To the events in Cyprus. April theses

In connection with the events in Cyprus, the people revived and became agitated. But I do not understand what's the matter. You play by your capitalist rules, well, and do not be surprised if other similar methods are followed. Did you hear the song?
That's how it is
How is it going:
Someone is losing
Someone finds.
Capitalism is a two-way process: you are not averse to warming your hands on your clients, and they are on their own, one in loser. Well, why wonder, I ask? Want to be honest, build an economy in which everyone is rewarded according to work. Apparently, there is no other economic justice, no matter how changed the bass the apologists of profitability are squeaking under the door: “Open, kiddies! Your mother came, milk brought. "
Below is a brief economic educational program for the labor theory of value (in the author's interpretation). If you are not one of these, in a gray skin and with a capitalist bite, come in — you may be interested in a fair economy.
And after reading you can take part in the survey. Regarding Cyprus, if for you it is so relevant.

Labor theory of value

Thesis 1. Labor - the driver of the economy.

Not news, frankly.
I will only clarify what labor is from the point of view of the labor theory of value.
Our universe is designed so that some things (tools) affect other (objects), as a result of which the latter change properties. Let's say a hammer hits a nail, as a result of which the nail is hammered into the board. The cause produces a consequence, which becomes the cause of another effect, etc. Labor in these endless causal chains is the effects of man on inanimate objects.

Thesis 2. Labor ends with consumption.

What characteristics must human efforts have in order to become labor?
First of all, they must end with consumption. If you are aimlessly waving your arms, it does not mean that you are working. But if you are waving your arms, as a result of which the firewood is chopped up, and then the firewood is used to kindle a fire on which food is prepared and consumed, this is work, of course.
It follows from the rule: human efforts become difficult not at the time of their commission, but much later, when the products are consumed.
')

Thesis 3. Consumption can only be voluntary.

Well it is clear.
If a neighbor behind the wall yells at the guitar, it does not at all mean that you should ottash him for musical talent. There is no work effort, since your consumption is not voluntary, it is forced.

Thesis 4. Labor involves the ultimate goal.

Another criterion of labor.
Causal chains are endless. It may happen that your senseless action at first will be productive after some time. For example, a passer-by will throw an apple core on the side of the road, and an apple tree will grow from the core. This is not work, of course.
Labor involves the achievement of a predetermined goal. You need to tell yourself: “I want to plant an apple tree!” And grow an apple tree. Actions must be not only successful, but also conscious - then your efforts will turn into work.

Thesis 5. Labor is measured by time.

No one ever doubted this.
True, most of the adherents of the labor theory of value used labor participation rates, but this only devalued their own achievements. No, gentlemen adepts, no performance, qualifications and other subjective factors can be taken into account: working time is stupidly measured by a chronometer.
“But how so? - Perhaps they will cry back. “A hard worker makes 10 parts for a change, and a lazy-changer has 5 parts, but they will receive the same compensation!”
“Absolutely, the same,” I will answer reasonably. - Only with one clarification. Details of the changer will be twice as expensive, so they risk not finding a consumer. In this case, the changer will not receive compensation for his work. ”

Thesis 6. The starting point of labor is a person.

Causal chains are permeated by the entire universe: tools affect objects, which in turn are tools that affect other objects, etc. You can measure the mutual effects of things on each other ad infinitum, but sometime you need to stop.
You need to stop at a person, because each of us is both a producer and a consumer at the same time. These durations should be measured:

• first the person acts on the subject;
• after some time the item is consumed or, as an option, acts as an instrument on another item;
• and so on down to personal - that is, human - consumption.

Thesis 7. Compensation for the product is divided between the co-producers in proportion to their labor contributions.

Labor products can be manufactured by a variety of manufacturers. Therefore, compensation for labor must be shared among all the producers involved in the process. How to share? As it was said: in proportion to the time they worked.

Thesis 8. Objects of labor are reimbursed for the duration of production, instruments of labor - for the duration of use.

There is a very clever hiding.
Adherents of the labor theory of value believed that all products should be reimbursed for the duration of production. With objects - there are no objections, but why should tools be reimbursed for the duration of use ?!
Theoretical considerations are complex, therefore a practical example. Two hunters hunt together and, accordingly, equally split the prey. One of the hunters makes an artificial person instead of himself and sends hunting instead of himself. How to share the prey now, when the artificial hunter performs the same things that a living person did ... which, I remind you, receives compensation for the duration of his work. Obviously, an artificial hunter should receive as much as its creator received, that is ... the duration of the hunt.
An artificial hunter in the example - any weapon. The manufacturer “sends” the tool made by him to work in his place and receives compensation as if he were at the place of the tool himself. What gives him the opportunity to "save" working time. For example, if the creator was engaged in the manufacture of his artificial person within 4 working days, and that can be used during the week, after which the mechanism breaks down irrevocably, the savings amount to 3 working days. But of course, if an artificial hunter breaks a day after its manufacture, instead of gain, there will be continuous losses.

Thesis 9. In addition to physical, there is intellectual work.

Not by bread alone - so said in the clever book.
Intellectual work certainly exists, otherwise where would “Appassionate”, “Naked Mahe” and “The Brothers Karamazov” come from? It is obvious that intellectual work should be reimbursed for the duration of use: how much time the viewer enjoys the work of art.

Thesis 10. Consumption reimburses, and labor is reimbursed according to the same rules.

