What do we want?
I was born in this country, Belarus, and I am not going to leave
anywhere! My "roots", hundreds relatives, four children are
here. My children and me, we shall live in Belarus. I want it to be a
worthy life, and I shall do all possible for all citizens of Belarus
to be able to live in this country and to earn as much money as people
in the civilised countries do.
The time makes me firmly believe that it is impossible to name
processes happened in Belarus progressive in any way. The today's
policy of the government will never bring any positive results to
improve life of people.
I offer my point of view on the processes happened in Belarus and I
invite people who are really indifferent to the native land, Belarus,
people who will not be afraid to express their point of view despite
of possible reprisals on the part of authorities to discuss this
problem with me.
Belarus today, figuratively speaking, is in a bog. There is an "auto
line" on which the civilised countries go forward nearby, but our
"helmsman" is persistently continuing to move to a deeper
bog. Our "helmsman" is very active, persistent and insistent
but not to remove Belarus on "auto line" and to continue
further a way through this bog as this way seems to him as the only
correct and he never doubts of his correctness.
MASS-MEDIA controlled by A. G. Lukashenko do not allow the potential
candidates to answer questions: лWhat do they want? How do they see
the future of Belarus?╗
As the state MASS-MEDIAS very frequently lie to the citizens I shall
try to prove to the compatriots, that A. G. Lukashenko is not right
and the way he has chosen is a way to anywhere on simple examples. I
shall not try to describe in details how it is necessary to remove
Belarus from crisis, you see, the purpose of my article is to draw a
strategic direction - where it is necessary to move. This direction is
an activisation of the human factor, change of mutual relation of man
and state, man and society. It is a problem not having solved which,
in my opinion, Belarus will never be removed from crisis.
In Belarus, if we compare it with the majority of the civilised
countries, the problems of the country are not openly discussed and
that is, certainly, a tragedy of our people. People are persistently
being persuaded that only A. G. knows how to remove the country from
crisis, the idea that the government of A. G. has moved Belarus far
forward in the development for 7 years. It is very difficult to search
for the truth in such conditions when A. G. does not hear and does not
want to hear the arguments of the opponents, at the same time and some
figures from opposition fall up to vulgar insults. A situation when
one part (the governmentТs MASS-MEDIAS) criticise positions which
differ from governmentТs ones and another (BPF) represent a head of
Zimovsky put out from another's fly does not promote fruitful search
of the truth.
Belarus has become a hostage of erroneous representations of A. G.
about ways of development of Belarus. Mistakes, unfortunately, are
very expensive for the people of Belarus.
Now some scientists argue on how many years Belarus has lagged behind
the civilised countries in the development, on 40 or 50 years, but,
perhaps, the most terrible thing is not at this, the most terrible
thing is that the management of the country is not going to reduce
this break having announced that a present rate is the only correct
and constant. In his speeches A. G. has repeatedly regretted about
disorder of the Soviet Union, recollected times of power of the state
which has not existed any more. Having tried to revive the Soviet
system, even in the scale of Belarus, he practically completely
renewed the communist system of boarding and management.
Certainly, the present ideologists from the authority will not agree
with me, but in the 20th-century the communist system has proved its
inefficiency. The Soviet Union was disorganised not because of the
plot of the political figures (Eltsin, Shushkevich and Kravchuk) but
because such system was doomed. As t is known before 1914 in the
imperial Russia a class of the proprietors (capitalists, landowners,
intelligentsia etc.) was not numerous, about 1 %.
However after the revolution some years of the civil war were required
to break the resistance of "exploiter" classes. Then they
talked about the redistribution of the property, and the proprietor
always protected and will protect the property by all possible ways.
Frequently, the proprietor needed to be killed to select the property.
In August 1991 in Moscow during the putsch it was found out that there
is nobody to protect socialism because everything around belongs to
everybody, so itТs nobody's. Revolutions "back" in many
countries, including Moscow, passed bloodless or with small blood, in
the due time they began to be called "velvet" revolutions. I
think that the same, eventually, will take place in Belarus, it is a
matter of time.
So, one of essential lacks of the communist system is its weak
stability, that concerns to Belarus. In Belarus the state system is
based on one authoritarian person, so it can be disorganised within
one day.
The lacks of the communist system were more precisely vivid on the
example of two German states, Germany and GDR. They had practically
equal resources for the development, but in the course of time, it has
became more and more clear that the communist system loses the
economic competition to western market economy. The serious political
figures spoke about the increasing break in a standard of living in
the beginning of the 70-s. Already then many researchers emphasised
that the rates of growth in the countries of the social camp left much
to be desired, they really did not coincide with those that that in
due time were "drawn" by N. S. Khrushchev in the program of
construction of communism. A. N. Kosygin, a member of the political
bureau, tried to speak about this, in due time, but he then resigned
very quickly, and about it they had forgotten for tens years.
Then there is a question why had communism lost economic competition
if patriotism and fidelity to communist ideals were so strongly
developed?
