the state as a system of political institutions and actors - the people who work in this system - was focused on achieving such a goal. But neither historically nor logically is this an indispensable task of the state. The state can have any tasks, for example, related to the expansion of its own borders, with the approval of a certain ideology. Let's take Soviet Union: it is very difficult to say that the task Soviet state there was a maximization of the welfare of the citizens of the country ... Even in the Brezhnev period, this caused laughter, and in a period when entire sections of the population were destroyed and sent to places, let's say diplomatically, with a very unfavorable climate - and even more so! Of course, you can declare whatever goals you want, but it is important to be aware of where these slogans contain propaganda and where there is a real desire to improve people's lives.
To say that any state seeks to maximize the well-being of citizens, regardless of the values ​​of its leaders, of the philosophical and ethical concepts in society, is, in my opinion, a serious violation of the facts. In some countries - for example, in Equatorial Guinea - per capita gross domestic product has increased several times in a matter of years simply due to the fact that they began to produce oil in large volumes. But at the same time, the main part of the income goes to the political elites, and ordinary citizens get nothing from this. That is, we look at the numbers in reference books, we see high rates of economic growth, we draw conclusions that everything is successful and healthy there ... But the citizens lived in poverty, and live. In principle, such states do not set the task of improving the well-being of citizens.

So maybe it's heaven on earth?
“It can't be called paradise. There, for example, there are areas for the poor - "favelas". One of them can be seen on the road from the airport to the city. What it is? These are terrible-looking dwellings, literally molded from boards, cardboard, some kind of garbage; it seems that they grow from one another. The space in front of these dwellings is covered with a thick layer of garbage, in some places this garbage condenses into heaps that smolder and smoke stretches from them. And between these heaps crawl children and dogs. To say that this is paradise, I will not agree even under torture.
Another impression - I saw the homeless who spent the night there on the beach. They spread a cardboard pad under the palm trees - probably a TV box - and sleep. Perhaps, given the local climate, this is not dangerous to health. But it's definitely not heaven.
A person can treat life well and be happy even if life is hard and poor. But if this person encounters improvements in these living conditions, then he is likely to say thank you and be very happy about it.

Let's go back to earthly paradise. In your opinion, it turns out that it is impossible to talk about this concept?
-- The first earthly paradise was created for Adam and Eve, but the second earthly paradise is hardly possible. One can, of course, imagine an attempt at some kind of social experiment. But this is a very dangerous thing. We all know well what social experiments based on the slogans of social justice lead to. An additional problem is related to the fact that maximizing the welfare of citizens, even if such a goal is set, is not the only task of the state. We need spending on defense, security, to protect the interests of the country. AT real world sometimes you have to produce "guns instead of butter." It turns out that if we are building an ideal state, then we need to build it on a global scale, and this is already a pure utopia.
In fact, we can only try to formulate recommendations about what policies and what methods of decision-making will allow this particular country to successfully meet the challenge of improving the well-being of citizens. If these recommendations are implemented, we will say that everything is being done in this country so that people live well today, and even better in the future. But will it be paradise, will people be happy? Still, the psychology of people is a complex thing, and people who profess Christian values ​​behave completely differently and expect different things from life than atheists. Economists can only give advice on how to increase the size of the economic "pie" and how to distribute it. This is where their expertise ends. Everything else is the task of those who deal not with wallets, but with souls.

Interviewed by Deacon Fyodor KOTRELEV

Ideal Society June 19th, 2015

In fantastic works we can see how the society of the future could be organized. A huge number of options, human thought managed to bring to the judgment of the reader and viewer. Somewhere the pictures have a tempting look and I want something like this to be embodied in reality.

I want to single out among the various works of this genre Soviet science fiction in particular fantasy novels Ivan Efremov. The communist system is able to bring humanity to a different quality, in which the potential of each would be fully revealed, united by a common goal, people are able to overcome space and time in order to equip the Universe, to promote the highest meaning - development in the upward flow of history. Also, Soviet films painted tempting pictures of the future, where man conquered new frontiers, bringing salvation to other worlds.

Those pictures of the future that Western thought draws could not interest me, perhaps I missed something, and some forms could well be taken as a standard, but they have not yet met me. What is presented as a utopia - ideally and correctly built social system, is actually a dystopia - i.e. that denies the possibility of building an ideal society. This can have only one purpose - to suggest that all utopias are in fact anti-utopias. But for the West, this is understandable: the one who forms the order for these works does not want to lose power over the world, therefore he scares the society with destructive images.

Have you tried to speculate on how an ideal society should be organized? Let not in details, but at least in general terms: “What qualities are characteristic of him? How do people live there? What do they want? How are they behaving? Have you asked yourself these or similar questions?

How I see the ideal society... Its feature it should be that it is able to organize itself to protect against all kinds of negative manifestations caused by any factors. If these are diseases, then it will be guaranteed that it will be possible to cure a person. The intention to save the life and health of a citizen, even while there are no appropriate opportunities to do so. To do this, society, mobilizing, creates conditions and achieves results.To solve the problem of the heat death of the Universe in the limit.

The desire to come to the aid of every suffering person creates that potential sufficient to solve the problem, in which the rescue mission is able to adequately respond to challenges. People accumulate experience about human nature, explore its internal reserves and try to develop them, constantly trying to cope with negatively influencing external causes, i.e. society will be physically and spiritually healthy and ready to respond to any challenges associated with man.

There are other areas where a person faces threats, in this case, resources are mobilized in these areas also in an ideally organized society. They go to great lengths to study the problems sufficiently to develop effective ways control and create suitable means to neutralize harmful factors and the consequences of their impact.

This is how you can describe any area - education, science, culture, production, politics, family, etc.

On the example of one, you can see the whole. If we return to the first example, then reflecting on how this approach will be implemented, we can understand how the system as a whole is arranged. Combining efforts in the most productive way requires a developed collective structure with strong emotional and spiritual ties.

Partnership, brotherhood are not empty words, but the true embodiment of strong friendship, human love, exactingness to oneself for the preservation of a favorable human environment in the team and the whole society. In order to achieve this, people must be brought up on worthy and heroic examples, certain ideals must be instilled in them, and this gives a high culture - books, films, other works of art, they must develop their intellectual and creative potential to solve super-tasks and much more. Also, we must not forget about the cohesion that is formed from an early age and only strengthens over the years. Collectivism is a valuable and important feature of any strong community.

An ideal society cannot take place without a big and lofty idea and an appropriate ideology that unites and unites it. There must be a super-ideology. Here you can also argue what it could be. Building an ideal society in itself could not be such an ideology, it could be a tool to achieve something more, needed by everyone who has realized the meaning of their existence in this world.

Religious people dream of Heaven on Earth, this is very similar to the description of an ideal society. This is one of the common points that includes these people in the orbit of super-ideology. But why build Heaven on Earth? To walk naked through the Garden of Eden? This is not the Paradise we are going to build, right? And the place that will become the starting point for the arrangement of other worlds, the place where a person will reveal his divine nature as a creator. The boundless Universe was given to us to realize our potential, what a wide scope for the implementation of super-scale ideas! Truly, this is worthy of a true creator. The creation of such a creator could be a worthy, super-idea that unites society. The humanistic idea that transforms a person to solve super-complicated tasks seems very attractive to me.

Such an integral image appears in my mind when I begin to think about an ideal society.

In the following publications, I will show how such a society will withstand quite specific monstrous challenges on a planetary scale, using the example of an alternative development of events in the event of a global cataclysm, which can be seen in films of the apocalyptic genre in Hollywood cinema.