Why there are poor and rich philosophy. Philosophy of poverty

Many immigrants who came to the United States from the CIS countries probably noticed the particular popularity among Americans of such proverbs: “It is better to be healthy and rich than poor and sick” and “If you are so smart, then why are you so poor.” One of the reasons smart people fail to get rich is their lack of emotional intelligence. The emotion of fear is so strong in them that they are more willing to work for a salary for the sake of social security than for assets for the sake of financial freedom. Most people lack the patience, discipline, and willingness to put off satisfying their desires. And it's not about mental or financial, but above all about emotional IQ. If you do not keep your emotions under control, then the chances of resolving your financial problems are noticeably reduced.

Warren Buffett, America's richest investor, says, "A man who can't control his emotions can't control his money." One of the main reasons why there are not as many rich people in America as they might be is that, even with a large income, they spend money on satisfying momentary desires and ambitions, instead of investing it in business development and make investments.

Remember that the love of money under "developed socialism" was considered a great evil. The upbringing of the younger generation was based on the call to learn, to master a good profession, to work for a salary, but they never taught how to make money work for themselves. Oddly enough, 90% of the representatives of the Western world share this point of view. Finding a job as an employee here is much easier than succeeding in business or investing.

However, members of the middle class are constantly struggling with financial difficulties. The poor and the middle class work for wages. Their life depends entirely on the employer. Mass layoffs in the 1990s showed how precarious the financial situation of employees was. Today, many people already understand that when they say “reliable work” is just a joke, and working for one company throughout life is unrealistic for most people. The current state of the real estate market, the delay in the repayment of mortgage loans, only confirms this conclusion. If you work as an employee, then your labor efforts make richer the owner of the company, the state through the payment of taxes (most people work for taxes from January to May), banks and other financial institutions to which you pay debts on home mortgages and credit cards, Naturally, with interest. Thus, the higher your business activity, the more money you earn goes in these areas. Therefore, everyone should learn how to use their earnings to the maximum, first of all, in the interests of their families. Take a cue from the rich, they know how to make money work for them. If you want to get rich, you must become a business owner and investor. In real life, people's lack of confidence in their abilities holds them back from doing business. In addition, many people prefer not to take risks when it comes to money. And business, as you know, is always a risk. Wealthy people tend to act aggressively and creatively while consciously taking risks. But they have financial savvy, which includes: financial literacy, investment strategies, market knowledge, legal knowledge. They widely use the knowledge and skills of professionals of the highest classification (financiers, accountants, lawyers, marketing, management, tax specialists ...), whose services are quite expensive. Robin Hood's idea of ​​taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor has become the biggest problem for the poor and the middle class. It is the middle class that pays taxes for the poor, especially its educated upper class. History shows that taxes became popular among the people because they were told that taxes are levied only to punish the rich.

However, the wealthy outmaneuvered the intellectuals who write and legislate with money knowledge and an efficient lobbying system. Money gives tremendous power, and it is possible to keep and increase it only with the help of the necessary knowledge. Without this knowledge, the business world is just playing you like a soccer ball. Hundreds of books are published in the USA, audio cassettes are published, business computer games are published, seminars are held on financial planning and investing. One of the authors of books and games on this subject, Robert T Kiyosaki, believes that: “The main reason why people experience financial difficulties is that after spending many years in school, they do not learn anything about money. As a result, they learn to work for money, but they do not know how to make money work for them.”

Its co-author, Sharon L. Lecter, a mother of three and a university-educated chartered public accountant, says: “Our educational system has not kept pace with changes in life, technology, modern world. We need to teach children the skills they will need in life not only to survive, but to thrive.” Kids today want to be basketball stars, famous golfers, movie and rock singers, beauty queens or Wall Street stockbrokers. They are drawn to where fame, money and prestige reside. Therefore, in our time it is so difficult to arouse the desire to learn in children. They know that success in life often does not depend on academic success, as it used to be. Even Bill Gates, the richest man in America, left Harvard University when he founded Microsoft and graduated a quarter of a century later.

