[152] In order not to make it uselessly spent a state should have an articulate — historically long-term — strategy of global policy. Global policy is a strict term. If home policy is a system of measures in carrying out the goals of a ruling class within the jurisdiction of its state, foreign policy is a system of measures in carrying out the goals of a ruling class outside the jurisdiction of the state, then global policy is a system of measures in carrying out the goals in relation to the whole mankind, the whole global civilization within as well as outside its jurisdiction.
[153] Meyer Rothschild expressed its attitude towards the political system: «Allow me to control the country’s money and I don’t care who writes its laws».
As far as the laws word the conception of society’s self-control the freedom of usury suits the corporation in any state juridical forms: whether it is capitalism on the basis of freedom of free enterprise and the right of private property over the means of production or «socialism» with a moderate loan interest and the predominance of state and cooperative-kolkhoz property over the means of production — it is all the same.
A morally healthy society’s reaction on such parasitic autocratic claims should be insuperable.
[154] It would be foul to demand him alone to write a treatise on the theory and practice of planning and controlling national economy on the planned basis while simultaneously evolving several mathematical theories and at the same time being the head of state. The Academy of Sciences of the USSR and academies of the republics as well as university science were the institutions intended for the detailed development of versatile problems in the interests of the society.
But they proved their lack of efficiency and failure in the field of social studies both in the time of Stalin and during the following years. Many still lack it today.
[155] Though it isn’t so: look the beginning of ch. 4.3.
[156] This — is a key point to solving the problem if one knows the theory of similarity of multiindustrial production systems and understands how a long-term demographically grounded planning should be realized. The range of production is determined in each historical period by:
the volume of energy (biogeneous and technogeneous) put into production and consumption;
the coefficients of efficiency of technological and organizational processes comprising the production process;
the dominant social morality expressed in the distribution of accessible energetic potential between the branches of multiindustrial production and consumption system, including the distribution between the branches producing the means of production (which is the guarantee of the production’s complicity to the social needs in future) and the branches producing the end-product.
[157] The words ‘revenues’ and ‘expenditures’ are obviously used in a broader sense than the financial gains and losses in the accountant’s balance at the end of quarter.
[158] Here H. Ford means actually the demographic dependence of morally healthy needs of people and opposes them to the perverted degraded parasitic needs. The significance of division of all needs into two classes (demographically grounded and degraded parasitic) was discussed in Digression 6.
However Ford does not distinguish the two alternative classes and therefore is not precise in terms.
[159] Its reasons are discussed in Digression 6 that dealt with the characteristics of «market mechanism» as a regulator of the inter-industry proportions in production and distribution according to the principle of the priority of satisfying degraded parasitic needs. The latter is produced by the crowd-“elitist” society in which the non-humane types of psychology and the corresponding types of morality and ethics dominate.
[160] This is completely true about the modern Russian system formed by the efforts of reformers during the period of Boris Yeltsin’s presidency.
[161] The answer to this question is a key to solving all social and economic problems. Yet in the quoted book H. Ford did not go into the question at large. In his other work — “The International Jew” — he also could not give a reliable analysis of it because he did not know many facts of the world history, which determined incomprehension of its general course in the past and the possible development in the future.
[162] However the businessmen in the USA did not follow it. There is not much hope than Russian businessmen in their majority will follow this example by their own comprehension and good will — but only under the pressure of objective independent circumstances amounting to the threat to their own lives and the lives of their heirs.
In his conversation with H. Wells on 25th July, 1934 J.V. Stalin named a reason for this quite definitely:
«You, Mr. Wells, seem to proceed from the supposition that all people are good. As for myself I do not forget that there are many evil people. I do not believe in the goodness of bourgeoisie (…)».
Long ago Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius expressed himself similarly on the same question: «It is insanity to think that evil people do not make evil».
[163] It is, actually, a killing description of a culturally developed “elite” whose income is mainly unearned and comes from abusing the possibility to claim exclusively high payment due to the free market regulation of a labor market in a crowd-“elitist” society. It proves Marcus Aurelius’ point.
[164] Named by H. Ford above: mutual admiration the idle and choosy higher society’s own high level of culture.
[165] H. Ford then continues:
«If a man cannot earn his keep without the aid of machinery, is it benefiting him to withhold that machinery because attendance upon it may be monotonous? And let him starve? Or is it better to put him in the way of a good living? Is a man the happier for starving? If he is the happier for using a machine to less than its capacity, is he happier for producing less than he might and consequently getting less than his share of the world's goods in exchange?
I have not been able to discover that repetitive labor injures a man in any way. I have been told by parlor experts that repetitive labor is soul- as well as body-destroying, but that has not been the result of our investigations. There was one case of a man who all day long did little but step on a treadle release. He thought that the motion was making him one-sided; the medical examination did not show that he had been affected but, of course, he was changed to another job that used a different set of muscles. In a few weeks he asked for his old job again. It would seem reasonable to imagine that going through the same set of motions daily for eight hours would produce an abnormal body, but we have never had a case of it. We shift men whenever they ask to be shifted and we should like regularly to change them—that would be entirely feasible if only the men would have it that way. They do not like changes which they do not themselves suggest».
It is his answer to the calumnious accusations put forward against him in the article «Fordizm» from the “Big Soviet Encyclopedia” and quoted in part 3:
«At the same time Fordizm intensified labor to an unprecedented extent, made it dull and mechanical. Fordizm counts on turning workers into robots and requires an extreme nervous and physical exertion. Compulsory pace of work set by the assembly line made it necessary to substitute piece-work payment by payment by the hour. The word «Fordizm» like «Tailorizm» before it became synonymous to exploitation of workers characteristic of the monopoly stage of capitalism which is bent on increasing profits of capitalist monopolies…