At the beginning of the XXI century. many expect socialism as an alternative to randomly emerging terrible end of the world of social injustice, which comfortably billion and five billion at the bottom of the pyramid have no light, no food. But they do not see that they themselves hope of revitalizing the chaos and anti-globalization protesters antimondialistkoy amalgam of forces are the product of a global simulation scenario driven disaster, where the real world government directs the organization of religious wars, the opening and closing of the regional markets, bringing to the submission of national governments. Global capitalist system: market fundamentalist threat The catastrophe of global capitalism, indeed, managed and even G. Soros recognizes the fallacy of his prediction, ironically named - "The Capitalist Threat". Leading capitalist warned us that title of his article in The Atlantic Monthly for February 1997 In November 1998 he published a book entitled "The Crisis of Global Capitalism. Open society in danger. "
In the last book Soros says the falsity of its assessments of prospects of global capitalism and classifies their mistakes as follows: firstly, he had underestimated "the ability of financial authorities to prevent the catastrophe, when it became a threat to the center of the global capitalist system." And further: it turned out that the U.S. Federal Reserve "has successfully staved off the collapse of the American economy, while the International Monetary Fund failed to protect the economies of the periphery, but once again demonstrated this fact" .1
The second error of the capitalist-philanthropist, was that he did not consider the role of scientific and technological revolution, thanks to which "the center managed to cross the main burden of problems on the periphery. He writes: "The boom of Internet companies in the West coincided with the collapse of emerging markets. How could I not notice? I was misled by the fact that the same technological breakthroughs - the emergence of railroads, the invention of electricity and telephone - have taken place in the nineteenth century. Which can be called an era of global capitalism. But even at that time, technological era evoked as the ups and downs. And that was the main mistake of my analysis, a mistake that I have no right either to forget or gloss over, because then I have sinned against the historical truth. However, I am willing to honestly admit its ".2 In what Soros insists that during the self-criticism in his latest book? He seeks to demonstrate the errors of market fundamentalism and establish the principles of open society. The first thesis, he argues that proves - "social justice is beyond the competence of the market economy ... As a result, it is necessary to political interference in the economy that would maintain stability and reduce inequalities" .3 The trouble is that political decisions are themselves more imperfect than the market and this observation provides the most powerful argument in favor of the free market that market fundamentalists are constantly abused. These economic fundamentalists in general can be compared with religious fundamentalist zealots. As a result, "the fundamentalist argument, perhaps, good for a better world, but it is unsuitable for suboptimal" 4. Furthermore, Coros said that he was confused his readers the term "open society", as used it in three different ways. First, he identified an open society with a state close to equilibrium. Secondly, he reported that the open society - only an ideal to which we can get close, but that is unattainable in reality. These statements contradict each other and violate the second law of logic (law of contradiction), as well as the first law (law of identity). Soros is going to break the third law - the law of excluded middle, according to which "there is no third." It introduces a third understanding, under which an open society is the goal, and it must be sought. How is this different from communism? "Our goal - communism," "Forward to Communism!" - Such slogans graced our city for many years. How is this different from the horizon line? Is there an open society into a reality or an ideal? Obviously, this is something, and another, and this is very unusual ideal - the border and eternity. The world has no boundaries, is phasing out the artificial division of the world through the borders. Borders are painted with blood and people used to feel the owners, saying "My country", "My car, my house." There is a mobile communication without borders, doctors without borders "," Information without Borders ", satellite broadcasting without borders. Sometime in the German concept of the foreigner to coincide with the notion of a beggar. It is obvious that integration is possible only with an increase in living standards. However, the Western democracies, according to Soros, can not be called open societies, because achieving that society does not recognize their primary objective and universal principle, and in international relations are still based on the principle of national sovereignty. In this light, the key problem of modernity, according to Soros, is the problem of compatibility of the concept of open society with the principle of national sovereignty. The fact that the open society as a universal idea, secretly assumes the principles of freedom, democracy, rule of law, human rights, social justice and social responsibility. Soros was surprised to report that "one of the obstacles to the adoption of an open society as a common goal is the widespread hostility to the universal ideas. I discovered this after my set up a network of funds, and to be honest, I was surprised by this discovery. " People are "closed society" understood everything at a glance, and inspired by the principles of open society - they enthusiastically began to build a branch of the fund (still have - have invested a lot of money for the cause and took a small part of the people). And further, Soros again wonders: "But in the West, I met less understanding. At first I thought that people in the West is not enough savvy to recognize opened before them a historic opportunity, but in the end had come to the conclusion that they are completely sincere in their indifference to the open society as a universal idea, and therefore do not wish to make special efforts to help former communist countries in implementing change. I misled the propaganda of the Cold War. All the then talk about freedom and democracy were primarily propaganda ".5 In the course of democratic reforms in the countries of the former real socialism, the ideal of an open society and there lost his appeal, because people were forced to