The world around us is constantly changing, and we continue to give our children and grandchildren the advice we heard from our parents. Millions of educated people start their careers successfully but face financial problems later on. They work harder, but problems remain. They didn't learn how to make money, they learned how to spend it when it comes. Their main source of income is salary. When it increases, then, as a rule, taxes and spending increase. The philosophy of life, according to which a pay rise makes many people want to buy more, is the main sign that is characteristic of modern American society - to live on loan with constant debt.

Now the national debt fixed by law is more than 17 trillion dollars. For every American, there are 60,000 dollars in government debt. The ability to get a loan without any problems led to the fact that if in 1980 only 56% of US residents had credit cards, today they are about 83%. Last year, Americans bought more than $1 trillion in goods and services with credit cards.

According to the Federal Reserve, a significant number of Americans spend virtually everything they earn without saving a dime in retirement and savings accounts. Therefore, it is not surprising that the total debt of Americans for goods and services purchased on credit is more than 7 trillion dollars. This is a consequence of the fact that most people have not learned to measure their needs (real and far-fetched) and their financial capabilities. As a result - sad consequences - declaration of bankruptcy. It should be emphasized that it is quite difficult to control costs when most of the purchased goods and services are paid for with credit cards. We must not forget that when people buy everything on credit, they are practically selling their future labor and income. Every person should remember that if you constantly sell your tomorrow, then in the end there will be nothing left of your future. This also applies to the state as a whole. David Walker - Chief Financial Inspector, head of the US Accounts Chamber in his report "Financial Condition and Budgetary Future of the USA" draws attention to three reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire: the decline of morals and political culture, too much self-confidence and excessive presence abroad, the irresponsibility of the central government. All this is, to one degree or another, inherent in modern America.

This article is devoted to the main differences between the financial philosophy of the rich and the poor. It is based on an analysis of ideas and suggestions from the Rich Dad Recommended book series. I hope that it will help readers find their own way to create personal wealth and develop an acceptable financial strategy for themselves. Forbes magazine defines a rich person as someone who earns a million or more dollars a year. A poor person is someone who earns less than $25,000 a year. Wealth is the ability to live for a long time without working. Unfortunately, the average American family lives "three paychecks away" from financial ruin. One of the authors and publisher of the named series, Robert Kiyosaki, proposes to divide cash flows, depending on the source of income, into four quadrants: 1) P - the quadrant for employees. Their main desire is to have a secure and permanent job with all the benefits. 2) C - quadrant for those who are self-employed. These are representatives of small businesses and professionals (doctor, lawyer ...), people working on commissions (real estate agent, travel agent ...). For them, the main value of work is independence. Such people often say, "If you want things done right, do it yourself." 3) B - quadrant for owners of large businesses. They have a large-scale vision of the goal, create a large and effective team, and serve numerous clients. Typical representatives of this quadrant are Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Bill Gates... 4) And - the quadrant for the investor. The investor invests free money in assets and the money works for him. The transition of a person from one quadrant to another requires him to change his personal financial philosophy. According to Robert Kiyosaki, 80% of the population is in the E or S quadrant, 15% in the I quadrant, less than 5% in the B quadrant. This is primarily due to the fact that most people do not know how to think ahead, but try to immediately satisfy their desires and get rich as quickly as possible. This is why so few people are in the B quadrant.

In addition, the rich acquire assets, the poor and the middle class acquire liabilities, which they consider assets. You need to know the difference between assets and liabilities and buy assets. An asset is something that brings in money. A liability is something that takes away money. Just start buying real assets, not personal property, which depreciates immediately after its acquisition. For example, a new car loses 25% of its value the moment you drive out of the dealership. Rich people (and this is a very important difference) buy luxury items last, while the poor and the middle class usually buy first. They buy big houses, diamonds, furs, yachts, because they want to look rich. They achieve this, but in reality they end up in debt. Buying on credit often creates dislike for this luxury item because the debt becomes financially burdensome.

