Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Retro. Fake `private' is not better than fake `government-owned'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Retro. Fake `private' is not better than fake `government-owned'

    Retro. Fake `private' is not better than fake `government-owned'

    August 31 2013

    As we know, the core of Napoleon's constitution is the slogan
    `liberty, equality, property'. The two traditional concepts are joined
    by the third, more materialistic, which is one of major driving forces
    for the development of humanity. Like also during Napoleon times,
    systemic changes are taking place in a number of countries of today's
    world, and in this regard, the issue of ownership becomes the most
    important matter. Extreme and self-forgetful liberals say, let's hurry
    up to get rid of this damned state property. I do not think that such
    psychology is of market and liberal, the market, perhaps, assumes
    equal respectful attitude towards all forms of ownership. If we really
    want to be like the developed countries, the thinking should be
    diametrically opposite, any ownership is sacred, and any encroachment
    against it should be viewed as a heinous crime. Then, the property
    that is called `government owned', either good or bad, has sustained
    us for decades. It is another matter that in early 80-s it finally
    became clear that this form of ownership is ineffective and leads to
    the country's economic collapse. To the point, still Andropov
    understood it, the spiritual father of Gorbachev. Consequently, the
    KGB leader was braver in his economic programs that today's
    communists. But the whole problem is that during the communist times
    the property was not `government-owned' at all. The phrase `People's
    owned property' is a nonsense, there is no product in the world,
    ranging from a large factory and ending with a bunch of mixed greens
    that belongs to `all people' or `worker-peasant and the public
    intelligentsia.' Over the centuries, everything always has its master
    who enjoys the benefits of the product belonging to the latter. The
    owner for 70 years was the Central Committee with its bureaucratic
    apparatus and various infrastructures. The Communists' `people's owned
    property', thus is a bluff. But often today's `private-owned property'
    is also bluff. It actually very rarely belongs to private persons, the
    goods under the name `private-owned' or `government-owned' are still
    largely in the hands of a state bureaucracy. The fake `private' is as
    inefficient, and creates as much opportunities for abuse, as in the
    case of fake `government-owned'. And, here, other defects are
    followed. For instance, the fact that there is a `right to call' left
    from the past regime still operates in our enlightened `liberal'
    century, the state official is calling the private manufacturer and
    the banker and dictates who should get the goods or credits. So, in
    my deep understanding, the sense of privatization is not a change of a
    signboard rather than formation of a real business (government-owned
    or private). There is no other way.

    Aram ABRAHAMYAN 24.07.1996

    Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/08/31/156239/

Working...
X