Main page | Archive | Russian version

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: What 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 governments MASS-MEDIAS) criticise positions which differ from governments 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 its 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: And 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: Everyone should give an ability, everyone should get what he needs. Figuratively speaking: You 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 have eaten 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 Stalin 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: For 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: Arent 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 plough, who 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 Brezhnevs times and his famous: The 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: So, 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 the 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 doesnt need instructions. It means that everything should belong to someone. If we look at our neighbours, Russia, the Ukraine well 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 lost 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 wont 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 wont 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


Rambler's Top100 TopList