If you try to spend everything you get, then an increase in income will simply lead to an increase in expenses. No wonder they say: "A fool does not hold money for a long time." The rich first create a solid base in the form of assets. True luxury is the reward for investing in a real asset and multiplying it. This is a symbol of the skillful use of financial ingenuity. People who are unable to consistently reinvest in their business fail to achieve great wealth. There are three different types of income in the business world: earned, passive, and portfolio income. Passive income is usually earned from investments in real estate, while portfolio income is received from paper assets such as stocks, bonds and mutual funds. The key to becoming rich is the ability to turn earned income into passive and portfolio income as quickly as possible. Real assets are divided into several categories: 1) Business 2) Shares. 3) Mutual funds. 4) Income-generating real estate (For example, an apartment building rented for rent). 5) Bonds. 6) IOUs and bills. 7) Royalties for intellectual property: music, scripts, patents. 8) Any other property that has value, generates income when sold, increases in value (antiques, works of art…) and sells easily. Naturally, when buying any of the listed assets, there is always a risk. The rich believe that we must not avoid risk, but we must learn to manage it.

Just one clear example. In 1974, Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald's, spoke to a group of management students at the University of Texas at Austin. To his question: “What kind of business do I have?” one of the students answered - hamburgers. Hearing the answer, Kroc was silent for a while, and then said: “Ladies and gentlemen, my business is not hamburgers. My business is real estate. The main goal of my business plan is to sell McDonald's franchises." Real estate and its location is a determining factor in the success of every restaurant. This company owns many of the most valuable intersections and street corners in the United States, as well as in other countries of the world. The company owns more real estate in the world than catholic church. Experts identify a number of reasons why even financially literate people do not own large assets:

Fear of losing money. It is common to everyone, including the rich. But a rich person differs from a poor person in his attitude to the fear of losing money. Fran Tarkenton, the famous quarterback of the National Football League said: "Winning is the absence of fear of defeat." I don't know rich people who have never lost money. In Texas they still say: "Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die." John Rockefeller said: "I have always tried to turn any disaster into an opportunity."

The main reason that more than 90% of Americans have money problems is their desire not to lose, rather than strive to win. If you have little money and want to get rich, you need to focus first, not balance. Thomas Edison, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, George Soros focused in one area to achieve success.

Disbelief in one's own strength. It is doubt that keeps most people poor and risk-free. They criticize, and the winners analyze. Analysis is the universal key to success. It allows you to notice opportunities missed by everyone else. When it comes to the stock market, people often say, "I don't want to lose money." Instead of analysis, they give up a powerful investment vehicle. We must do as Colonel Sanders did. At the age of 66, he lost his job and began to live on a pension. She was missing. Then Sanders went to sell his fried chicken recipe across the country. He received a thousand and nine rejections until he finally heard yes. And he became a multimillionaire.

Laziness. The busiest people are usually the laziest. They tend to stay busy so they don't have to face their problems. You can cope with laziness with the help of a certain amount of greed or the desire for something better, otherwise there will be no progress.

Habits. Our life is more a reflection not of the education we have received, but of our habits.

Self-confidence plus ignorance. The world of business and investment is built on two emotions – greed and fear. The reason most people don't get rich is not because they are greedy, but because they are afraid. Money doesn't flow to the business with the best products and services, but to the one with the best leaders and the best management team.

The richest people in the world create networks. Thomas Edison became rich and famous because he understood the power of the system, without an electrical network, light bulbs are of little value. John Rockefeller became one of the richest people in the world because he put oil through pipelines, delivered it using fuel trucks and tankers, and built a network of gas stations. Bill Gates made his fortune by putting an operating system on the IBM network.

The Internet, the world's newest network, has made many people millionaires and some even billionaires. Henry Ford said, “My job is not to memorize information. My job is to keep my head free and clear so I can think. Thinking is the hardest work. That's why very few people do it."

