justice and efficiency

another title:
JUSTICE AND EFFICIENCY
(everlasting subject of balancing)










After short adjournment the movements championing interests of social inequities and the oppresseds on the Marxist base (and - much to our regret - even not only on the Marxist one) are again gaining notice. True, the fiasco of the Soviet Union and China’s course toward free market system continue taking toll on the spirit and mood of the these men. Not least, it seems there is lacking of accurate knowledge of the proceedings with crude erroneous interpretation of important events. The latter vice strikes all - the left as well as the right. More’s the pity, all recently appealing high ideals - in the first place, socialism and democracy - have now marred reputations. Both proved incapable to bring in the framework of society the conciliation and stability. Both directions of thoughts and aspirations are in need to bore deeper into the essence of social structure and transformations. In the meantime, with all these disappointments, goals by themselves were and remain urgent and high-minded and there’s absolutely no sense to give up on them. Let’s search new approaches, guided by the same initial foundation: principles of historical materialism and striving for equality and justice.
Here is something to this effect. To begin with, the societal evolution taken as a whole and even not necessarily as a whole possesses dualism. On the one hand, it is replete with competition, exploitation, repulsion of the weaks, but on the other hand, though often inconsistently nevertheless inexorably, undergoes changes from larger inequality to lesser one. The latter peculiarity referred below as “equalization” is viewed in the form of a gradually accruing process. Equalization traces its beginning back to the very initial point of societal existence, has been carving its way through the whole history and certainly with the same inexorability will continue its fruiting in the future. Equalization is a purely human “invention”. The animate nature outside of human beings evolves exclusively by way of competition and struggle and moves differently - toward endless divergence and supplanting (with few exceptions not worthy of being mentioned.) Exceptions are interesting though - the testimony of how far back in time and deep roots of cooperation are implanted. To the full extent the cooperation and its consequences unfolded with the appearance of these bipeds endowed with reason and hands. They were the ones that tacked to their intricate competition and cooperation the ability to realize their place in surrounding, to evaluate it, to compare it with the potentialities and positions of other similar to them subjects. This left an unprecedented imprint on the behavior, for better competitiveness elicited the need for instillation in participants of social groups a sense of community of interests, nearing of destinies, in a word, the need for advance toward more equality. This is where equalization was born, this is where distinctive evolution of societal fabric (in a sense, of all alive nature) started on.
In its advance equalization sensibly restrains competition at least in some of its cruel manifestations, yet, for a long time to come (maybe even forever) the role of competition and, by implication, inequlities in terms of prosperity and social positions will remain significant both at the individual level and in actions of groups and classes. Competition constitutes the psychological stimulus, while skillful urging on people’s creativity benefits any activity - science, production, general development. Yet, effective arrangement for solution of contradictions on a significant scale in principle exists, competition doesn’t pose a stumbling block to it. Nevertheless both modes of behavior (in fact, two different life’s strategies – competition and equalization) stand on contentious terms with one another. As a result of this, the course of history has the uneven appearance with risings and falls, revolutions and prosperities, breakthroughs and retreats (more about that are expanded further). The progress of equalization proceeds along two different avenues. One of them, which springs to mind first, can be called structural. That’s what has a bearing on the societal order and relationships as we see them in daily life. The evolutions of both – that is, order and relationships - are seen with naked eye: from slavery to feudalism, from serfdom to capitalism, from absolute despotism to democracy with universal suffrage, to personal freedom, to openness (to be silent about socialism so far). In industrial field an impressive list comes forth as well: eight-hour working-day, minimum wages, different kinds of allowances –nothing came effortlessly and at once. And then the sphere of international affairs. Here too the historical perspective brings into view a similar picture – the emergence of former protectorates and dependencies to independence, taking hold of some feeble notions of international order and other things in the same vein. As a recent achievement the novel class of organization - the United Nation - has arisen. The process wasn’t smooth though. The period of Great Geographical Discoveries proved particularly outstanding in this regard. That was the time when very different peoples got into contact in a swift and abrupt way, the peoples which before that time even didn’t know about each other’s existence, the gap in development and states between which was especially great. The result was a great step back. A number of peoples perished in genocide, restoration of long abandoned slavery took place (on limited, yet rather wide-spread scale), colonialism had moved across the face of the globe. From that time frame history pushed off again toward the same direction (the one it moved before) – equalization stubbornly plays its tune. Sharp enhancing communion even then, for all the wildness, with stark contrasts in states and developments, was only temporarily able of turning back the clock of inclination.
That is the way the structural equalization is and works. Now let’s turn to another field where the phenomenon of equalization manifests itself no less effectively though not that recognizably. Here we should set our sights on two profound characteristic peculiarities of society’s development and not only society’s one – of the whole alive world. The first is succession. Descendants follow the line of consecutive changes and modes of life of their predecessors. In all living nature it takes the shape of incarcerations in a specific biological niches – a kind of the possession each species has been conquering and championing in all its past and continues the same struggle today to retain it for the future. In this picture the society brought something new. The mankind’s place in the Nature can’t be any more contended for but, in return, rivalry for the position within society had emerged at both levels at that: individual and group. And again succession remains in the place. A seized rung of social hierarchy, a social niche, so to speak, also is being hung on to in each generation by a group of people whose advantages came from the social positions of their parents and parents of parents. Barriers surrounding such a group’s property are not absolutely tight of course. There is some influx from below upward, but from above practically nobody comes down. Upper strata are something what could be called a deadlock where all, building cram, try to squeeze in, or - another analogy - a realm of hightened pressure with no device for relieving. On other hand one can point to the fact of the existence of genealogical lines whose representatives in all known history never rised from bottom and no such prospect (due to succession) is lying in wait for them in the fututre.
There is another important circumstance needing to be considered - not succession as such but something eternally tied in with it. This is making of in society (pretty much as experienced in all biological nature) changes in appearances and states of objects the succession hedges off. This is why an origin puts many distinctive stamps on people – the difference between cultural intelligents and individuals sturdily employed in the heavy manual labour is generally known (for more detailed information on this matter, see P. Sorokin Social and Cultural Mobility). What is important is that all these deviations (specific sets of imparted properties) put different groups of people on the different levels of knowledge, mastering, feelings, in other words, levels of development. It is true that in everyday life abilities determine peoples’ social positions, but social positions determine abilities as well. Thus the circle is found closed. As important tools of succession – aside from cultural conditions - such legitimated usages and circumstances come up as inheritance of property or resulting from the social affiliation possession of sufficient means for education. Being in the living world the important lever in the mechanism of branching from plankton to humans, the succession strives to act similarly in the human midst too. The question now is: how does the society, being in great need of equalization, react to this unceasing growth of disparities? By rather characteristic way.
The world’s history is inundated with contradictions and full of wars. As of now no deliverance from this mess is in the offing. Yet, complex as it is, this taking-to-heart situation has long been a subject of search for some conformity to rules. Particularly, since ancient times it was noticed that as a result of these infinite number of internal and external collisions chronicles of all societies break up into periods (cycles) in each of which one can distinguish something rather like the birth (accompanied by new people of simple origin ascent to leadership), rising, flourishing, decline and dawnfall (where at least partly a new replacement of leading stratum taking place). The reason of these periodical renewals (such a term will be used further on) was seen to changes in states of ruling classes, brought down upon them by their way of life, that is, getting the habit of comfort, refined feelings and behavior, interests in art and abstract matter – all this along with losses of other valuable virtues. The faulty situation prompted reactions since time immemorial. One instance of drastic measures is rather noticeable: in the ancient state Sparta (c.700 – 362BC) an attempt was made to prevent the degradation from happening through inhibiting intellectual progress as such (the laws of Lykourgos). Those efforts failed, “degradation” isn’t only degradation. Different tasks of development exist, different strategies are needed. Either one can’t take the place of the other. Nevertheless disorderliness of societal life, scourges of renewals remained a formidable problem. Cyclicity has came into focus of many theoreticians. A start was made by Polybius (2nd century BC), special credit is being given to Ibn Khaldun (1336-1406AD) , marked contributions came from Machiavelli, Vico, Spengler, Toinbee, Pareto, Sorokin. Some additional or differently phrased explanations were being advanced. Often the blame for the stability’s loss was laid on society’s complication and stratification; still others saw the root of the evil to complacency gripping the minds of those who too hurriedly came to believe in firmness of their positions (just in point for Amerikan administration before 11/9). Also as an explanation: exhausting old ideas, the need for the new ones - altruism or something like this (Sorokin) even to the point of suggesting that, according to Toinbee, cyclicity and suffering are humanity’s way of religious self-perfection. There was one common trait in all these judgments: natural moderate economical penetrations of people from below strata into upper ones were being approved, even welcomed, but facts of purposeful social transpositions executed by special measures, especially сoupled with mass dismissions were invariably met with deep-rooted aversion and rejected out of hand. With such a vision investigators could neither to define duly the reason of renewals nor estimate their optimum scale. Nor to offer any way of regulating. The latter point remains in bad need of solution. Let’s try to fill the gap.
Focusing on a close-up scrutiny for specific examples would be the best start. Some surprises would turn up in our way. First of all recent Russian revolutions. It is generally held today that the object of efforts in this event was the socialism while substitution of old ruling classes with the new people from rank and file – a collateral and senseless phenomenon. That’s the way the values, feeling and plans are forming in the heads of observers, journalists and statesmen. Nonsense and confusion resulted from this especially obvious when it comes to such developments as Stalinism (or, for the same token, Chinese Cultural revolution). Facts would piece together much more harmoniously if we conceive the flow of events just the other way around. It is socialism with all its concomitants that served as a tool, it is the renewal that was the destination, driving force and lasting outcome. Such a shock wasn’t the first of such kind in Russian history. In particular, it had gone through something very similar at the time of Ivan the Terrible (the second half of 16th centure) when from the ranks of servicemen a new sort of elite was promoted – “дворяне”. It was significant event ushered in the long and rather glorious Romanov period in Russian history. The eminence, however, failed to prevent coming in due time of huge estrangement in attitudes between upper and low classes. Against these facts, is wisely on our part to immerse ourself exclusively in the concern for the current productivity rate without due attention to the growing divergence in people’s states and developments? And to think that this practice could last infinitely? Doesn’t in this way, looking from historical perspective, a great part of efforts go to dust and ashes? And another question: what is there to the comfort presented by the creed of a noted philosopher Francis Fukuyama? Has the history realy came to end with Russian revolution’s completion?
But we havn't finish our observation yet. Four centuries before Ivan the Terrible the renewal nearly happened by force of the alien army – on the heel of Mongolian invasion. This kind of forcible renewals (occurring spontaneously without any notion about equality) was widespread in the past history. The reason rested with a special sort of situation - differences in conditions of opposing armies. Armies of mature societies took on the composition of diversified alienated layers. They were no match for armies newly organized in the place of tribal relationships. Today this factor remains weighty too.
In addition to Russia let’s give the England a glance. Over the last fifteen centuries (approximately) of its history England have lived through five renewals each time with the replacement of the advanced leading circles by the backward ones. Two of them were performed by outside forces (Anglo-Saxon and Norman foreigners) and three by internal forces: deeds of the king Alfred the Great, the Wars of the Roses and the English revolution. Particularly arresting is China’s history. It spreads over two and half millenniums and during this time thirteen thorough substitutions of leading strata have taken place, eight of them due to internal rebellions. And so on. It is not to say that all of this sort’s events are clear and simple. Nevertheless the adduced facts reflect reality well. Especially distinct examples of renewals are furnished by four revolutions that could be named classical – English, French, Russian and Chinese. All they were multy-step. Once the old deep-rooted canons had been breached at the surface, from the society’s depth upwards very soon new cohorts of pretenders started consecutively coming forward, at each stage from more and more deeper layers. Raging of furious struggles between predecessors and those who were at their heels became matter-of-course. Each stage brought on the new level of sacrifices and bitterness. The evidence of the consistent pattern in these developments can’t be denied, all they correspond to their destinations, yet, any particular outcome of battles cannot be considered as predetermined. When and how an overthrow would end in all these events was a whim of spontaneous optimization. Some revolutions are deep, some shallow, some futile but they always are complex processes clouded up with frays and coercions. No country of sufficient age seen over the course of its history escaped crisises of renewals. If they are indeed importunate companions of societal existence, if – getting slightly ahead - endless succession is historically inadmissible, without special arrangements uninterrupted stability is impossible.
