Two events forced me to take a pen. Twenty years' anniversary of the Russian banana revolution (successful name thought up by gideparker) and next epileptic attack of the developed capitalism which shook stock exchanges, banks and inhabitants. If reasons of the crisis of capitalism have been explained long time by science, the reasons of a victory of banana revolution are hidden by a thick layer of lie.
Never before both the winners and the defeated lied so describing events of twenty years' prescription, penetrating into details of fights and disregarding deep reasons of mournful events. Karl Marx's portrait on pages of economy school textbooks in Germany print next to Adam Smith's portrait, sales of Capital leave sales of best sellers in all western countries far behind, scientists of all countries recognize Marx's scientific merits and learn from him. All this because he wasn't able to say lies.
"We like this work, to call things by their proper names," - Marx wrote. But since then so many liars ready to assert everything for a bribe came to science that people telling elementary truth look idiots.
Now about reasons of victory of our homebrew "democrats". Let's recollect lines from MANIFEST: "Using fast improvement of all instruments of production and infinite simplification of intermedia bourgeoisie involves everything, even the most barbarous nations into civilization. Low prices for its goods -heavy artillery helping it to destroy all Chinese walls and to force even the most persistent hatred of barbarians to foreigners to capitulate".
It's bitter to understand that the price and quality of our goods put us in position of those beaten barbarians. We need to find out only one thing - why we failed to gain victory over capitalists in manufacture of those goods which became a bait for our people and who, as a matter of fact, enticed them on the capitalism side.
Let's recollect dispute between Lenin and Plehanov on the eve of October Revolution. "History mill hasn't ground flour from which wheaten pie of socialism will be baked. Time should pass before the country will be ready to bourgeois-democratic revolution and after capitalism in Russia will finish its civilizing work - to socialist revolution".
As pure theorist - the Marxist - Plehanov was right. Backward Russia wasn't ready not only to socialism but also to usual for those times democracy for bourgeois. February revolution showed it, the empire collapses like a house of cards. Though Plehanov as well we Lenin didn't know another thing: not only ignorant Russia but also the most advanced countries weren't ready then to creation of socialist way of manufacture.
Plehanov also didn't know that proletariat which would won could generalize means of production and execute that civilizing mission which underdeveloped capitalism failed to fulfill. At last it did it. What's the price? It is possible to argue about it infinitely, only it is impossible to return back. The price was acceptable for lower classes which broke forth to education and become constructors of planes and machines, for upper classes which lost their property - basically unacceptable.
Today new bourgeois became rich, however the nation of machine-tool builders turned to the nation of watchmen. Whether the price of such enrichment is acceptable?
In days of great depression when all civilized, capitalist world writhed in a vice of crisis and searched for way out in war, planned social production was roughly developing and showing its superiority. Victory in Great War only underlined its advantages. Community of villains climbing the ladder due to glorification of advantages of socialism crept out on surface against those victories.
So-called economic science assumed the right to control over socialism building but genetically having no scientific toolkit for it appeared. There were institutes, schools of sciences, there were academicians, doctors, candidates of science and other scientific brotherhood which strongly stuck to a trough with free forage. "Natural selection took place in social science institutes, conformism was primary survival factor in it", - the vice-president of the Central Bank mister Ulyukaev - the scientist-political economist - testifies. Such notorious scientific villains as Gaydar and Chubays appeared from that nest, without batting an eyelid they passed from feeding trough with socialist forage to other feeding trough with forage much fatter. Almost all scientific herd run over with them.
While our economic science strengthened its positions and furniture offices, reserves of extensive growth came to an end in the developed countries of the West and in the USSR and mathematicians with engineers started searching for a way out. Information infrastructure was created in the West: computers, communication satellites, automatic systems of control over manufacture, with its help the West passed to the rails of intensive growth. While there's no other way of transition to intensive development, the Soviet scientists-cybernetics suggested to create precisely the same system, much more effective at planned production.
But creation of an information infrastructure left scientists-economists without job and they applied best efforts and maximum meanness that it wasn't created. Retreat of socialism began after the power rejected Glushkov's project. It's widely known what was the end. Glushkov's project was more expensive, than the nuclear and rocket project taken together but it guaranteed safety of the country and further building of socialism. If Stalin ordered to create cavalry instead of nuclear-missile shield, effect would be just the same.
Top management of the country in the name of prime minister Kosygin was seduced by cheapness of the project of the next economic reform and rejected the project of creation of information infrastructure dooming thereby the state and all social camp to degradation.
Now it's an axiom that socialist way of manufacture lost competition to capitalist way. While it is one more "scientific" lie. Socialist way of manufacture couldn't lose anything to anybody for that simple reason that it never existed. Capitalist way of manufacture arose spontaneously on the basis of "the natural" economic laws defining both its advantages and lacks. Historical problem of socialism consists in creation of new more productive way of manufacture deprived of "natural" market lacks. This task hasn't been solved.
Moreover, economic science hasn't given till now even scientific definition to socialist way of manufacture. Anyway how could it do it? After all this way is obliged to be more productive, than previous once, hence it, at least, should have the same weapon. While our nice "science" has done the utmost that socialism couldn't receive this weapon.
It is possible to make unique right conclusion a posteriori of capitalist manufacture: socialist way of manufacture simply couldn't be born without information infrastructure. There is no need to describe the essence of this way and all its advantages, it is enough to say that none ruling blockhead could deviate from the project of creation of this way if the project existed. The word "blockhead" is, certainly, related to Gorbachev but Kosygin believed to the academician-rascal hasn't gone too far.
Whether socialism degraded? No. Science degraded, power degraded, fighters for the light future degraded having turned to petty bourgeois. Socialism wins, now at the scales of a planet. It happens not because it has armed itself, it happens because old system is kicking off. In front of our eyes. Socialism wins also because it managed to create for new mode the weapon which it needs - information infrastructure. The task of true science - to teach us to use this weapon. And to teach us to see black and white.