N O W , L O O K H E R E !
(publicistics)
— — — — —
There is no idea about the cover, because in this book are gathered great variety of different journalistic materials, it is not a work of fiction, and such books are usually not illustrated.
[ Remark: As far as the book is enormously big it is published here, by old habit, in small booklets amounting to about 50 (to 100) KB, containing normally from three to five papers. In this booklet is the beginning with the Contents of the sections, Foreword, Contents of the first section, and the first portion of three materials. To add also that the footnotes, again by established here habit, are marked with "
*
" and placed immediately after the paragraph in [ ... ] brackets. ]
— — — — —
CONTENTS OF THE SECTIONS
Foreword
I. For Journals
II. For Newspapers
III. Feuilletons
IV. Others
— — — — —
FOREWORD
This book contains all my publicistic works, written in the period of Bulgarian transition to democracy, which has begun in 1989, and should have ended when our standard of life will reach the former level. Judging by our rates of development and the muddle in which we state this can continue for a whole generation or 25 - 30 years, but even for a decade was accumulated certain amount of things, so that I decided to gather them in one place. Based on the time in which I have written them, it is normal to expect that they will deal mainly with the democratic phenomenon, which is one interesting and stable social phenomenon (when it exists for more than 25 centuries), but, of course, it does not pose any panacea, that will directly solve our problems (more so because for the present it has led us to a bigger mess), and it surely has its innate and unavoidable (if I can use this economic term), or necessary, drawbacks.
In other words, one constructive, even if in some cases also utopian and idealized, critique must be useful for people, who like to ask themselves questions about the world and the society (although in our dynamic times such people are not much; but in which epoch they have been much?). And that it is really constructive can be concluded at least by the fact that the author is not related to whatever political or leading economic or other structure, so that he can be maximally unbiased. But he has, of necessity, mainly left-wing political convictions because they, at least for more than a century, happen to be a kind of criterion for healthy reasoning. This is so for the simple reason that our world is unjust and cruel to the isolated and weak individual, and it is a function of society to make it a bit more just and favorable, what is, namely, the quintessence of the "socio", or the right of the weak. This has been known from deep antiquity, but only in the society of universal prosperity (or post-industrial society, or of the well developed capitalism, or how else you name it) it became possible to convert the wishes to reality for the wide population. Or, if you like, just take it that the author is not of the strongest of the day, and when so then he sticks to the interests of the weak.
The sequence of the materials is as a rule chronological in the framework of the sections, but the very sections are something questionable, where under materials for journals is understood that these are longer and more serious works, but for the everyday press are needed a bit more "chewed up" things, where one should not ponder much about the matter. For this reason in the newspapers are used shorter columns, to be possible to take a quick look over them, what is preserved also here. The feuilletons is clear what they mean, though to some extent this is a laughter through tears, in most cases, but that is why the satire is invented — to allow us to bear easily the burdens of everyday life. In the section "Others" are gathered such things which I have not succeeded to decide where else to put.
About a dozen things were published in some newspapers, although mainly in abbreviated (and mutilated, I would say) form, many things I have posted to editorial offices and they have remained without reply, but the majority of the materials were written primarily for the pleasure of it (well, and for filling of the time with something, because one "professionally" unemployed has in his disposition a big amount of this special "product"). Of course one should not expect to "discover America" here, but you will most probably find some
from the official press (or propaganda) look, for the reason that the author is not between those people who keep an eye on the media, so that there is no danger for him to begin to say platitudes. Many of the things are not actual today (and other ones will become such with the time), but it, the journalistic work, is, in principle, tied to the moment of activity and is aging fast, what does not mean that the model of reasoning or the conclusions change (i.e., under similar circumstances we will again behave "silly but in our own way", how sounded one phrase from totalitarian times), and that is why they are left here, to give the readers better possibility to appreciate the author as independent (but really) creative worker.
Well, this is all, my dear future readers, and if you, occasionally, happen to like some things of the written, then just drink a glass of liqueur for "repose of the sole" of the author, for it is not likely that this book will see the light of day when he is still alive (if not for other reason than at least because publicistics is gathered for long years and published, eventually, after death). It is better to accept that my name is this, with which I sign under (because — well, for what reason you do not like it?), and that the date below is put as a moment when I decided to gather all these things in one place, and in no way is beginning or ending date. Pleasant reading then.
2001, Sofia, Bulgaria Chris Myrski
— — — — —
Contents Of Section "For Journals"
Essay on the common sense
About the turn to the left
How much has to win a company in order to have
gain?
Our people again hoarded goods by higher prices
Too good is not good!
Are we free, or on the contrary?
Political gratitude
Neo-Malthusianism, or rational judgment
Myths about democracy
About the ownership and its future
Just
justice
In ovo e veritas
Oh, 'manci, 'manci -pation!
What we want to tell the world?
In Bulgaria everything is quiet
Political parties in Bulgaria
About the degradation of morality
Is it possible moderate communism in Bulgaria?
Essay on the common sense — II
... new for journals
— — — — —
ESSAY ON THE COMMON SENSE
*
[ * This material is entirely different from the other things in the book and is left with retrospective purposes, but see also the P.S. at the end. ]
Relatively recently I heard one old anecdote, that the socialism was a "
victory of all progressive forces over the common sense
". Not absolutizing this questionable opinion one should not forget also the popular wisdom that in each joke there is some truth, so that let us try to find whether in this case, really, some truth exists.
The notion "common sense" usually is taken for primary and non definable. It means something deeply inherent to the human nature, instinct about reasonability when there are not enough data and methods provided for taking of the decision, motivation on the level of
ordinary human individual, at the level of children's primitiveness of reasoning. If we want to be more exact we must add that this is definition of the author acquired on the basis of ... his common sense.
