Resume: The article attempts to examine the October Revolution in Russia from the point of view of the Pareto law and the theory of forced labor. It is concluded that this coup was anti-market, an attempt to slow down the development of the country on the way of building a market economy. He was supported by the mass of the population, which had a low level of social adaptation, that is, mediocrity, in whose interests, like the majority of the population, the managers who came to power in 1917 were forced to act.
Abstract: The article attempts to consider the October revolution in Russia from the point of view of the Pareto law and the theory of coercion to work. It is concluded that this coup was anti-market, an attempt to slow down the development of the country on the road to building a market economy. It was supported by the mass of the population, which had a low level of social adaptation, the mediocrity, for which, as the majority of the population, the administrators who came to power in 1917 had to act.
Key words: revolution, mediocrity, market economy, forced labor, feudal remnants, "Pareto's law".
Key words: revolution, mediocrity, market economy, forced labor, feudal vestiges, "Pareto law".
This is what the cover of this edition looks like. If any of the VO site visitors will be interested - just write, I will send it to you by mail, even for free. I no longer need it - they wrote it down in the rating, in the report on science - too …
The theme of the revolution, well, the one that for many years in Soviet Russia was called the Great October Socialist Revolution or "Great October", in the minds of most people has largely turned into a set of clichés or stereotypes, an attempt on which is perceived by them as the destruction of foundations. In addition, as a result of this social upheaval, many people have received quite definite benefits and they do not at all want their right to these benefits (as well as the rights of their children!) At least in principle to be disavowed. It is for the same reason that many documents on the same Great Patriotic War are still classified until 2045, that is, by the time all its direct participants die and the truth about it will not offend anyone personally.
However, the situation with the revolution is somewhat different. In order to consider it, the achievements of modern science, or rather the sciences, are enough, and archives are practically not required. But to begin a detailed study of this phenomenon should still not with scientific theories, but with fiction, an example taken from which explains a lot better than psychology, sociology and economics. What is this example? An excerpt from the novel by George Orwell "1984", and the passage is very, very revealing: “Throughout recorded history and, apparently, from the end of the Neolithic, there were people of three sorts in the world: upper, middle and lower. The groups were subdivided in a variety of ways, bore all sorts of names, their numerical proportions, as well as mutual relations changed from century to century; but the fundamental structure of society remained unchanged. Even after colossal shocks and seemingly irreversible changes, this structure was restored, just as a gyroscope restores its position, wherever it is pushed. The goals of these three groups are completely incompatible. The goal of the higher ones is to stay where they are. The purpose of the middle is to swap places with the highest; the goal of the lower ones - when they have a goal, because for the lower ones it is characteristic that they are crushed by hard work and only occasionally direct their gaze beyond the limits of everyday life - to abolish all differences and create a society where all people should be equal. Thus, throughout history, a struggle flares up again and again, in general terms it is always the same. For a long time, the higher ones seem to hold firmly in power, but sooner or later a moment comes when they lose either faith in themselves, or the ability to govern effectively, or both. Then they are overthrown by the middle ones, who have attracted the lower ones to their side by playing the role of fighters for freedom and justice. Having achieved their goal, they push the lower into their former slavery position and become higher themselves. In the meantime, new averages peel off from one of the other two groups, or from both, and the struggle begins anew. Of the three groups, only the lowest never succeed in achieving their goals, even temporarily. It would be an exaggeration to say that history was not accompanied by material progress. " And the fact that this is so is hardly worth proving: the history of all revolutions that shook human society is based on this.
Now, however, before we go any further, consider how people on planet Earth got involved in work. Previously, it was believed that depending on the forms of ownership, people had a primitive communal society, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist and … the pinnacle of social progress - socialism, the first phase of communism. However, the concept of ownership is very ephemeral. So, in the era of slavery there were many free and semi-free peasants, and under feudalism and capitalism, there were real slaves! This means that this is not the point, but the attitude of people to work. If we look at the history of mankind from this angle, it will become obvious - there were only three eras: the era of natural compulsion to work, when life itself forced a person to work, the era of non-economic compulsion to work, when a person (slave or serf) was forced to work using violence to him, and, finally, an era of economic coercion, when a person may not even work and live in principle, but life is not very good. And in order to “live well,” he has to sell his ability to work in the market. That is, the system of non-economic coercion is … yes, the system of market mechanisms for managing the economy, which is well known to all of us today.