engage in a struggle for survival, and asked yourself the question concerning the new open ideal - not whether they cling to outdated values? As a result, Soros had to subject the concept of open society full review. The essence of such a review was the recognition of the fact that the principle of universal principles of exposure errors is also a universal ideey.6 It is known that Popper was an opponent of the definitions, he insisted that we should first describe something and then stick a label on it and create an "ism". As a result, his writings were full of "isms." In fact, should not define an open society, but we need to create a program of movement to achieve it - the movement to combat the enemies of this society. Under enemies Soros understands not only the state as poverty, disease, environmental threats srede.7 In other words, Soros recreates the program to achieve a global open society as a genuine globalism. Here, he "takes off the mask" and ceases to be an anonymous member of the financial market - it speaks of himself as a man who "blew the Bank of England and begins to care about the moral side of the formation of a new global imperii.8 Incompleteness and decay of global capitalism: Soros view Soros stressed that the global capitalist empire should be compared with the empire, far more global than any previously existing: "She runs the entire civilization, and those who are outside it, according to the barbarians. This - the empire without territory, since it has no sovereignty and its inherent attributes, in fact, the sovereignty of individual states - the main factor limiting its power and influence. Thus, we are dealing with the empire, virtually invisible and has no formal structure. ... Dominance of market values meets fierce opposition from various forces - nationalist, religious, cultural and intellectual. Words of a new type of imperialism. Americans or Europeans are, of course, cut the ear, but it is important to understand what emotions are behind such statements. After all, global capitalism and its fruits look different when you look at them from the center or the periphery. In contrast to the nineteenth century. When imperialism did not mean anything other than the seizure of colonies, the current global capitalist system is inherently almost completely vneterritorialnoy even extraterritorial. Territory is administered by state institutions, which often limit the expansion of capitalism. ... As pointed out 150 years ago Marx and Engels, the capitalist system turns the land, labor and capital goods ".9 However, according to authoritative opinion of Soros, the modern capitalist regime was formed in 1980, it was then, market fundamentalism emerged as the dominant ideological trend in the center ".10 This mode is fundamentally incomplete, because only manages the execution of economic function, dominant over all others, and political and social functions remain the prerogative of sovereign nation states. The first global capitalist regime - colonialism had already been destroyed by World War I, revolutions and World War II and today intrusion into the sphere of state sovereignty by a much more subtle methods. That is why Soros has formulated the main idea of his final book: "global capitalism in the form in which it exists today, is an incomplete and distorted form of a global open society. Her weakness is rooted in political and social structures, rather than in the economy. Indeed, the main flaw of global capitalism lies in its excessive one-sided: it makes an excessive emphasis on profits and economic success, ignoring considerations of social and political nature. This thesis is particularly true reflects the situation on the international scene. The belief that capitalism and democracy are directly linked with each other, is very strong ".11
Prof. Nekrasov, SN
In the last book Soros says the falsity of its assessments of prospects of global capitalism and classifies their mistakes as follows: firstly, he had underestimated "the ability of financial authorities to prevent the catastrophe, when it became a threat to the center of the global capitalist system." And further: it turned out that the U.S. Federal Reserve "has successfully staved off the collapse of the American economy, while the International Monetary Fund failed to protect the economies of the periphery, but once again demonstrated this fact" .1
The second error of the capitalist-philanthropist, was that he did not consider the role of scientific and technological revolution, thanks to which "the center managed to cross the main burden of problems on the periphery. He writes: "The boom of Internet companies in the West coincided with the collapse of emerging markets. How could I not notice? I was misled by the fact that the same technological breakthroughs - the emergence of railroads, the invention of electricity and telephone - have taken place in the nineteenth century. Which can be called an era of global capitalism. But even at that time, technological era evoked as the ups and downs. And that was the main mistake of my analysis, a mistake that I have no right either to forget or gloss over, because then I have sinned against the historical truth. However, I am willing to honestly admit its ".2 In what Soros insists that during the self-criticism in his latest book? He seeks to demonstrate the errors of market fundamentalism and establish the principles of open society. The first thesis, he argues that proves - "social justice is beyond the competence of the market economy ... As a result, it is necessary to political interference in the economy that would maintain stability and reduce inequalities" .3 The trouble is that political decisions are themselves more imperfect than the market and this observation provides the most powerful argument in favor of the free market that market fundamentalists are constantly abused. These economic fundamentalists in general can be compared with religious fundamentalist zealots. As a result, "the fundamentalist argument, perhaps, good for a better world, but it is unsuitable for suboptimal" 4. Furthermore, Coros said that he was confused his readers the term "open society", as used it in three different ways. First, he identified an open society with a state close to equilibrium. Secondly, he reported that the open society - only an ideal to which we can get close, but that is unattainable in reality. These statements contradict each other and violate the second law of logic (law of contradiction), as well as the first law (law of identity). Soros is going to break the third law - the law of excluded middle, according to which "there is no third." It introduces a third