Beyond said, revolutions change balance of forces in the sphere of international relationships as the result thereof set a stage for a new kind of problems. Forces pomoted by backward society's body in their rush to renewals as often are subjected to agressions as manifest their own proclivity toward expansion. Renewal movement easy take on an international scale. Advantages grown out of closeness between leaders and driven mass in combination with setting off against – real or indoctrinated – common estranged adversary plus the passion for the further social risings feed bellicosity. The phenomenon of abrupt societal rising is fraught with further seizures. By past experience the outcome became more or less extensive spreading of renewals, promotion of the new personnel to the upper circles in other countries sometimes from ranks of conquerors (Ireland in English revolution is the case in point, the less successful, Napoleon’s campaigns; Soviet Union and China were not indifferent to this issue as well). Sooner or later whether due to wrecking of expansion or for reason of the internal logic the strategy of unbridled renewals invariably exhausts itself. The mood of yesterday promoted people changes. Once havng raised, they want to be settled in the new places solidly. Former revolutionaries turn step by step into conservators, into defenders of this-date conjuncture, defenders of succession. The past henceforth increasingly instills aversion in them, the fact that they are responsible for and in debt to it drops out of their mind, if was ever recognized. National unity is being declared in overall society now held nearly fixed irrespective of new growing dissimilarities and injustice (often with essential compensation though – democracy). Division along lines of the dismissed and the promoted gives way to fraternization, the survived part of the former at times gets some possessions back (a feature of spontaneous optimization). What has remained after completion of all perturbations is the new, improved relationships between upper and low parts of society. These relationships give the assurance to future close cooperation between classes, ushers in a new (mostly fruitful) cycle in the society’s life. Paradoxically, when it comes to evaluation of recent revolutions this enormously important point (improved cooperation) is invariably overlooked by both participants and observers. The former look empty handed.
Community of features of classical revolutions is no accident, they are very instructive in respect to the whole phenomenon and all its various manifestations.
There remain, however, some different courses of events that can’t be omitted here. Those are executions of poised-to-become-peaceful economical ways of promotions and renewals. As with forcible renewals, multiformity is their inalienable trait. One example represents Middle Ages. In the early stage of it the preeminent base of economy was agriculture with land nobility as society’s only leaders. Towns firstly looked as miniature islands lost in the expanses of feudal possessions. Then they started to grow gradually shoving aside agriculture as #1 producer of values and, along this way, advance on societal and political positions of weakening rulers. Instructive matter on these processes represents French history at the times of dynasties of Capetians and Valois. Yet, such a mode didn’t spare the state from forcible renewals too: the terror of Louis XI and Wars of religion - the need for occasional forcible driving away of aristocratic tops hadn’t been eradicated. Other outstanding pattern of econimical promotions was set by Germany in its recent history. The role of driving force took on itself the swift advance of economy сombined with considerable social changes. The process started (after long period of vegetation) on the eve of revolutionary actions of 1848 and lasted practically until after the end of WWII. During this period through purely economical means the intensive growth of upper and middle classes had been taking place against a background of lagging behind of all neighbouring countries to the West and to the East. The process didn’t turned into all-round pleasure though, at about that time Marxism and worker movement made their appearance. The chain of events flared up - as is the case in most renewals - in expansion, that is, unleashing of the WWI. The struggle was carried on for land, colonies, domination. The German advantages were of a double kind. Usually the force of revolutinary movements comes from internal closeness, while conservatives make boast of technology and organization. The Germans possessed both. Yet, at that stage (the WWI) the closeness didn’t stand up to trial. As a result of this the deepening of revolution took place in the course of which the monarchy was overthrown and the leftists’ actions suppressed (deepening wasn’t great). After the left flank and the right flank had received ‘their due’ it took fifteen years of the Welmar Republic in order to come to senses and renew expansion under the new, petty-bourgeois leadership (the WWII). Not only expansion, the forcible “internal device” of renewal was launched at the expence of Jews. They were eliminated, their social positions and possessions had passed to other people for whom it was social rising. The “peaceful economic” way of renewal turned into cruel and bloody violence. After the war a renewal came into the focus of East Germany’s deeds, of course, a kind of forcible ones. The end of East Germany had steep character but fourty years of its efforts were not absolutely fruitless: some of transactions have survived unification (particularly, in sphere of land distribution).
About the same time another important pattern of actions found use, firstly in West Germany then elsewhere in the West world. That is the reception by these countries people from backward and poor regions for performance of unqualified work on their soil. Lower strata of indigenous population have been getting favorable opportunity for leaving their previous occupations, bettering their social standings, thus mass promotion, a kind of economic renewal came into being. Stable extended reproduction is an indispensible condition of such a strategy. Having been ousted from colonies due to unequal relationships the developed countries (formerly countries-colonizers) found a new way to arrange their cooperation with the backward part of mankind. In drastically mitigated manner but in principle the same order that once existed in distant subjugated territories now found use within their own borders. Being positioned as guests, strange workers for a long time wouldn’t be able to meddle in issues of social distribution. For all involved sides cooperation would remain mutually beneficial, stability stands to be sustained for long. But not forever. The final word belongs to the time, of course, but one cannot look at this arrangement as the cardinal solution of the age-old formidable problem, rather as the temporal palliative one. It provides promotions and development but the highly - in fact, the most - important point, one that follows on from the presence of succession, leaves intact. Without dismissions essential promotions are off limits to the main mass of laborers, not to speak of the social bottom. The conclusive all-embracing effect isn’t being attained, destructive forces remain on the loose. And so from both reasoning and evidences the final conclusion reads: unlimited successive stay of any social group in favorable for development societal position historically inadmissible. The same holds true for the elusive ideal of everlasting stability – struggles over the issue of “who will be who” account for at least 80% of all known in history wars and so far this tendency stays unchanged. Successes in productivity, that is in the sphere of “what and how to do” can’t change situation, can’t reconcile everybody in the world of social succession and frozen inequality. In the absence of an appropriate regulation each society carries inside itself a sort of clock-driven bomb. It is recalled that the equalization we speak about is of special kind. It doesn’t indeed concern with material consumption, conveniences of life, division between the poor and the rich. It touches the more important string of being - human states and abilities, that is, their development; that is their destinies. This is something that cannot be achieved by simple opening of a purse. Nor left on the loose. An essential reorganization is needed, such that on the historical scale would provide joint development for all society’s parts and constituents. Just “for all”, in fact we are utterly responsible for each other.
From the preceding account appears that a great part of history needs a kind of revision. Missed are important purposes and values that are embedded in a whole host of past and contemporary events. Seen usually as awful, senseless and damaging, countless rises and falls of state systems (which make for the dynamical oscillatory character of societal evolution) and what accompanied them - holocausts, genocides, Pol Pot’s deeds and so on - now get the explanation and even destination. The history comes as the arrangement of two alternating and – sometimes – combining strategies. One – strategy “in depth” – aligns incentives to compete in the spheres of profit and productivity, promotes further the strongest, pushes away the weaks. It gravitates to Darwin laws. Once in a while, however, its activity is interrupted with another strategy which at the high price through suffering and sacrifices smooths the gap having been spreaded between the states of different parts of society in the process of the “in depth” strategy. This strategy should be called “in width”. On some occasions both strategies interweave but as a rule one of them is making progress at the expense of the other until priorities switch. In this view history appears as the process of continual tug-of-war with temporal advances and retreats of struggling sides each of them upholds its own way of actions. All this without anybody’s final victory. No final victory represented the end of the Cold War either (if not ensuing after one Cold War the next one). For democracies to be absolutely unshakable their base should be reinforced by the greater level of community, particularly, by gaining the ability to handle the issues of social distribution and social succession. In what way?
A distinct revolutionary theory heaves into view.
As mentioned earlier, while the belonging of people to one or another social positions if not always but rather often relates to their possessors’ abilities, abilities in turn for the great part are extentions of positions that were over past generations occupied by those possessors’ progenitors. Peoples born in different social strata at the very start of their life are posed to different gifts of destiny and pass their dooms on to future generations. Consequently, in pursuit of joint development the backwards en masse and for long must be appointed to favorable for their personal progress activity and put in conditions of feasible competition at that. Competition is bound to be but for a time shouldn’t exceed their powers. Toughness of contest must be increasing gradually. Great task and one that cannot be done over time scales of decades and without some rational concessions. A special device suggests itself here, in the core of which the alternation (constantly enacted exchange) of social standings has the seat. This seemingly simple device belongs to the most fundamental phenomena of the Nature. A little abstract reasoning would be, therefore, aptly here. The gist of the whole thing lies in the fact that quality and the very essence of an object depends on the time over the space of which it is being perceived. Or, in other words, on the quantity and character of changes which take place in/to the object over the time requiring for its perception. Here one of the miraculous properties of time manifests itself. Thanks to this wonder we, among other things, enjoy of the smooth flow of motion pictures without any stoppages which they consist of. Changes, however could be of different kinds and so, too, produced effects. Alternation has the pecular virtue of bringing in smoothing and equalization. Equalized temperature conditions confered on the Earth by its revolution (alternative turning all its sides toward the sun) is a case in point. Or - an example from social life - conditions of alternative duties in which the momentary observation of participants, their occupations and pastime, leaves one kind of impression as sufficiently long one, quite another. In the former case one participant stands, let’s say, on watch, while others are sleeping, in the latter case it turns out that summarily all spend equal time on work and on rest, all are equal. Likewise while by assessment over accessible to our analyses time intervals inhabitants of a country, not to mention the world, are undoubtedly unequal, taken in the span of millenniums under condition of alternation they would turn out to be equal. Hardly any other force of the Nature can outdo alternation in its effect. It underlies the very essence of universe, as for human future, its recourse to alternation is destined – shall I say – by the hand of fate (that is: by the very conditions of societal existence). Let’s arrange to call both the means and equality achieving on the base of alternation temporal in contrast to mentioned earlier structural ones. The latter now can be determined as infered from brief survey of societal life without regard for its dynamism. The former is indifferent to any momentary inequality (no matter how great), however, to produce effect of equality needs sufficient duration of time (hence its name “temporal”). With alternation the society’s structure could – if there’s a will - be utterly released from responsibility for structural inequality for want of serving any other interests, first of all, probably, those of productivity. Productivity, determined by societal structure, and equality being achieved by alternation are now combined, impossible becomes possible. The former provides the development in depth, the latter, in width, incompatible becomes compatible. Isn’t it miracle!?
It is noteworthy that Marxism (in its initial formulation) striving for equality showed (and continues to show until now) ignorance of temporal ways of achieving long-for goals, only structural means were (and are) under its consideration. Today, after all what has occurred and been lived through, just this (temporal) direction of actions comes to the forefront. With the new line of thought Marxism may come forth in the saddle again but not as the means of class struggle - as the class cooperation. Here allusions to some disheartened views are likely relevant such as of R. Aronson and M. Harrington for example. They reflect confusion brought upon the people with leftist tilt after seeming full distraction of their plans and hopes. For them all means of equalization came to a deadlock. Indeed, socialism is deposed, human rights – another direction of structural equalization – now are expanded so much as to cover homosexuals, as to the pecuniary aid for people down on their luck, these actions had passed through its peak already when American government curtailed its welfare system. The latter notoriously degenerated into the encourangement for inactivity. Structural equalization probably is coming to exhaustion but injustices are great and rebellions abide if not in the resonable form then in the blind one and hence the more destructive. Equalization as whole is an unceasing process that can’t be boged down for long especially if the Nature embodies devices based on time-proceeding processes whose effectiveness, as we may suspect now, could be greatly enhanced by regulating (conferring to them organized character). We certainly are going to have new inspirations and new undertakings. For better vision how the latter can look, let’s pass to some details. To begin with, our chosen device – alternation - has two sides: the rise and demotion. The former goes easy, the latter is painful. Luckily, history has already prompted something in this respect. By experience of Jews. 
Historically Jews represent an ancient section of societal life towards which the need for renewals have long been displaying itself in the most sharpest ways. In this instance as an adjunct to specific state, training, and traditions other forms of estrangement have been doing their bit - national and religious. Phenomenon of nationalities owes its existence to succession usually the regional one, this time the social succession appeared in this role. There are quite a few situations of similar nature, yet, the Jews are an outstanding case by scope, pecular isolation and by narrowness and character of their occupations. At a certain moment (just when they turned to more diversified – but as before intellectual – activities) intolerance of Jews reached the level, having driven them among others undertakings to settle apart in a separate state. Along the way willy-nilly the social downgrading took place (the new society needed all its layers to be filled in, so migrants pulled themselves together had no alternative but to find cadres for these layers in their own ranks). Dissociation and departure of one stratum of an old mature society (rather, a part of such a stratum) and its settling separately in the remote region wasn’t a new phenomenon in history. The United States of America are just a case in point. What the Israel’s story is different in, is the kind of stratum that happened to endure the translocation. Earlier it almost always was active but low societal sections, usually unfortunate peasants eager for a lot of land to toil on it. Aside from agriculture others attractive opportunities – filling numerous social niches in an anew forming society - might look promising for them as well. Transmigration offered these people the chance to improve their social standing. The matters stood differently in the instance of Israeli newcomers especially at the early stage of movement. Their origin and trainings were, more or less, intellectual ones, to build up multi-layer society going downstaires – demotion - was their primary destination. In mass and independent way, such a move – dismission (the special mode of it: dismission with separation) - was and remains unique. It is unique but it is just the very maneuver that the history needs from the very moment of its conception, that has been putting us on implementing over its full length, that, at last, with advent of destructive weapons is becoming the matter of life. Mass social descents (meaning regular and stretched in time ones) are in the profound interest of the populace (opening the door to their advancement in the place of the dismissed) if .. not for the regional dislocation tied to it! Regional dislocation of endemic inhabitants necessary to giving the place for newcomers is under these circumstances an unavoidable price, high but admissible (provided, be it said, that procedure is justly preconcerted). The advantage conferred by this course of actions is that the work of demotion is being done without degradation exclusively by competition - not by coercion, not by discriminations but by competition among the people of common development. Great deal but there is more to it!
We can now get down to the description of the arrangement that could be rightly named social circulation – a project of ordered alternation acting on the continuous base. In large outlines it should stands as follows: about once a year among a chosen developed section of a society lots are being thrown and those few families upon which lots fell are called up to move into other society – the new society of “higher” level, the place for which is assigned in consent within the territory of the old society. Their old possessions should be commandeered, new ones handed over (en masse, not individually) so as to give to incomers necessary economic base along with generous attention and assistance. In other respects they are meant to arrange their life independently in accordance with available opportunities and abilities. Episodic redistribution of property is an integral part of societal life. No society can do without it endlessly. If the door is closed tightly, if nothing in this respect is envisaged, the society’s prosperity is doomed once in a while to collapse into crisis. Today this unlucky circumstance holds for every country, even for revolutionary ones - whatever the form of government, any society sets and upholds some kind of hierarchal pyramid on the base of succession without any vision of social evolution’s predestination. But let’s go back to our account. With each party of emigrants joining in the high-level society its population would have to increase, while low-level society’s population, decrease, the territories must do the same accordingly. Over due time, say, 300 years the low-level society would have to collapse, to that time all its citizens should have to finish their passing through a course of development, the backwardness (at least the way we know it now) would be eliminated. This is were the principal ‘dismission with separation’ shows off its virtue at its very finest. However, insofar as in process of this overturn the succession would almost certainly trend to reestablish itself again, the whole procedure just upon its completion is going to have to be promptly launched anew. The former high-level society would turn into the low-level one, the new high-level society come into being. And so it should go for all foreseeable future, forming ceaseless social circulation. With it revolutionary shocks and cyclicity would have to become things of the past – the enormous political, economical, and social gain.
Eradication of revolutions and overcoming of backwardness are two interconnected tasks, that social circulation would be able to cope with, however,- another important point - different emphasis can be put on each of them.
Prosperous developed countries probably would be concerned exclusively with stability. This would determain their selection of process’ parameters such as a rate and extent of departing social circles. If illness isn’t in a state of neglect everything in this case could be expected to be on the low level, occurrring peacefully in the democratic fashion. Unfortunately, in our still wild time there are spacious regiones which stand in marked contrast to the developed ones, their interests and policy. A number of backward (“developing”) countries is refered here. They would try to turn social circulation into a tool not only of stabilty but of rapid development in the first place. Other kind of strategies may be called into being in this case. Particularly, we can expect the show of impatience, increased rate of circulation, maybe formation of structures embracing a number of similar states. The amalgamation is a way of possibilities' enhancing, a way of extention of activities capable to further development and training those lagged behind. All this even (borrowing from the Soviet experience) to detriment of consumption. Socialism could find use here. Overcoming of backwardness wouldn’t come easy and without sacrifices but the goal is lofty. What is important is that under conditions of social circulation all former often compromised measures acquire a new meaning. The low-level society would stand to be a protected school, the school of development (preliminary development, to be sure), the genuine competition should unfold in the high-level society side by side with the supplementary portion of training. The defect of globalization (of market internationalism, so to speak) consists in riveting of all members of world association to the certain place in production process solely according to system’s productivity needs, not necessarily in the interest of their development. Productivity is the first, as to development, вe that as it may. Socialism has an advantage in this respect.
And what about democracy in such (making gigantic strides to development)s systems? Probably it would be in action. Gradualness of renewals and awareness of what is being done (lacked in the past revolutions) would present a great factor in favor of achievement of social consent and mutual understanding. However if a kind of soft dictatorship would emerge it shouldn’t be conceived as a great surprise as well. Democracy in the qualitative representation for its steadiness needs a sufficiently high level of coincidence of all main interests displayed within society. Such a coincidence that can overweight the scope of motives at variance with the view of majority. For now this is no society’s guaranteed peculiarity. Without mitigating the destructive potential of unrestrained social succession even the West’s democracies remain fragile. For all that – back to concerns of underdeveloped countries - the just described agenda isn’t the only to follow through. In fact, the backward countries poise between two contradicting modes: either to act on their own and, being guarded from excessive competition, pursue activities of their own choice or to relay on international resources and help which come on terms of meeting often unfavourable requirements and needs. Both approaches have positive and negative sides, neither one can exclude the other. The balance ‘products versus development’ can take different meanings.
One of practical extentions of the social circulation’s idea is the suggestion in outline form the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the old strife now at the center of the world standoff. Both sides are at once right and wrong, both disregard interests of one another, but now it looks like we have more data to judge them. Israel heads the way in implementing the principle of “dismission with separation” but does it inaccurate and inconsistently. A great part of unskilled labour is being done by non-Jews now. Narrow national and even religious way of actions also doesn’t serve its destination. In fact Jews' position is not unparalleled. There is and will be for some time flows of refugees from revolutions which could be intended to shear the common destiny. Just Arabian ones would be especially valuable. Smooth transition from dismissial-with-separation’s mode to social circulation could be reached by this way and reconciliation with Arabian world on the base of mutual respect and confidence as well. It is on one side. On other side the great part of peoples belonging to the developing world see today in what was happened to Palestinians only one fact: the rude dispossession of land and expulsion. There is a part of truth in it, but only a part. Indeed it is true that Zionism must not have been implemented at the cost of Palestinian alone but the same truth reads that it has to be performed at the cost of all the peoples who manifested in past and manifests now intolerance to Jew’s endless stay in favorable for development statuses, who filled the positions released by pushed aside Jews, in short, at the expence of the world as a whole. What can be done specifically about it?
In practice the task can be put in the hands of wealthy countries only. The goal must be to offer Palestinian people accelerated development, rising to the state similar to that of Western world’s population. The latter must bear the main load of transformation. Means could be of two kinds: firstly, through involving for long time wide ranks of the Near East’s populace in intellectual occupations under conditions of bearable competition, secondly, as another sort of the West’s contribution, taking in from the midst of Palestinians the immigration on the privileged terms preferably with social rising. That’s where matters stand: social shifts and regional shifts are to be inseparable and performed by joint efforts. Only by such way the overall access to all advantages of civilization would become attainable. Two main impediments tower in the way to the prosperity now: underestimation of and disregard for the mass-social-descent’s phenomenon and unattainability of international cooperation on such an unprecedented scale.
The next presentation infered from the social circulation’s idea provides us with some notion about future. Not only about near future currently hidden primarily behind the ideal of democracy (though about this too) but rather distant one, in fact, “infinite” future. Having recognized the fact of equalization, we got the inducement to wonder where does this process seems able to take humanity to, how may look the limit which this steadily flowing trend – considering pure theoretically - bounds eventually to butt up against. Two, it is recalled, kinds of equalizations pursue two different routes each leading to its own destination. Both (unless otherwise isn’t supposed) may be called “communisms”. One appears as such an order in which all are and do the same. It stands as structural communism, structural means of interference are responsible for it. Other communism – temporal one - allows any diversity in thoughts, moods, deeds, and even aspirations. Its mechanism works on the base of greatly accelerated alternation in social and regional positions in all their totality regardless of their quantity, meaning and difference. No matter how great is variability, the higher speed of alternations the less time required for temporal assessment of the situation, the stronger and jointer would be sense of equalty. Sufficiently high speed could cross the border of subjects’ (not to say “humans’”) perception the way cartoon representations made of diverse pictures do. With all this, equality in this case, like in the case of structural communism, holds at the personal level though in other way. “Everybody” moves alternatively through common for all sequence of occupations of which diversity remains intact - any conceivable diversity without exeption. What is interesting and strange at that is that actually in both these constructions not only the effect of personal equality is reached but conditions wherein one common mind, one - if there could be such a kind of – superpowerful mind able to serve all the needs for society’s functioning. Such an exotic and unexpected upshot comes upon the scene. Whether it could ever become reality doesn’t make much sense to guess now but irrespective of any assumptions such a vision of humanity’s destiny is to advantage: incurs more favourable expectations, values, and social relationships. The history isn’t over. Ahead of us lies the long, going upwards path. Marx had rightly guessed its eventual destination but was a bit in a hurry. Today we need to spread significantly the time frame while to add new powerful devices. And certainly be obliged to Marxism for some of its methods, purposes, and approaches.
THE END