The adherents of the "Great October" tirelessly insisted that the revolution liberated the masses of Russia from feudal survivals in the form of tsarist autocracy and landlordism, and this is indeed so. But did she free him from all the remnants of non-economic compulsion to labor? If you look closely, it turns out that there are quite enough of such remnants.
To begin with, the abolition of landlord property is called the main achievement of the Bolshevik coup. But read the "Decree on Land"! The land received was forbidden to sell, donate, exchange, and even cultivate it with hired labor! That is, the land was withdrawn from the sphere of market relations, and this is the level of the economy of Ancient Egypt, when all the land of the Egyptians belonged to the state in the same way, and the peasants had only the right to cultivate it. True, this action was immediately covered by a beautiful left-wing phrase that the land is now common. But overall, it means … a draw. What, by the way, V. Mayakovsky wrote very well in his time: "You can die for the land for your own, but how to die for the common?" (although further there will be no doubt, but a panegyric of the victorious red power!).
And now about the benefits of this decree … He, in fact, did not give the poor people anything, they did not need land, but livestock, tools and … treatment for general drunkenness "from grief". The fists did not live on the ground, but robbing their fellow villagers. And only the middle peasants did the revolution give what they wanted. They did not have enough land, they had something to cultivate it, which is why it was they who supported it at first. This stratification was very well shown by V. I. Lenin in his work "The Development of Capitalism in Russia", written by him back in 1899, and it remained so until the spring of 1918. Then the needs of the poor were satisfied at the expense of the kulaks, that is, the rural bourgeoisie, but what then happened as a result of all the perturbations of the Civil War? Haram farming was again allowed, in addition to the middle peasants, kulaks and the poor appeared again, that is, three groups: upper, middle and lower, which no revolution can destroy.
Well, and now about the goals of the development of human civilization … They are, by means of the development of the means of production, to destroy the peasantry as a class, since the peasant is not a market economy by nature. He produces mainly for himself, but sells only a little, that is, he cannot feed the growing population of the planet. It can only be a hired agricultural worker who does not personally own anything.
And this is the beginning of the article … As you can see, all the publishing indices are in place.
Yes, but what has happened in Russia now? And there, after 1917, a communal system was formed, devoid of market land relations, that is, a step back was taken in economic relations between people. Fear of the market and the desire to win over the masses of the backward peasantry to his side led to the fact that Lenin even sacrificed the Bolshevik program for the municipalization of the land, taking as a basis the Socialist-Revolutionary plan (quite understandable to the peasants - "take and divide everything!"), Which at one time and criticized. That is, semi-feudal order, not surprisingly, remained in the USSR, and after 1929 they strengthened even more. Then it was possible to intensify the work of the peasants by introducing the collective farm system, but this was not a market at all, but an exclusively non-economic system of forced labor, supplemented by the cannibalistic slogan: "He who does not work, he does not eat!"
However, in order to provide support for their undertakings, the "middle", who overthrew the power of the "old higher" and themselves became "higher", had to give something to the "lower", and they gave them something that these very "lower" they understood well: equalization in the sphere of consumption and equalization in the sphere of labor. Again, all this was covered up with many beautiful phrases, but the truth behind them was the same: mediocrity had a certain level of prosperity guaranteed to them, but for those who stood out from the general level … increased prosperity was provided only if they worked for society, that is, again, they provided the surrounding mediocrity, a huge average mass … of former peasants who migrated to the cities in the process of "de-peasantization" of Soviet society. In 1925, the number of industrial workers was 1.8 million. And already in 1940 - 8.3 million. The number of women employed in industry increased from 28% in 1929 to 41% in 1940. cities with their own paternalistic culture and simplistic outlooks on life.
However, the growth of the industry itself, the well-being of free citizens of the country, after all, was also largely ensured by the already completely slave labor - the labor of forced prisoners of the GULAG. Now people receive various bonuses and higher wages for working in northern conditions. Well, the prisoners of Stalin's camps mined coal, tungsten and molybdenum in mines, felling wood in the taiga and … received only gruel and hope to somehow survive. It is not for nothing that serious economic problems for the USSR began precisely after the closure of this "production base of socialism."
As for property, by this time it was practically all concentrated in the hands of the state and was controlled by an army of officials appointed by it. That is, in the face of an external (and an internal threat!) Russia received a mobilization type of economy based on state-monopoly property, restriction of market relations and non-economic compulsion to labor. So it turns out that, according to its results, the "October coup" led to the restoration of pre-market, feudal relations in the country, covered by loud left-wing phrases about democracy, social justice and socialism. But not a single enterprise was the property of his workers, they did not choose its director, did not resolve issues of production and wages. It is clear that the state could not help but stimulate good workers, but it could not really punish the bad ones - "class brothers". It didn't make much sense to work really well, above the standard set - an apartment, a dacha, a car, even Kalashnikov himself could not "jump", although his machine gun was produced in millions of copies.
Meanwhile, a new “elite” began to stand out from the “middle”, which wanted more freedom, more prosperity, and for this - more power. This process is objective and it is impossible to stop it, just as it is impossible to stop the rotation of the “wheel of history”. The excess of mediocrity in all areas simply could not continue to ensure the development of the state and society in the face of new political, economic and technological challenges, which ultimately led to the events of 1991, which were simply inevitable, as the situation is inevitable when at a certain moment the "average" necessarily displace the "higher".
In addition, one should always remember about the "Pareto law", according to which absolutely everything in the Universe and in society is divided in a ratio of 80 to 20. In accordance with this position, 80% of property always belongs to 20% of owners. Their social affiliation changes, but the proportion itself never changes. That is, 80% are always doomed to work for these twenty, be they feudal feudal lords, capitalist magnates, or … "red directors" who came out of the mass of workers and peasants. That is, it is unambiguous that no abrupt changes in the social system will and cannot lead to anything positive. 80% of the property, one way or another, will still remain in the hands of 20% of the population! There is only one reason - 80% are not smart enough, not socialized enough, educated, that is, they represent the same mediocrity. But if the market system relies on 20% of its population, then the so-called "Soviet system" relied on the majority - on 80%, and therefore inevitably one way or another was doomed to failure. 80% are strong in their numbers, "crush the masses", but 20% in any case will catch up sooner or later … They made up for theirs in 1991 …
It is clear that mediocrities were forced to let individual talented individuals go upstairs, who were needed there to maintain the functioning of the state of their interests. A bad plane won't fly, a bad tank won't fight a lot, a machine gun won't fire. However, talented people were not allowed to act in their personal interests. They were legally ordered to be “like everyone else,” for example, to work without fail, that is, to be at the mandatory level of mass mediocrity and only slightly advocate for it.
Here it is necessary to recall the statement of V. I. Lenin that Russia “is the most petty-bourgeois country of all European countries. A gigantic petty-bourgeois wave swept over everything, suppressed the class-conscious proletariat not only by its numbers, but also ideologically, that is, infected, captured very wide circles of workers with petty-bourgeois views on politics”[1]. At the same time, he had in mind the events of the spring and summer of 1917. But caused by the revolutionary process, this wave did not go anywhere after the October Revolution. As a result, people from this “wave” had to pay the bills for their support of the Bolshevik regime, to adapt to its mentality, since it was simply impossible to change it due to the mass character of the petty-bourgeois environment in Russia.
Thus, according to its consequences, we may well characterize the "Great October" as an anti-market and semi-feudal coup d'etat, forcedly carried out by the leadership of the Bolshevik Party in the interests of the huge semi-literate peasant mass of Russia, which in the end suffered the most from it! That is, from the point of view that only market relations are the most rational, we see that in 1917, the country took a step back for 74 years.
At one time, Lenin wrote: "… It is the city and in general factory and industrial workers who are able to lead the entire mass of the working people …" both in the revolutionary transformation of society and in the creation of "… a new, socialist, social system, in the whole struggle for a complete destruction of classes"
[2]. But, no workers managed to change the structure of "higher", "middle" and "lower", they did not manage to build any "socialism", and as a result, the development of Russian society, despite all the spilled streams of blood, returned to circles his own, to the economic system of compulsion to work: if you want to work, you don't want to, and the one who is smarter than others, the one whose work is more in demand, or has a greater social significance, as a result, he gets more than others …