understanding, under which an open society is the goal, and it must be sought. How is this different from communism? "Our goal - communism," "Forward to Communism!" - Such slogans graced our city for many years. How is this different from the horizon line? Is there an open society into a reality or an ideal? Obviously, this is something, and another, and this is very unusual ideal - the border and eternity. The world has no boundaries, is phasing out the artificial division of the world through the borders. Borders are painted with blood and people used to feel the owners, saying "My country", "My car, my house." There is a mobile communication without borders, doctors without borders "," Information without Borders ", satellite broadcasting without borders. Sometime in the German concept of the foreigner to coincide with the notion of a beggar. It is obvious that integration is possible only with an increase in living standards. However, the Western democracies, according to Soros, can not be called open societies, because achieving that society does not recognize their primary objective and universal principle, and in international relations are still based on the principle of national sovereignty. In this light, the key problem of modernity, according to Soros, is the problem of compatibility of the concept of open society with the principle of national sovereignty. The fact that the open society as a universal idea, secretly assumes the principles of freedom, democracy, rule of law, human rights, social justice and social responsibility. Soros was surprised to report that "one of the obstacles to the adoption of an open society as a common goal is the widespread hostility to the universal ideas. I discovered this after my set up a network of funds, and to be honest, I was surprised by this discovery. " People are "closed society" understood everything at a glance, and inspired by the principles of open society - they enthusiastically began to build a branch of the fund (still have - have invested a lot of money for the cause and took a small part of the people). And further, Soros again wonders: "But in the West, I met less understanding. At first I thought that people in the West is not enough savvy to recognize opened before them a historic opportunity, but in the end had come to the conclusion that they are completely sincere in their indifference to the open society as a universal idea, and therefore do not wish to make special efforts to help former communist countries in implementing change. I misled the propaganda of the Cold War. All the then talk about freedom and democracy were primarily propaganda ".5 In the course of democratic reforms in the countries of the former real socialism, the ideal of an open society and there lost his appeal, because people were forced to engage in a struggle for survival, and asked yourself the question concerning the new open ideal - not whether they cling to outdated values? As a result, Soros had to subject the concept of open society full review. The essence of such a review was the recognition of the fact that the principle of universal principles of exposure errors is also a universal ideey.6 It is known that Popper was an opponent of the definitions, he insisted that we should first describe something and then stick a label on it and create an "ism". As a result, his writings were full of "isms." In fact, should not define an open society, but we need to create a program of movement to achieve it - the movement to combat the enemies of this society. Under enemies Soros understands not only the state as poverty, disease, environmental threats srede.7 In other words, Soros recreates the program to achieve a global open society as a genuine globalism. Here, he "takes off the mask" and ceases to be an anonymous member of the financial market - it speaks of himself as a man who "blew the Bank of England and begins to care about the moral side of the formation of a new global imperii.8 Incompleteness and decay of global capitalism: Soros view Soros stressed that the global capitalist empire should be compared with the empire, far more global than any previously existing: "She runs the entire civilization, and those who are outside it, according to the barbarians. This - the empire without territory, since it has no sovereignty and its inherent attributes, in fact, the sovereignty of individual states - the main factor limiting its power and influence. Thus, we are dealing with the empire, virtually invisible and has no formal structure. ... Dominance of market values meets fierce opposition from various forces - nationalist, religious, cultural and intellectual. Words of a new type of imperialism. Americans or Europeans are, of course, cut the ear, but it is important to understand what emotions are behind such statements. After all, global capitalism and its fruits look different when you look at them from the center or the periphery. In contrast to the nineteenth century. When imperialism did not mean anything other than the seizure of colonies, the current global capitalist system is inherently almost completely vneterritorialnoy even extraterritorial. Territory is administered by state institutions, which often limit the expansion of capitalism. ... As pointed out 150 years ago Marx and Engels, the capitalist system turns the land, labor and capital goods ".9 However, according to authoritative opinion of Soros, the modern capitalist regime was formed in 1980, it was then, market fundamentalism emerged as the dominant ideological trend in the center ".10 This mode is fundamentally incomplete, because only manages the execution of economic function, dominant over all others, and political and social functions remain the prerogative of sovereign nation states. The first global capitalist regime - colonialism had already been destroyed by World War I, revolutions and World War II and today intrusion into the sphere of state sovereignty by a much more subtle methods. That is why Soros has formulated the main idea of his final book: "global capitalism in the form in which it exists today, is an incomplete and distorted form of a global open society. Her weakness is rooted in political and social structures, rather than in the economy. Indeed, the main flaw of global capitalism lies in its excessive one-sided: it makes an excessive emphasis on profits and economic success, ignoring considerations of social and political nature. This thesis is particularly true reflects the situation on the international scene. The belief that capitalism and democracy are directly linked with each other, is very strong ".11
Prof. Nekrasov, SN
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий