Ford praised his system as the one catering for the workers making special emphasis on wages at his factories being higher than the average wage in the industry. However higher wages are connected with higher working pace, quick wear of workforce, the task to attract more and more new workers to substitute those put out of action».
H. Ford adds also:
«In 1914, when the first plan went into effect, we had 14,000 employees and it had been necessary to hire at the rate of about 53,000 a year in order to keep a constant force of 14,000. In 1915 we had to hire only 6,508 men and the majority of these new men were taken on because of the growth of the business. With the old turnover of labor and our present force we should have to hire at the rate of nearly 200,000 men a year — which would be pretty nearly an impossible propositions». (Ch. 8. “Wages”).
It means that with the reorganization of production and the introduction of «Fordizm» employee turnover in one year decreased at least in ten times. It proves that working conditions on «Ford Motors» were better and the wear of labor force was less than at other enterprises.
Industrial labor, especially on the assembly line or in the hot-shops and chemical labs, is certainly not easy in spite of all its organization and payment principles. The latter in many ways depend, for example, on the level of culture in a society and the personnel’s education. At the beginning of the 20th century when «Ford Motors» was created the educational and cultural level of the employees left much to be desired. Illiteracy was a common thing in the USA. (In this aspect Ford writes that under the structure of «Ford Motors» there were created a system of general education and a teenage training system thanks to which a lot of young people became highly skilled workers and decent people). In other words, under different social and cultural conditions the principles of Fordizm would have been different and the labor more humane.
However for those who principally refuses to live in a civilization dependant on the technosphere and the collective nature of technological and control processes, — unless they do not skulk from the work under the pretext of criticizing the existing mode of life, — should be designed a direct program of transition from today’s extremely unhealthy way of life to the biological civilization which activity does not need manufacturing and, therefore, technological processes and manifold means of integrating multiple microeconomy into a single multiindustrial production and consumption system of macroeconomy.
[166] The fact that J.V. Stalin was right in his characteristic of «freedom» under the conditions of bourgeois «democracy» and market liberalism, could be seen at first hand by the millions of citizens of the former USSR after the reformations of 1991.
[167] «When there is an economical freedom — there is a freedom of creative work». – Vladimir Putin, March 13, 2002, during his conference with the editorial board of “Izvestia” on the occasion of its encaenia. (It was founded in 1917 by the Petrograd Committee of Workers and Soldiers’ Deputies right after the February Revolution, was the mouthpiece of the Soviet power).
[168] But as far as it does not answer to everybody's live ideals both the “elite”-corporate «perestroika» and «democratization» proved to be a deadlock and what's more: are doomed to fail. Because inside the Russian civilization acts an internal conceptual power which is alternative to the global witch-demonic power.
[169] Trotskyism in its essence is a schizophrenic, aggressive politically active psyche, which may be disguised as any kind of ideology or sociological doctrine. And psychical Trotskyism is historically older than Marxism in which it found its powerful expression. Trotskyism as a psychical phenomenon is characterized by the non-coincidence of proclamation and dissembling, results and promises.
Therefore the «democrats» by whose efforts the USSR was destroyed in order as it was said to build a «normal bourgeois democracy and civil society» are Trotskyites if to judge by their psychological organization. For more details see the work of Internal Predictor of the USSR “The Sorrowful Legacy of Atlantis” (“Trotskyism is «Yesterday», but not «Tomorrow»”).
[170] That is why they insisted that socialist production relations cannot develop in a capitalist society and transition to socialism is possible only by revolution under their command. And revolutionary muddle helped the masters and higher-ups to clear out those social groups which could have become an obstacle in establishing an undivided tyrannical power under the slogans of «victory of socialism». It was this very strategy that made VChK, the Committee on extraordinary situations (the early form of KGB) in many places during the first years of soviet power a prototype of Hitler's Gestapo but in its Hebrew-Jewish variant.
[171] For a more detailed analyses of the bankruptcy of philosophy and political economy of Marxism see the works of Internal Predictor of the USSR “Dialectics and Atheism: Two Incompatible Essences”, “The Brief Course...”, “Dead Water” in the editions starting from 1998.
[172] Probably because he honestly believed that his heirs suit as professionals better for the goals of management and development of «Ford Motors» in the close perspective. Moreover it was done under the psychological pressure of historically developed and legally formed institute of private ownership over means of production and the absence of legal forms of socialization (in the above discussed sense) of private property on means of production.
In connection with this question it is important to draw a parallel with the USSR where under the formal legal domination of public ownership over the means of production a tendency was evident to hand over the management by the founders of firms to their children. The sons of aircraft designers A.N. Tupolev, A.I. Mikoyan, the close relatives of many outstanding figures in soviet science and engineering occupy the leading posts in the firms founded by their elder relatives. It is for everyone to decide himself to what extent this practice is efficient.
The heirs are not always the virtuosos as the founders were. Foe example in 1957 «Ford Motors» managed by the heirs of H. Ford found itself in a very difficult situation. A mass production of a new model was launched. It was called Edzel after a deceased by that time Edzel Ford, son of Henry Ford. According to the opinion of the American historians of automobile industry the quality of the model was very low and the design - defiantly forbidding. As a result a lot of units of this model produced in 1957 never found their market, turned into scrap metal and were left rusting for decades in the backyards of the independent dealers (wholesalers) who invested in them.
There is a point of view that a soviet supersonic passenger liner Tu-144 was not a success because Alexander Tupolev, who was the son of Andrey Tupolev, became the head of the project under his father's protection and thus in his career-making pushed aside those probably more able and creatively gifted but without such powerful protection.
During the years of reforms and privatization many of such heirs by kinship became large shareholders — owners of privatised state property that was initially in juridical form a national public property.
[173] Though legislation and the enforcement accompanying it may partially contribute to the formation in a society of corresponding to it morality and world understanding. Yet one should bear in mind that legislation as it is, being one of the expressions of a definite conception of life organization, is dependent on the content of this conception and may benefit to the moral development as well as moral degradation of society.