Each society, however, imposes layerings to this notion, creating in this way some norms of coexistence. As far as the interests of individual always enter, in one or another degree, in contradiction with the interests of society, it is possible that the needed
of the average member of society contradicts to the common sense. When there are several strata, groups, or classes, under the term average member of the society must be understood the averaged value for each of these groups. Anyway, I don't intend to revise the historical materialism, I just want to say that the more exact the norms of behaviour for the greater part of society agree with the common sense, the more natural these people perform their duties to the society. Inasmuch as the main goal of each society (its ruling part) is to
(as long as possible) this society, and the common sense of each of its members is characterized with unavoidable egoistic trend, then the decision received on the path of least resistance is in this, the society to require norms of behaviour maximally close to the common sense of each individual.
1.
Let us begin with
simple examples: about the unnecessary prohibitions
.
We were used to seeing often enough in our country inscriptions like "No admittance" or "Show the pass without reminder" and similar examples, but this on places where this is not necessary. As far as everybody knows that the order is formal nobody respects it and does not require the passes (with exception of pair of days in the year, when there is the next "activity action" of some chief or other). Variation of this situation is when the main entry is guarded, but along with it there is some hole in the fence, which everybody can learn if he wishes. It is naturally, if something is forbidden, to know by whom, why, and what will be the consequences of not sticking to the order, but it is not at all always such the case in Bulgaria. The result is that that one, who includes in his moral codex the rule "the more impudent wins", he usually wins indeed.
Another variance can be seen in many of our apartment complexes. It is generally known that the footpaths, more often than not, are not made there, where the human flow is the biggest. Instead, though, to make them where they are needed, we put signs, set wire fences, or invite the general public to watch who goes through the lawns. The result, of course, is zero.
Similar is the situation also when in the corridors or foyer where the people usually smoke cigarettes, instead of to put metal baskets or take some other measures for preventing of fire, or for bettering of ventilation, they just put sign "No smoking". In the result people again smoke there, but extinguish the cigarettes on the floor or where only possible, increasing in this way the danger of fire and the pollution around.
Not much different is the situation with the mandatory examination sessions in the universities. It is invented a complicated system establishing when a given student can appear for the exam and how he will move to the next year, while at the same time are established also the allowed conditions for exceptions, which are used so often that, on the average, a quarter of the students make use of them, and this is not observed as hindrance to the process of learning. From the point of view of the common sense it is clear that, either the number of exceptions must be reduced, or the rules have to be changed.
Maybe the most significant expression the unnecessary prohibitions find in the area of secrecy. The author has no intentions to announce "state secrets" citing here various examples of pseudo-secrecy, because each one of us could have given a number of such cases. However illogical this may seem but in the most cases is applied the rule that all, what shows our
, as in the area of economy, so also in the social and political spheres, is a state secret, which can discredit the system.
2.
Another more serious category of
examples
are those
related with personal initiative
.
Many times we have discussed the question about the personal involvement in performing of some useful for the society activity, and the corresponding material and moral stimuluses. In spite of this, there are many examples of unsatisfactory decisions, when for equal in quantity and quality labor people receive entirely different payments, and there even happen that for a greater work is paid less. The common sense struggles to accept why a health nurse must receive for 6 hours of work in the polyclinic, say, 10 levs
**
, where for one injection at home — 5 levs; nor why for one hour of instruction a teacher receives 3 levs, where for private lesson — from 5 to 10 levs; similarly also with the building workers, auto-mechanics, and so on, and so on. Practically this leads to arising of personal disinterestedness in performing of the main work.
[ ** A Lev is the Bulgarian currency, also meaning a lion, which in those concluding totalitarian years, around 1988, was officially still equal to one US dollar, but unofficially was about five times weaker. ]
The wish to advance in professional hierarchy, called sometimes unjustified careerism, has also its meaning for the initiative of the worker. It is logical that that one, who works more conscientiously and effectively, will move faster upward. Alas, very often decisive, if not the single one, happens to be the criterion for political activity and ideological consciousness — i.e. ranging on the scale of "our man".
It is clear that the youth is the most revolutionary and initiative part of the population in each society. In this sense there should have been shown aid and support for increasing of self-dependence and feeling of responsibility of the young people before the society. Our system, however, hinders in all possible ways similar efforts of the youth — with the financial mechanism, with problems with the lodging, with the singleness of our youth organization, with the system of distributing of young professionals, and so on. In result of this the initiative of the young ones is restrained and they continue to want to have everything ready, as when they were little.
The initiative is constrained not only in regard of various persons, but also in regard of whole enterprises. No matter that there were many talks about the independence of companies and the competition between them, nothing of this is shown in practice. Let us not discuss here the relation between the competition, market mechanism, deficiency, and socialism. It suffices to say that without competition there is no space for the initiative of the people and companies, there is no possibility for adaptive development of the economy.
Related with the above-mentioned and sufficiently important for to dwell on it is the problem with the fight against monopolies. We not only don't have legal basis for such fight, but we think that this is fight against the social order (probably because in our conditions the state is the single monopolist). The common sense, however, requires that the bigger one producer is, the more was taken from him or it (where in Bulgaria the petrol is still sold cheaper to the state, and more expensive to the citizens or small companies).
3.
Let us now look for
examples
for contradiction to the common sense in questions
related with the property
In recent times in Bulgaria have begun to speak about equalizing of different forms of ownership: state's, cooperative, of group of people, private, shareholding. This is entirely in accordance with the normal human logic. But the problem is that for the moment we just speak about this (as also about the equality before the law, yet in many cases is needed the opinion of party or Komsomol organization confirming this "equality"). And, really, in Bulgaria the number plates on cars are different in colour (and the petrol is sold by different prices), depending on the form of ownership. We have wholesale and retail prices, but in practice these are prices by which is sold to different
of owners, where usually is applied the contradictory to the common sense rule: the bigger owner buys cheapen, and the common citizen — on most expensive prices. It is true that in this way is proved the advantage of the bigger owner, but it is also true that if it is based on this only tendentious price mechanism, then, surely, it is base on nothing!
In defining of personal property the socialism goes out of the rule for elimination of exploitation of human by human. This is logical. Bad are only various deformations of this rule leading to exploitation of the common citizen by the state or by some different persons in the party or state apparatus. In usual practice it happens so that, even if one has enough money to buy himself a home, then he can't have a dwelling for less than 15 years, or he must enslave himself to that enterprise, which has given him the home. All knew that the state gives a credit of 15 thousand levs to young families to buy themselves a home, but they don't know whether at least 5% of them have received such credit. Similar is the situation also with the cars — the state's apparatus uses our money by
percent interest for us, and we wait so about ten years. The same is true also for agricultural machinery and other means for small-scale productivity — there either such are not produced, or they are not sold to persons, or are scarce and deficit. In other words, if one has, after all, some rights to personal property, it is done everything possible (for various reasons) for him not to receive it.
Not much better is the case with the fertile land for personal use (1-2 decares, i.e. 0.1-0.2 hectares). Such land simply is not given. People are satisfied with barren personal sites, that in addition to all can always be taken back by the state. Has, really, some authentic socialist thought that with one decare of land a person can turn to exploiter? At the same time, each year the winter comes "unexpectedly" and part of the harvest remains "as fertilizer". The common sense does not object to the big fields with wheat, maize corn, or palmetto trees, but there are great number of cultures that require mainly manual labour and give better results when one and the same person takes care for them. The land must be worked lovingly, and, however we twist our souls, no parent loves foreign children more than his or her own, figuratively speaking.
4.
We can't jump over some
examples related with the education
.
Our educational system, beginning with the lowest and going to the highest level, sets accent mainly on memorization of the factual material and not on the especially valuable feature of the intellect to
, draw inferences and conclusions. It is true that nearly in each scientific area there are its "multiplication tables", which must be memorized, but no science consists only of tables and facts. (By the way, in Bulgaria only before about ten years was allowed to use mathematical tables during the exams.) Why don't we use more largely systems of tests, that are widely used in many well developed countries? Should we be afraid if somebody says something reasonable, which can turn out to be questionable?
It is well known that in our country the education is free of charge and generally accessible. What can be better than something that costs nothing? Yeah, but in practice this leads to some abnormal situations, because the education, still,
, and much money, to the state! It turns out that the exams in the universities are, in fact, not at the end of study, but in the beginning, when the given student has pretty hazy ideas about the chosen by him profession. The exams at the end are chiefly formal, because the state has already spent money, and the very university wants to minimize the percentage of "rejected production". And besides, the common sense suggests that if something costs nothing then, maybe, it really is worth nothing? Adding to this the compulsive character of education, which is not to the tastes of the youth of age, the abnormal competition when applying to the universities, no matter that there are all perspectives for humble life after graduating from them, the overloaded with ideological disciplines program of study, and other moments, and it happens so, that the student rarely chooses his specialty by vocation. All in all, must be contemplated some form of free of charge education, which will be applied only to diligent students, and the mediocre ones will have to pay something; must be thought about some system of bonuses and penalties; about specialized exams (rather tests) by applying, which will be established differentially by each university and for each specialty; and other measures, which will counteract to the minuses of the free education and support the pluses of the vocation as method for selection.
Very important for each society is the question with reasonable establishing of different educational levels. The very name is not substantial, but what educational level one receives after finishing of the course of study. In the moment in Bulgaria exist secondary technical schools with level higher than secondary, language gymnasiums with level of tertiary education concerning the language, semi-high level (between secondary and tertiary) with real weight of secondary specialized, defending of PhD dissertations with level of diploma theses, formal tertiary party education, and other educational dissonances. In the same time many knowledges (about driving a car, typing on a typewriter, etc.), necessary for everybody of us, are outside the sphere of educational system. The unreal educational levels lead to various deformations related with the formal treating of educational qualification and add bigger mess in establishing of the (already blurry concept of) intellectuals. The devaluation of our education continues.
5.
Let us now take in focus another circle of
questions — related with the financial policy
of the state.
The finances are the money, which have arisen historically as universal tool for measuring of different values. Let us not discuss now the point, can they really be used for measuring of
goods. But we can't miss to stress on the idea for reducing of
space of different qualities to one numerical axes — the money. The common sense, not falling in details, naturally, chooses the more simple scheme. Our Party and Government, though, have stressed on the difficulties for reducing of all human values to the money, have decided that this is impossible, have tried to introduce other scales (like moral stimuli, ideological conviction, etc.), and at the end have settled on the scale "our man"! Our long experience, however, have convinced us that this also in not a solution. Shouldn't we return again to the idea of money, restricting only their power over the people, instead of to search for some other universal meter for values?
The author does not state that he is familiar with the question of convertibility of currency, to what currency, up to what amounts, for whom and on what rates. These, surely, are difficult problems, which we must leave to the specialists. Nevertheless, it isn't clear why there still does not exist one and the same rate and from the both sides of the equation but we violate its symmetry? Neither is clear why we invent unreal rate for the Bulgarian lev and then try to "realize" it, were it paying some premium, were it via prohibitions, were it with the use of Corecom shops (where was bought with US dollars), were it using currency auctions organized by the Bulgarian State Bank, were it via the "black market", or with some other tricks. Have we not yet understood, that of all possible decisions this is
?
The state apparatus must be supported, more so in a socialist state, where there are big social insurances and centralized financial regulation of the whole society. The imposing of everybody with taxes is unavoidable. But the common sense requires to collect taxes and payments for something produced, or in order to stimulate a given productivity, otherwise we can reach to the former notorious "teeth tax", with which our forefathers were burdened during the five centuries of Ottoman rule, for this that the Turkish rulers have rubbed their teeth when the wealthy Bulgarian hosts have given feasts to them. Nevertheless in Bulgaria (as far as it is known to the author) for to ascribe a home or some other possession to his /her relative, one must pay about 1,000 levs for a paper work that in no way can exceed 10 levs — it must be paid inheritance tax. The price of one foreign passport is circa 100 levs, but in the same time one domestic passport costs 6 levs. The folks still remember the time when people have had to pay bachelor tax if they have no children, even if their child has died. Must another plane crash down
***
in order to change this anachronism? Is it possible, when the state gives a loan to require from 3.5 to 4 percent, but when we put our money in the banks, to give us only 1%? Is this not an indirect tax of about 3% for this, that we just have money which we can not spend, because there is
? Willy-nilly the association with the mentioned "teeth tax" comes to mind.