Human financial IQ is an actual fusion of many skills and talents. This is a collection of knowledge related to various fields of activity.

The first is accounting. Financial literacy is the ability to read and understand financial statements. It allows you to see the strengths and weaknesses of any business.

The second is the ability to invest. This is the science of how money makes money. If you want to become a successful investor, you need to develop the following skills and abilities in yourself: find an opportunity not noticed by the rest; profitable to borrow money; use the advice of smart people. The average investor or small business loses money because they don't have a team. They act alone and are defeated when confronted by those who act as part of a powerful team.

The third is market knowledge. This is the science of supply and demand. Business and investment is a team sport.

Fourth - legal knowledge, i.e. applicable business and tax laws.

To succeed in life and achieve wealth, Robert Kiyosaka believes that we need to develop ten qualities in ourselves that depend primarily on ourselves:

Strength of mind. If you ask most people if they would like to be rich and financially independent, they will usually say yes. But then the harsh reality comes into play. The road seems to them too difficult and full of obstacles. Without a strong stimulus or purpose, everything in life seems difficult.

The ability to choose. Financially, every dollar that falls into your hands determines your future: whether you will be rich or poor. The choice we make every day is how we manage our time, money, and brain. Invest in education first. Unfortunately, in practice, 90% of the population buys goods and services, and only 10% of books on business and audiocassettes on investments. Most people usually just invest instead of investing in knowledge about investing first.

Ability to choose friends. You have to be serious about the people you interact with. People who don't have money usually don't ask rich friends how they got there. They usually ask for a loan or a job. One of the hardest problems in building wealth is staying true to yourself and not trying to be like everyone else. Smart investors don't try to fit the market. Wise investors buy stocks when they are not yet popular. They know that they make a profit when they buy, not when they sell. You need rich friends who are closer to the center of the action, because that's where the money is made. Money is made from information. You need to know about the next boom and take advantage of it before anyone else. That's what friends are for. And this is also financial savvy.

Ability to learn quickly. In today's rapidly changing world, it's not just what you know that matters, as knowledge quickly becomes obsolete. The main thing is how quickly you can perceive new things - to learn. It is important to find more quick formulas making money. Working hard for money is an old formula dating back to the time of the cavemen.

Self-discipline. If you do not learn to manage yourself, then do not even try to become rich. It is this lack of self-discipline that causes most lottery or casino winners to quickly lose their money. Lack of self-discipline drives people who get a raise to immediately buy a new car or go on a cruise. This is the most important factor separating the rich, the poor and the middle class. Here are three important skills you need to start your own business: cash flow, people management, personal time management. Every sphere of your life depends on them: family, business, social.

The ability to find good advisers. Do not spare money for professionals. We live in the age of information and therefore it is priceless. Look for specialists who are close to your interests.

Ability to profit. Return on invested capital is of decisive importance for deciding where to invest money. People who are afraid to take risks can invest in a bank and receive a small income.

Ability to focus on one goal. Money is great power. If you do not have firmness, then money is directed along the path of least resistance, i.e. just spending. This is the cause of poverty and financial problems. Luxury goods attract everyone. The difference is that most buy them on credit. This is a trap called "be no worse than your neighbors." Too often we borrow money instead of thinking about how to make that money. This is a bad habit that has developed among individuals and the country as a whole.

Need for heroes. Imitation of idols is a great way to learn. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Donald Trump…deserve to study their experiences: how they choose stocks, how they negotiate and make deals…Idols share their talent with us, read their books, attend their seminars.

The ability to give. If you want to receive money, you need to learn how to give. This is the secret of many rich people. That's why there are organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Gates Foundation, Buffett Foundation... They increase their wealth and give it away at the same time.

Financial education is very important. The sooner you start getting it, the better. Buy books, go to a seminar, practice with games. Put your knowledge into practice. Start small. What's in your hands depends on what's in your head. There is a great book called Think and Grow Rich. Please note: do not "Work and Grow Rich"! Learn to make money work for you - and your life will become much happier. Today we must act not with caution, but with intelligence.