To answer this question, it is necessary to address to the steadiest
characteristics of man as if he is a product of evolutionary
development. During the evolution man had to overcome a lot of
obstacles, to struggle with elements of nature, with animals around
him, with fellow-tribesmen. Those who failed to win the struggle with
nature and could not adapt to life in those conditions died. Within
several million of years nature selected the most viable individuals,
nature generated man in his today's condition. If there had no been
this severest selection, there would have no been today's man.
Certainly, some religious enough figures have completely different
point of view on the origin of man, but we have objective data (archaeological
finds) proving the validity of the evolutionary origin of man.
There is a question: лAnd how are the evolution of man and lacks of
the communist system connected?╗ However these two questions which,
on the first sight, are not connected with each other, are closely
connected. The matter is that communism in itself contradicts to the
human nature, its evolutionary essence. Communism assumes equality,
everyone remembers the basic principle of communism: лEveryone should
give an ability, everyone should get what he needs╗. Figuratively
speaking: лYou has made as you can, leave it but take as much as you
want╗. The evolution assumes struggle and inequality. The abilities
of each man are individual and can not be basically equal, but Carl
Marx seriously believed that after the revolution communism, general
equality and happiness would come. After the 1917 revolution the
communes which, however, very quickly showed their inconsistency were
created. As the historians then have written: the communes Уhave
eatenФ themselves. Lenin and Stalin all the time "corrected"
Marxist science and the result was the totalitarian mode constructed
on compulsion and on bones of people. Why did the communism according
to Marx give the misfire at once? Because man was torn off from the
results of the work, he lost the stimulus to fruitful work. The
special man who would work irrespectively whether he compensated for
the job or not was necessary to work in conditions of communism (general
equality). The communist system of education tried to create such a
man in any way. But it is impossible to change qualities of man which
have been generated for millions years during rather short, in
evolutionary sense, interval of time. Having understood that people
will not work without payment Stalin has created rigid system of
compulsion. Executions, prisons are basic methods which help to make
people work. In such a system one should deserve the right to live,
such system then will be called as "cannibal" as it could
not function without executions and prisons. When there was a period
of stagnation (period of government of Brezhnev), the repressive
device reduced the revolutions. There was a situation when лStalin
whip╗ was absent as well as stimulus to work. One could work a lot
but the results were equal for all. During the stagnation the majority
of the population who was able to work pretended that they work hard
and the state pretended that it paid for their work. In the course of
time played a fatal role in disorder of all communist system and the
Soviet Union. The majority of the population of the communist
countries could not be hidden that their standard of living is much
lower than in West. Then the ideologists of communism approved that
the capitalist system is a system which makes people work hard, it
puts to the man much higher requirements than the socialist ones at
which it was possible to work somehow. All this was discussed as the
advantage of the socialist system. Actually the socialist system
decomposed people, many of them had forgot how to work really.
Everywhere the most initiative people intended to leave for West. The
modern researchers mark that when the citizens in the former countries
of the socialist camp were offered a well-paid job where it was
necessary to work hard, frequently they refused from such a work and
preferred the unemployment benefit. In the future Belarus will solve
this painful problem, though the citizens of Belarus who has visited
foreign countries to earn money, already know how people work there
and in our country, how the employees pay there and in our country.
Summarising the facts mentioned above, it is necessary to note that,
in general, the market economy shows higher requirements to each
member of the society and this leads to more effective work. The main
lack of communism which contradicts to the human nature is the general
equality: divide all fifty-fifty and nobody will work. In West they
frequently speak about the society of equal opportunities which
assumes a material inequality. From this point of view it is necessary
to consider a material inequality not as the evil but as conditions
for development and progress.
At the second All-Belorussian national assembly A. G. read the report:
лFor strong and prospering Belarus!╗ I think that any of the
potential candidates to the post of the President of Belarus also
stands for strong and prospering Belarus. The difference is in the way
for realisation which will be chosen by a candidate. As to A. G. here
is everything clear, he used to command over everybody and everything,
he will continue to do this. But a thoughtful man has a question: лArenТt
7 years a too large term for a man, president to promise a lot, to
command a lot but not to do anything real╗. In the report he shared
all parts: who should milk, who Ц plough, who Ц make something.
The senior generation remembers that in the program of construction of
communism of N. S. Khrushchev everything was also shared, but the
dreams did not come true. We would like to ask A. G. that he will say
in 5 years. Will something prevent again to a bad dancer? Objectively,
if we change nothing in a present rate, so there is no bases to wait
for the salary in 250 dollars. It can be if the citizens of Belarus
will begin to work in another way. But if A. G. is not going to change
anything, it is a simple deceit.
I do not want to analyse the report in details, for me it was already
done by other analysts, I shall only say that it resembles a vegetable
salad where the basic component is the person of such a clever,
irreplaceable, careful └.├. Other additives are just to improve the
taste of this, in general, inedible "product" with smells
bad. Probably, it will satisfy any half-witted stalinist, but not a
thoughtful Belorussian. Notice, that the report is filled with the
idea that he, A. G. will find any "means", will sell or will
start something, he will find money and he will raise the salary.
Again, the senior generation should recollect times of N. S.
Khrushchev when the corn was greatly introduced everywhere, he hoped
with its help to solve all problems of agriculture. As though it was
so simple: found any "universal remedy" and communism was
constructed. Communism, however, quickly has flown "near by".