Man is both a producer and a consumer. And in general, he is only a unit in the general series of things entering into causal relationships with each other.
What I mean is that labor and consumption should be calculated according to the same rules. If items are reimbursed in favor of the manufacturer for the duration of production, and tools - for the duration of use, then it is just as much that the consumer reimburses. It turns out: when a person consumes items (food), he pays for the duration of food preparation, and when he consumes tools (clothing, housing, appliances, etc.), he pays for the duration of their use.
The rule leads to many interesting mathematical consequences, but this topic is not for a short post.

Thesis 11. Refund is made at the time of consumption.

Corollary from the second thesis.
If labor can be recognized only at the moment of consumption of the product, then the compensation cannot be received by the manufacturer earlier than the product made by him will be consumed. Compensation is due for work, and not for aimless waving of hands, which is still unknown, will or will not become work.
The manufactured product must be transferred to the potential consumer and only later, when the product is actually consumed, hope for a refund. Interesting trade is assumed in a fair economy, do you not find?

Thesis 12. The exchange should be carried out on an equivalent basis. In connection with this organized monetary circulation.

Due to the existence of specialization, people are forced to exchange products.
If the exchange takes place on an equivalent basis, then no profit is possible in principle. It has long been known that profit is the greatest mystification of all times and peoples. But without money, which is measured in the duration of labor balance between production and consumption of each individual, not enough.
Of course, fair economy money has little in common with modern money circulation:

• according to the labor theory of value, money cannot be emitted - simply speaking, printed - by someone, but spontaneously arise during the act of consumption, as a positive value for the producer and negative for the consumer;
• since negative monetary values ​​are possible, it is obvious that some of the people will have a negative money balance.

From which the conclusion follows: the sum of positive and negative accounts equals zero, that is, it balances.

Thesis 13. The money balance regulates the relationship between producers and consumers.

“Negative cash amount? And will such people get groceries in the stores? ”- an outraged ignorant reader will cry out at this place.
And why not, actually?
The majority will receive, only the refund will come to manufacturers not immediately, but as reimbursements arrive at the accounts of people with a negative balance. When deciding whether to transfer or not transfer their product to a certain potential consumer, the manufacturer will have to hesitate between choosing:

• transfer the product, but wait for a while for a refund;
• expect a more "prosperous" consumer.

Those of people whose cash balance is defiantly negative will receive a minimum of products or nothing at all. But they didn’t work, did they? This is obviously better than the situation when a person works like a bee, dying of hunger.

Thesis 14. The money balance changes only due to consumption.

Money balance is not a bank account.
In the bank, you can send the amount on the account wherever you want, and in a fair economy - for what reason? If only work is reimbursed, then any, even the most voluntary transfer of money in someone's favor, will put an end to economic justice.
No donations, in short. Consumed - repaid, made - received a refund, and nothing else.

Thesis 15. Inherited direct descendants.

All is good, but man is mortal. With death, consumption ceases, and compensation is not necessary, because the moment of production is separated from the moment of compensation in time. In addition, it is necessary to wait for personal consumption: with the help of a tool another tool can be produced, with the help of which the third tool and so on ... and only after a long time will something be produced for personal, not industrial, consumption. The manufacturer may not wait and die. How to deal with his money balance, one wonders?
To attribute to posterity, naturally.
Here a number of options arise with a positive or negative monetary balance, as well as with the absence of heirs. Some of the options require mathematical calculations that I am not able to perform, and some seem to be alternative, which should not be, but in general, the direction of the search for objections does not cause.

Thesis 16. The necessary calculations are performed outside the economy.

If you had time to be afraid that I would take and bring the modern economy into conformity with the labor theory of value, you hurry: it’s too early. As they say, objective prerequisites are not ripe.
First, a fair economy requires an appropriate registration and computational base, which is located ... outside of the named economy.
Look, two manufacturers are trying to exchange products - equivalent to exchange, as it should be. And the products, which is very convenient, have the same duration of production - for each spent 3 hours of working time, for example. However, the second manufacturer objects to the first:
“No, that won't do. You quickly count, and calculated your 3 hours for 1 minute. And I think slowly, so I calculated my 3 hours in 10 minutes. Consequently, my product is 9 minutes more expensive than yours. Let's share in this proportion, friend. ”
What can I say to this ... hmm-hmm ... buddy. If only to quote the current thesis: the necessary calculations are performed outside the economy.
How is this possible? No way. I immediately warned: there is absolutely nothing for the reader to worry about - a fair economy — oh, so good!

Thesis 17. Coercion is beyond the scope of the economy.

Secondly, the rules of a fair economy do not imply any fines for non-compliance with its rules: fines, as well as the payment of reimbursement to the police, who will monitor compliance with the economic order, are absolutely impossible.
This means that a fair economy is achievable, either with total voluntaryism, or with equally universal compulsion, and coercion — on the grounds that it is non-economic in nature — must be taken out of the economy. But non-economic coercion is unlikely, of course: history teaches that violence has just the opposite purpose — gaining access to economic benefits in circumvention of justice.
Therefore, citizens, take it easy for the sake of God. You do not want to receive according to your work, so stay with your thousand and one way to swallow your neighbor: oligarchs, Cypriot banks, financial scam, not given in the store delivery and the principle of "man-to-wolf" - enjoy capitalist harmony! There, if you understand what kind of “there” I mean, is not forcibly driven.