[ *** There was something that was bettered after falling of one Bulgarian plane, but after 25 years I have forgotten what exactly, sorry. ]
The financial policy of the state is shown also in the question of pensions. Though I don't mean here the age of retirement, neither the percentage, but the fact that the pensions, practically, are not corrected in accordance with the yearly inflation. From the point of view of the common sense is necessary for the pensions to be released taking into account the standard of life in the given moment (and independently from the salary), or according to the corrected with the current standard working salary. If one is quiet about the amount of his /her pension, then a lot of people in the age of 45 - 50 years and having made their necessary years for pension, could have ensured their subsistence in various useful for the society ways, not occupying regular places in the staff, giving in this way free space for self-expression to others young and ambitious persons. It is necessary for the person not only to can, but to have interest to change the nature of his (or her) work, if this is for the benefit of the society, or if his health in our dynamical times requires such measures.
The salaries of intellectuals (not only of artistic ones, but also of physicians, scientific workers, engineers, teachers etc.) are established centralized by the state and paid chiefly from the state budget. The common sense (and the principles of socialism) require that the salary is a measure for the social significance of the individual. Yet at the same time the salaries of the intellectuals are less than the nominal salaries of industrial workers with low qualification, less or about the average salary for the country, and twice less the salaries in the militia or army. It seems to be well-known the rule that the ability of state to take care about its intellectuals is measure for the financial well-being and level of development in it. We talk much about the leading role of intellectuals in the process of perestroika, about the cares of Party and Government, about the transformation of sciences in productive force, and the like. In practice, however, there are not at all rare cases when a medical doctor after (or before) his (or her) work sits behind the wheel of his private taxi; when philologists and other specialists with tertiary education work in teams of dyers; when Candidate PhDs (we had such degrees) and PhDs close jars with preserves for the winter or repair their cars etc., in order to earn or economize "a pair of levs". From our newspapers were heard even praising words about this, how a team of computer programmers have gone to the village to milk cows, showing in this way the "unity and solidarity" of Bulgarian people. Naturally, every rule has its exceptions, but our exceptions have turned to the rule:
!
This rule, in addition to the negative pedagogical aspect, leads also to lessening of productivity of the intellectuals, taking up big part of their time for unusual activities. Where has gone the proverbial affection of the Bulgarian for science and knowledge — it was changed with anecdotes about the "learned" one! It isn't clear when at last we will stop trying to check whether the "learned" can do the work of the "unlearned"? The reversed experiments are not made, because the answer is clear! And in order not to accuse the author in partiality let us stress that the situation in Bulgaria is wide away from that of the times of the cult to Stalin in the Soviet Union, or in the times of the cultural revolution in China, so that we can wait a bit more and continue speaking about the cares of Party and Government, which (at least up to the moment) have come with such a delay, that immediately thereafter the question could have been raised again.
Furthermore, the state uses the financial mechanism for stimulating of development of some industry branches declared for strategic and defining, what is logical in itself. But in Bulgaria for strategic were declared such branches of industry, in which we have
: electronics, mechanical engineering and metal processing industry, the "big" chemistry, and nowadays the biotechnologies. If similar measures are taken in the well developed countries that this is done so, that the production of the strategic branches were competitive. The policy of centralized planning and state monopoly, especially after the legendary April Plenum of the Central Committee from 1956, have lead to serious investment in this areas and ... to nothing more.
If, roughly speaking, the standard of life in Bulgaria is 10
lower than in many western countries (because the food prices, those the of productions of light industry, of cars and homes in our country, given in Bulgarian levs, are practically equal to the corresponding prices on the West, expressed in US dollars, with this "tiny" difference, that the average working salaries in Bulgaria are about ten times less), then in some of this areas were set "records". So for example, one personal computer of type IBM-PC/AT costs 2,000 - 2,500 dollars, or one average salary there, where in Bulgaria it costs (Bulgarian one, and "high-quality") about 35,000 levs or 10
salaries, what gives a quotient of
! More or less the same is situation also with the video appliances. A bit better — with the instruments and the production of mechanical engineering. What concerns the "big" chemistry and metal-processing industry, if there the quotient is less, so this is at the cost of our lungs, because of the practical absence of modern and high expensive cleansing facilities. But on the other hand we very "clever" suppress the progress of agriculture, because in this area we
have had traditions. Such disproportions can't be explained from common sense positions.
6.
Maybe it is now time to cast a look at
our attitude towards the nature
.
The author does not pretend on priority of the statement, that whatever out attitude to those like us is, such is also our attitude to everything around us, i.e. to the environment. The simple peasant kills some animal or cuts off a tree when he needs to eat or to warm himself, but not just to boast that he is stronger than the nature. We have cut down our forests and taken the most fertile land for to raise up our industrial giants; have polluted the rivers and lakes; have turned our parks to garbage pits; our Black Sea has become really
; the level of air pollution in the cities, industrial areas, and in the capital, has reached record values on a worldwide scale; we have made our "worthy contribution" also in the radioactive contamination. Together with this the road sign for bicycle alley is practically unknown in Bulgaria; and if somebody wants to keep a dog he must pay the corresponding (again record high) tax for his love to the animals and keep it in suitable cage, or teach it to fly — this isn't yet forbidden. In short, we have learned to show out contempt to
around is (in the name of the great goal) and now the nature takes revenge on us for our unreasonable pride.
It still is not clear why we have decided that the more developed we become, the more we must concentrate and enlarge everything. In the nature the things are mutually balanced, but we have decided that we are stronger than it and must change it. The industrial giants were not enough for us, we must have raised them near big towns, to the very capital. And is it possible for a capital not to be the best in every one aspect: in industrial, administrative, political, educational, and so on? It is true that in many western countries are formed separate administrative centers, separate small university towns, separate industrial areas, but this may be so because they can't "plan" so good the things as us?
And what we have done with our homes? We have filled the towns, but also the small villages, with multi-storey apartment buildings — away from the earth, near to the industry. Instead of making "villages of town type" — with their classic two-storey houses and one decare of land around them, but with central heating and telephones, we have made "towns of village type" — have built panel houses and declared the villages towns! The common sense requires that the man lives amongst the nature,
, if you want, and we have masked our incapability in this relation with loud phrases about "the cares of Party and Government and personally of the comrade ... ". But in the same time some "deserved comrades" have built themselves nice country dachas, and to the folks were explained that if they want to join the working class they should go to the towns, where they can receive their due "box" after approximately 10-20 years hard work of "deeds and only deeds" (it is known phrase of our Todor Zhivkov — "deeds, deeds, and only deeds"). Oh, silly people, why are you ashamed to be called peasants?
7.
In the end we must look also at
the political life in Bulgaria
.
It is well known that the most progressive, honest, ideologically-convinced, capable, hardened in battles, and unable to make whatever errors part of Bulgarian nation is our communist party. We repeat this phrase for such long time that, from the point of view of the common sense, the
statement begins to impose itself, because "over-holy saint isn't loved by the very God"! From the positions of ideological monism we have forgotten the old truth that man is sinful, and the party consists of people. More than this, we have substituted the notions honour and bravery with ideological conviction; the democracy — with democratic centralism, degenerated in centralism and ovations; the deeds — with words about them; the wish of someone to receive deserved reward for his work — with the socialistic competition; the real thing — with the desired. And while the perestroika is expressed only in substitution of one person with another, of the "deeds" — with "work", of the very "perestroika" — with "new" or "real" such, of the "developed" socialism — with "real" such, but continuing officially asserting that in the given moment (as also in any former period of time) the policy of the Party was and remains the only proper one, the common sense will rebel.
In the recent time was unambiguously raised also the question with multi-party system. There have arisen and make their first steps a number of independent unions and parties. There are talks about independent elections. In fact, the things are obvious: there can't be stable and adaptive ruling without negative feedback, and the feedback in the political life is the
legal opposition
. If one party does not allow the existence of official opposition, it either feels weak to stand against it, or then is just foolish — there is no other alternative!
It is clear that today in our country are carried out stormy evolutionary changes aimed at stabilizing of the old and compromised political system. This is praiseworthy, because if the system succeeds to adapt to the new conditions in the world, then it is lively! But for this purpose, in order to make possible the renewing of the governmental bodies, the renewing of the very communist party through active fight within itself, the unavoidable condition is the separating of the party from the state! The common sense tells us that, as in the economy, so also in the politics, is in effect the rule: there is
no development without competition
!
We all have different ideas about the democracy, but they are roughly reduced to the ability for the people to state openly their meaning on various questions of vital for them interest, in order to allow to the governing body to take justified decisions. Contrary to the common sense, however, the democracy in our country was restricted to the possibility for the common person: either speak in favour of the "Party and Government", or else regret about his silly demeanor! We as if have forgotten that each one of us has his own opinions and if for something important vote unanimously at least 90% (and we preferred the round number 100), then this means that people
vote at all, because such unity is
, it is compulsory! Anyway, at the present stage can be argued only about the form of democracy, not about the democracy in itself, inasmuch as
each dictatorship
(even that of the proletariat)
shows
, and the successes of the dictatorship are only temporary and dubious!
We shall not miss to put a pair of lines about the term "perestroika", which has already entered in many Western languages literally, with miniature differences. If we don't use special phrasal ornamentations
the perestroika is
, in its essence:
a try to create democratic society under the conditions of inherited deficit and totalitarity of the "developed" socialism
. Let us hope that this experiment will be successful!
In conclusion
let us return to the thought touched in the very beginning. We deliberately have not observed the real causes for the arisen contradictions between the common sense and the "developed" socialist society — let us leave the analysis to the specialists. Besides, the causes are, in fact, complex: as subjective, also objective, but errors generated by the very nature of the dictatorship as form of ruling, too. Some of them were noticed in time and were taken measures for their elimination (but they were not applied consecutively), others were left unnoticed in the atmosphere of political and economic monopoly of the state, and third will be only now acknowledged. Many problems have remained outside the scope of our examination. Ways for solving of this contradictions were also not shown, though in numerous cases the author has his own views, which have been touched in the course of narration.
Finally, if we encounter so many problems in building of a really socialist society, then let us try at least to build one democratic society, a society of the common sense, without which we can't live even in the cellar of the European Home! Let us not forget this!
December, 1989
P.S.
As you see, this is a view in the spirit of perestroika and it seems very naive with a hindsight of dozen years. But it is useful with this, that it is moderate and creative critique, aimed at evolutionary reforming of the socialism, because it, by God, has its enormous advantages before the unmoral and rough capitalism, to which we returned as a result of the quiet madness of our people. But these questions were discussed many times in this whole book, so that we will skip them now, yet the insignificance of the raised questions is remarkable. Because, surely, our problems under the totalitarianism not only look now insignificant, but they were such, compared with the real mess of our transition to the democracy. These were problems not only of our former system, but of the very centralized ruling, and even in the USA they couldn't have managed without their "perestroika", somewhere in the 70ties and 80ties of the former 20th century, because USA, as every self-respecting state, has its unavoidable centralized structures, like army and police at the least. So that our problems were not new ones, but they were for us the major ones.
Because we have lived as in a
, in one sterile society, or, if we use one not very pleasant but true comparison: we have lived a life of well fed pets — dogs, for example. We were satiated, combed, and our hosts (i.e. the nomenclature) just took pleasure in us, but, naturally, they wanted that we behaved properly. And then, when the transition came, they simply unleashed our collars, and set us free in the big world. Yeah, but it, this world, was not so good as we have thought, when were fed and kept warm, and now we again look for new good hosts, though this time from the economically stronger Western countries. Be it as it may, the important thing is that we showed all symptoms of unleashed dogs, in view of which the author spoke in that times about the "
" as our chief illness, which one great Bulgarian (our writer Ivan Vasov) has named in his time the "drunkenness" of a whole nation. Well, it isn't so bad if one drinks once in a while, but there must be some measure in everything, mustn't it? But thus rule was not in effect for us, because if the moderation is the main requirement for a quiet life and also a kind of criterion for reasonableness, then we have shown whatever else but not reasonableness!
Though there is also something else. The very question is
set at all, because
can be as much reasonable as one technically educated and thinking person like your author could wish. Id est, the reasonable social government, still, is only one big utopia for the masses and does not exist in the world! But it was a nice utopia, wasn't it, and nothing hindered one satiated little dog, like your author, to fantasize about the blessed country of the intelligent dogs. Or to dream about this, because when one well fed dog sleeps it has nice or "rosy" dreams. Well, now, because we are hungry, then our dreams are "blue", right?
2001
— — —
ABOUT THE TURN TO THE LEFT
(OR PULSE POLITICAL SCIENCE)
Hardly nowadays exists highly commented question in our political life than that about the eventual turn to the left: for parties and movements, for the country as a whole, when and will it happen or not at all, up to what extent to the left and for what time, and so on. One can bet about this, and not without reasons, of course. But, still, I can't get rid of the feeling that this is again political machination (with which we have become painfully accustomed), because the question is
set correctly. Because the question is not "will we turn to the left", but "
will we turn to the left"? The more important arguments here are the following:
a)
The truth is in the middle — statement, about which we have information for more than 25 centuries, but what, surely, was known earlier. In a dynamic environment, if the situation was not such in regard of some parameter, then we should have reached to one of both ends, and having once taken this value the things would have simply not depended on this parameter (but here is quite obvious that many things depend on this, will we turn to the left or to the right).
b)
This movement is one ceaseless oscillation. Having in mind that even the ancient Greek philosopher Platon was, in fact, greater communist than Lenin (because he was not only against the private property, but thought that the families, too, must disappear entirely and people must live not for themselves, but only for the state), as also greater utopist, of course, then it is clear that the leftism wasn't born yesterday. And what concerns the right-hand extremities, then not a few rebellions or revolutions have burst, for to cope with them. Because however just it seems, that only in the garden of John rained and grew the cabbage and potatoes, where in that of his neighbour Peter — not a drop, and only the family of John could eat their full, then it comes time, when the neighbour Peter becomes bored to look at his hungry kids and rejects this justice (one shell not forget that in English, German, even Russian, right as just and right as not left is
word), and he revolts to seek social justice on the other, i.e. left (as it exactly is in English) side. So that, in short, neither one, nor the other, end is something set once and forever, and the nations always oscillate, where the governments try to balance between these extremities.
c)
The historical example in the development of ex-communist countries, which are before us in economic aspect, unambiguously shows (for the moment) tendency to the left. And if this tendency is not to be observed in some countries, then this is only in such like the former "great and indestructible" Soviet Union, which country has still
moved enough to the right! And before the facts even the politicians have to keep silent.
In order to sum up these three moments is easiest to use the
model of damped oscillation
(that of a pendulum, for example), which is multiplication of exponential and sinusoidal functions and is shown schematic on the figure
*
(Fig.1.), with the curve "0" taken for basic. Of course, in sociology can't be spoken about such exact relationships and is not possible to define
to the left or the right we are (i.e. the amplitude of oscillation) in the given moment, because we haven't two ideally pure left- or right- wing parties in the Parliament. Neither is it possible to establish exactly the period, so that if from the first utmost left point (say, in the upper part of the figure) to the second such one have gone 10 (conditional) years, and from the second to the third — 15 years, then this can be observed as sufficient precision. But this, that we can't use this method for good quantitative estimates, does not mean that it is bad in
regard, because it accurately reflects gradually decreasing oscillations around given steady state value, which is naturally to accept in the middle.
[ * The picture, alas, is missing, so that you are forced to believe blind to my explanations (but it was not pretty accurate, because I have drown it with the mouse only). ]
What is good in this qualitative model, above all, is that based on it can be made interesting
conclusions
. The first and most important observation in this case is that there exist two alternative ways for diminishing of the steepness of movement (according to the horizontal time axes), namely:
1)
via
curve, which defines the rate of damping (not shown on Fig.1.), what corresponds to the curve "1" (the blue one), which falls down more smoothly, because it has the same period, but does not reach such great amplitudes; or
2)
via
on a longer period, what corresponds to the curve "2" (the red one).
Both ways lead to relatively equal slope (steepness) on the
parts of curves 1 and 2 (or from the beginning to the first semi-period, to the place where the dashes with the numbers are put, where they fall down; or later on, from the lowest position till the end of the first period, where they rise up — but everywhere on linear regions they move almost in parallel). Again must be clarified, that it can be argued about the point how much the slopes are equal, but in all cases they are less than the corresponding slope of curve 0 (the black one). And we pay such attention on the slopes, because it is natural to accept that the goal of each movement is to reach maximally fast damping by
, i.e. to have smoothly and crisis-free movement to the new steady state value (to the horizontal axis). And, hence, such movement can be had, either when the curve is damped (its amplitude falls) absolutely faster, i.e. the curve 1 (what is the best variant), or when it damps relatively faster, i.e. the curve 2 (where its amplitude diminishes less, but then for a longer period of time), what in fact happens absolutely slower than the other variant (but is also painless).
Let us now look more precisely at both variants, calling for help the pulse technique, where is explained that
the period of oscillation is characteristic of the system
(e.g., for the pendulum, of its length), where
the damping
of the exponent
is characteristic of the environment
(e.g., for the pendulum, this means whether it oscillates in air or in water). In our political case the "system" is the whole nation, the given country, from the point of view of its economic abilities, social consciousness and unity of the voters, of its natural conditions, traditions, and so on, i.e. this is such thing which can't be (at least this is not easy) changed. On the other hand the damping of the exponent depends on the environment, and in this case it is political, i.e. these are the parties, which help (or hinder) the given nation to reach the steady state value of equilibrium, and on this environment is possible, and also
, to show influence and change it.
In other words, this means that in countries, where the political environment converges faster to the center, is possible to reach smooth transition also by relatively short period of oscillation, what speaks about powerful economies, socially conscientious and united voters (for example, in Hungary the semi-period is about five years, in Czech Republic and Slovakia, if we subtract a pair of years in view of their separation, as additional problem with which they have had to cope, it may become again so much, or a bit more). At the same time, in countries with worse convergence of political powers, the single possibility for smooth and crisis-free transition consists in longer period of oscillation (i.e. the adaptivity of their system is worse, what is related also with bigger social disagreements, which expresses themselves in worse convergence of political powers, as, for example, in Poland, if we take for beginning of the movement to the right roughly 1985, what will give a semi-period of about 9-10 years). Where there are also countries in which the political environment is so confronted, the social unity of masses so weak, that the single possibility to hold the situation from catastrophic slumping during the period of transition is in the multiple extension (slowing) of the oscillating process (for example in Russia, or rather in the former Soviet Union, where the desert of the great "Gorbi" is in this, that he succeeded to significantly
this process in the first several years with his
, otherwise, by practically zero-valued exponent, should have happened obvious slumping in the civil war, which, for the moment, they nearly managed to avoid; so or otherwise, but there already a
of oscillation, even taking out 2-3 years for disintegration of their empire, has reached 6-7 years, what gives an expected semi-period of approximately 15 years). One may boldly state that, as it seems, the semi-period by the worst possible conditions
exceed one generation (20 - 25 years).
Let us now return to Bulgaria. Judging by a number of indicators (economic, social, ethnical, and others) we are closest to Poland, and by semi-period of about ten years can be expected, that also our next Parliament will still be right-wing, but somewhere at the end of the century, maybe, we will turn to the left. At the same time, however, I think, that we must not aim at the level (period) of Czechs and Slovaks, so that one turn to the left of the Parliament, but remaining still
, would have been in my view an expression of awaken popular masses in the given moment. This is, maybe, the best for what we can hope in the coming elections, because there were times (and there will again come such times) when to the right meant good, but in the moment more to the left means better, more reasonable and mature!
As an additional touch in this review one must also pay attention to the fact, that in the political case (in contrast to the mechanical) the environment (the parties) are not independent from the system (from the population), because they are part of the people, so that it is possible also influence from the part of the political forces on the people and vice versa. In this sense, the better converging environment leads to faster economic development and to more united social consciousness of the people, what enables reaching of a shorter period of oscillation, what, in the end, gives even faster damping (i.e., some positive feedback).
And one more detail: the faster the convergence in the Parliament (and, respectively, amidst the people) is, the bigger is the help on the part of the West, because it is natural, when one invests money in something, to require also some guaranties for peaceful and crisis-free evolvement. In other words,
the Western investments depend
of our deviation from the center (to the left or the right),
but
, i.e. on the convergence of political powers. This is the only reasonable position, because when the divergence is not big the direction is of no importance.
Saying this in other way: if we do not help ourselves, even God will not help us!
1995 ?
P.S.
As the Russians like to say for something well guessed, I
(as a kind of magic mirror). Everything I have said 20 years before is right in broad lines (not in details, maybe). About this incessant oscillation, about the economies, the political life, the quiet or on the contrary evolvement, about the slowing down (delaying) of the Russians, et cetera. But I will try to restrict myself from further remarks and retain only those from the time of Russian translation, because the goal is to allow the people to read what I have written and not boast how clever I was and (as a result of this, mainly) have not been appraised in time.
2015
— — —
HOW MUCH HAS TO WIN A COMPANY IN ORDER TO HAVE
The question that we pose now is the following: how big must be the profit of a small company (like, say, one-, two-, or three- person, usually family, Limited Liability Company, Ltd), in order to have, after paying of all taxes, the same gain (or even less), as if the people have just invested the money used in the company during the year in form of personal deposits or government securities (GS) in the banks (which, above all, are also guarantied up to 100% in case of bankruptcy, according to our Law for Protection of Investments, where the companies lose exactly half of the money in case of bankrupt of the bank, where they keep them), taking in this way into account, via the increment of their savings, the inflation, and the persons who own the company, instead of working in it and earn in this way, work
, by the average for the moment working salary? This in my view means, that the company works without any gain (in idle, for "that one who blows" as we in Bulgaria say), that it has no financial interest in any way for its existing, and that, in fact, it is better if it has not functioned at all, because such production not only is not extended, but it can be even named "
"!
So that, let us first introduce some names of variables, beginning with the letter
, with which we shall mark the common profit in levs (our currency, shorten as lv). With letter
we shall mark the
to the profits or material consumption of the productivity (here in the expenses enter all expenses, not only those of materials), where for more convenient notation we will express
not in percents but as parts of the whole (say,
instead of 20%
). Via letter
we will denote the average annual gain from deposits in levs (in the moment most profitable is in GS) and again as part, not as percentage (i.e. 0.5, not 50%, for example). The
which the state takes in form of taxes we will mark with the letter
, and the average net annual salary, i.e. without the income tax (IT) — with the letter
. Then, equating the profit of the company after paying the taxes to the possible profit of an average working salary plus the bank interest for the
in the company money (because they were available by the owners, in order for them to be able to invest them in the company and use for production of whatever it is), we get (everything for a whole year), as
characteristic of the work for nothing
, the following simple equation:
(1)
because
is the profit before the taxes;
— the profit after paying the taxes; and in the same time
is the profit from expenses
, if they were invested in a bank instance as deposits of private persons (from the owners of the company, who also work in it) without the need for existing of the company. Saying it otherwise, the left part gives us the profit of a small company, and the right part is a sum of the average salary and the profit from the spent in the company money, if it was not a company and only the used in an year money were standing on personal deposit. If we now leave on the one part only the letter
and solve the equation in regard to it we will have:
(2)
what is our
final formula
.
In order to answer the set in the beginning question we must decrease the number of variables, giving to some of them values as near as possible to the real ones. We shall begin in reverse order of the letters, i.e.:
lv in an year — a nice round number, maximally close to the average working salary for the current year (it is not yet exactly calculated, for the year has not yet ended), what gives by 8,000 lv net in month (or, else, nominally 120,000 lv in an year).
, i.e. 30% — this is the profit tax for the smallest companies with profit less than 1 mln lv yearly and for the new registered such, what is the lowest tax at all (usually it is 40%, and even more) and this, respectively, is the best for us case.
or 140%, whal looks a good approximation to the real situation, because in the beginning of the year the annual bank interest was 40%, in the middle of the year it become about 120% (for GS out of portfolio emissions of trading banks), in September the most secure bank, the National Bank of Bulgaria (BNB), has issued bonds with yearly interest of 130%, and the trading banks sold GS with 170% annually. Such was the case till the end of September (revolutionary month, at least for Bulgarian people — there were pair of revolution in Bulgaria in the first half of 20th century on this month), and now the newest information is that the basic interest rate (BIR) have become 300% and if it will stay so till the end of the year (i.e. "
", as some wicked thongs say) can be expected that this will give averaged
gain about 160% in year (what is more than our gain of the averaged BIR), but we "out of modesty" will work with 140%, for to be sure that our estimation is not inflated.
Then the formula (2) takes the form:
(3)
what is the relationship of the profit
of small company depending on the material consumption of production (part of the expenses to the profit)
.
The first conclusion
, that we may draw out of this, is that there
exists
or
, and it is critical because the denominator of (3) turns to zero (and, as all of us have studied in school, it is forbidden to divide to zero) and maximal, because for
greater than this value the denominator becomes negative, and, respectively,
becomes negative, what has no meaning, because negative money means that the company looses if it works. Put it otherwise, the company begins to work for "that who blows" exactly by the maximal value of
. In our (most lucrative in relation to the taxes) case this value is:
or
33%
.
Let us now show this relationship in table form:
TABLE 1. DEPENDENCE OF
As far as there are no companies with less than 20% expenses (at least 10% go for the cheapest advertisement), neither there is somebody with up to such extent "weathered" brains for to earn one and a half millions (working with no gain, because that is what we calculate here!), then it turns that the left and the right end of the table are unusable. (Besides, when the profits are more that 1 mln levs the taxes
will be bigger, so that the expression for
will be different). In this situation remains the possibility by material consumption
of about 25% to get profits of half a million levs. But these are theoretical results because, practically, there is no such company that will spend less than 30% (even for freelancing professions are allowed 30% inherent necessary expenses without supplying documents). In other words, from the stated till here unambiguously follows that
there are no conditions at all in Bulgaria for small business
under this inflation level, and if someone, still, continues to perform such activity, than this is either by inertia, or because he simply cannot find a job!
At a first glance here is concealed some "magic", because the company must not have all the money for the expenses for the year in the beginning of it, and if it turns 3-4 times the production cycle it will happen that it is possible to work also with smaller amounts in cash (and, respectively, the profit from bank interest in our calculations will fall down), and if the company bakes buns and pies, for example, then it will turn hundred cycles in an year. But in this situation we do not take into account the necessity for availability of stock, and expenses primarily for basic means of production (BMP), where one has to "throw away" at once the money at least for five years in advance and this in very big amounts, where
the amortization becomes
directly eaten by the inflation
! And if we speak about production premises and equipment (and in our climatic conditions, as it is known, nothing can be produced in the open air) then the period of amortization becomes whole 25 years. And let us not forget that, by an actually pure accounting, the tradesman must, after paying out all BMP at the end of the amortization period, have exactly as much accumulated money as he needs for to by
, now practically consumed, BMP product, where under this inflation rate he will have in the best case some 10-15% of the sum (and for the buildings maybe just 1-2%!). In this way the company, in fact, pays taxes for gains which
, but this is subject for additional calculations with which let is not diverge now.
So, and in order to convince ourselves that our calculations were close to the real ones, let us vary a little some of the parameters in the formula (2). For example, for a more respectable company the profit tax will be 40% (i.e.
) and then we get
(4)
and
or 30%, what is even worse, how it has to be expected. (Table for
as function of
in this case we will not give in order not to bore much the readers.)
If for this more "normal"
take also a more proper personal salary of 25,000 lv nominal in month (or 20,000 lv net in month), then we must vary
to 240,000 lv for an year, thing which may be expected to happen as
for the next year beginning from October 1996, and then is right to accept
(i.e. 200%, hopping that the shocking bank interest of 300%, after all, will not remain in effect for very long time) and then we will have:
(5)
i.e.
or 23% (by
, as it is in the moment, we get
or 16%!). This last thing, that
business with material consumption about 20%
is ineffective for his owner, between us said, is
! It becomes a bit "splotched" by the fact that the big manufactures, obviously (though for other reasons) are also ineffective, when hundreds of companies are privatized!
These calculations have been done for trading companies, that pay profit tax, not for individual entrepreneurs (IE), who pay income tax (IT), but in reality the things don't differ much, because for 430 ths lv annual profit, for example, one must pay income tax in amount of 112 ths lv (by the table for 3,500 lv minimal monthly salary), what is tax of 26%, but if one adds also some minimal payment for social security it comes to 28%, what is practically equal to 30%. (Compare with Table.1, where for
we have
lv gain, or profit before subtracting taxes
ths lv, i.e. exactly as much as we have just now used by the calculations for IE. Besides, these sums are entirely real as average numbers for IE, if one does not deceit.)
Could something, still, be bettered? Alas, there are not rose coloured perspectives, because even lessening of the profit tax to 20% for the small companies (a thing that hardly some government, no matter of what colour, will allow itself to do, because this makes strong impact on the state budget) will give
or 36% instead of former 33% (other things being equal), so that this has almost no effect on the production.
The only way out of the mess is lessening of the profits from bank deposits (i.e. stopping of the inflation and stabilizing of the economy). By
, we have
, what now is quite good. In the same time, by
, or 30% (which was the ambition of communist socialists, BSP, but it turned out that these "dear people" — their beloved addressing to the masses — have done their calculations without "the barkeeper", as the saying goes) we get
or whole 70%.
So that it remains nothing else to us except to whistle the song "The communism is going back and strong embraces people's necks" (there was some joking song "The communism comes back"), because both, there are no conditions at all for whatever small business, and we have become so poor that are left only with our begging bowls (without quotes), with our minimal monthly salary of about 20 US dollars (or less than a dollar a working day, if you like it better so).
October 1996
— — —
Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/