Let's remember BrezhnevТs times and his famous: лThe Economics
should be economic╗. Everyone read and began to "save", but
in such a way that then everything was disorganised.
Let's address to the report of A. G. at the second All-Belorussian
national assembly. There is not an idle question. How is A. G. going
to solve the problems which have collected in the state? At the
expense of what is he going to increase the salary in 2005 up to 250
dollars? Let's reject all verbal peel, we shall take the essence.
We read: лSo, in the following 5 years, I think, we do not have the
necessity to break the usual system of priorities. Three priorities,
which we have defined as basic: it is export, habitation, foodstuffs
are supposed to be major directions of activity on forthcoming five
years. The tools to realise them is science and we should consider it
as the main, basic tool and health of people╗.
Let's compare: instead of one "corn", three have appeared.
For all three "corns" to "grow" well it is planned
to apply лthe main basic tool╗ - science. The same rake, the same
communist "promises".
If compared with A. G. I think that it is not necessary t command over
milkmaids, peasants, workers and directors of the enterprises. The
system should be created in such a way when everyone will be
interested in the result of his work, then the instructions from the
management will be not necessary to him. It is impossible to imagine
that the President of the USA, for example, determines to the farmer
how he should sow. The proprietor doesnТt need instructions. It
means that everything should belong to someone. If we look at our
neighbours, Russia, the Ukraine weТll understand that the
privatisation is a very painful process. It is possible to tell that
it never will be possible to share everything fair, there always will
be dissatisfied. However, it is important to have equal starting
conditions. The experience of privatisation in Russia when each
citizen, irrespectively of his merits and experience, was entrusted a
vaucher, should be paid attention to as the procedure of privatisation
has considerably become simpler. Some people УlostФ it at once but,
however, it is their right. The matter is that the character of
privatisation in Russia has frequently had a criminal character. In
the future in Belarus realising privatisation we should use the
experience of privatisation of the countries next to us. Using this
experience, it is necessary to try to carry out privatisation more or
less painfully, however the concrete decision of questions of
privatisation in Belarus, is a separate question which requires
detailed discussion. Very often we hear from the citizens of the
senior generation, that he has worked at the factory for 30 years and
it will belong now to someone else. Many of them are mistaken because
they think that they are included today to some extent to a state
ownership. The state propaganda machine persistently supports this
illusion at them. In reality this property is dispose by the officials,
and basically, they have already divided this property among
themselves. For example: When a businessman, a very clever woman has
managed to organise large manufacture from an empty place, addressed
to a municipal state executive committee offering to buy free
industrial areas she was told that these "weaves" belong to
Petr Ivanovich, one of the officials of the municipal executive
committee. Therefore I think, if privatisation is open and fair, the
budget will be filled up, we will have means to pay the salary,
pension and grant. If privatisation is a sharing among the officials,
a pensioner Maria Ivanovna will get nothing. It is well-known that the
proprietor works better. If any "laying" enterprise to which
you, Maria Ivanovna, thinks to belong but you were not given a rouble
from it. You can hope when a proprietor will start it, indirectly,
through the taxes you will get benefit.
A. G. is constantly persuading that he will not allow to sale the
state enterprises, but in reality it means that he does not receive
anything from them and you will not receive anything.
According to statistics, on the average 20 % of the population try to
open own business, 6 % are a success. In the future these 6 % become
the engine of progress in Belarus. Today A. G. tries to solve all
problems with the help of the administrative device (vertical).
Neither A. G. himself, nor his ideologists understand, that there are
only two models of the state device. The first model is a
command-management system, heritage of communism which A. G. has
reconstructed in "vertical". The second model is western
market model. Showing miracles of incompetence and unwillingness to
realise seriously process happened in Belarus A. G. himself and his
supporters are assimilating to that philosopher who come in to a
barrel and does not want to see and to hear anything.
Let's return once again to the report of A.G. when he says that in
2005 he will pay
250 dollars. It is possible here to object, it is also general
equality. A man should receive as much as he has earned, if he legally
has earned one million dollars and thus has paid the taxes, it is his
one million. We want to ask who will suffer if we have own Bill Geits,
who will suffer if the budget is filled up with billions dollars. The
communist will suffer, they wonТt understand why a person has got a
lot of money, in their opinion, he is the thief and exploiter. It is
necessary to encourage those people who want to grow rich legally. For
the man to have stimulus to work there should be the rich in the
society, but not so rich people are not excluded. The state should
shift the basic responsibility for the well-being on citizens. Only
those who is not capable to work are to be socially protected, they
are pensioners, invalids and children. The normal citizens who are
able to work should be created conditions where they would be able to
realise the abilities , those who want to live better, should work
well. Lazy-bones and the drunkards should live according to their work.
It will be a painful process, a lot of people will not like it, but
not passing through it Belarus wonТt be able to get out of the
"bog" of poverty. Belarus will be doomed on eternal lagging
behind from the civilised countries. The earlier it begins, the faster
this uneasy period in the life of people of Belarus will be overcome.
Valery Levonevski 3.06.2001