Alexander SHABSIS, PhD

DO YOU LIKE THE MATERIAL? SUBSCRIBE TO OUR EMAIL NEWSLETTER:

We will send you a digest of the most interesting materials of our site by email.

Philosophers and philosophical schools, in their teachings, developed various thoughts and directions. They are similar in some ways, different in some ways, sometimes radically. But, everything philosophical teachings take as a starting point the desire of a person to know the truth, that is, his activity. Unfortunately, in modern society, began to develop a special philosophy. It has nothing to do with classical and new philosophical currents.

This is the quasi-philosophy of lazy people. People who stopped in development at some stage and began to be content with their condition. Most often, the position of such "philosophers" regresses. But at the same time, in the kitchens, or at a domino game, such philosophical speeches are made to justify their laziness that the uninitiated can take such maxims at face value. And many people accept such excuses.

A peculiar philosophy of poverty was formed. Let's try to understand some of the "postulates" of such a philosophy.
— Stability is better than risk. So say the adepts of the new philosophy. They prefer a penny salary for their work, but stable. this attitude to life is due to the uncertainty of the philosophers of poverty in their strengths and talents. They form the theory that you need to get a prestigious education, that is, a document. Then find a job in the state structure (the state is always relatively stable) and hold on to such work with the available limbs. Such philosophers do not care that they are engaged in an unloved business, often tedious. It is important for them what the position is called in order to flaunt grandiloquent words and maintain the illusion of well-being.

- "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". The appropriation of the proverb enables adherents of the philosophy of poverty to justify the fear of change in life. The more often the mantra is repeated, the farther the crane flies. Such people spend a lot of energy convincing themselves that the risks of the world around them do not concern them. The older a person gets, the more often he resorts to self-deception. He will never leave "acquired by overwork", and will not go to a neighboring city for a new interesting job. Such a person will not open a new enterprise, he will not be interested in new areas of science, he will not want to study at the institute in order to gain a second education.

Philosophers of poverty have low self-esteem because they are more comfortable in their box. They are no longer interested in vivid impressions of travel and a fulfilling life with all its ups and downs. They are alien to the idea that broad prospects are open only to active individuals, but not to lazy people.

Philosophers of poverty quickly lose activity due to the fact that they have reached a minimum that somehow suits them. Even if their well-being is at risk. They look for someone to blame instead of looking for answers within themselves.

— The philosopher of poverty owes everything and everything. He is paid little at work. He is not valued as a person or an employee. He always claims high pay, even after a promotion. He is constantly dissatisfied with his boss. However, the idea that he himself agreed to such a position completely disgusts him.

- Those people who live by the above rules focus their energy and attention not on how to increase their well-being, but on how to save the crumbs that fall to them. Such a person will go to the supermarket with a notebook and write down prices for comparison. He will be idle long queue in order to receive a subsidy or social benefit. But he will not allow the thought that he can use this time and energy to work on himself. Laziness will help the philosopher of poverty in this.

The formal reason for bringing to the light of day his abstracts of the works of P.J. Proudhon and starting to comment on them was the mention by S. Gezel in The Natural Economic Order of Proudhon as his teacher. The second and main reason was that Proudhon was one of the main ideological opponents of K. Marx. Marxism became the basis of the dominant ideology of the Soviet state, therefore it is still popular and has loyal fans, and the teachings of Proudhon are actually forgotten, although if we compare Soviet reality with this teaching, it should be recognized that its merits were more in line with the ideals of the society of the future Proudhon , and not to the vague ideals of Marx's communism, and the shortcomings of our system were the very ones for which Proudhon criticized Louis Blanc's communist system.

We are used to trusting words, an example of which is our attitude towards anarchism - we strongly associate the concept of anarchy with the absence of any organizing principle in the life of human society; anarchist slogan: "Anarchy is the mother of order!" - we perceive as the proclamation of something impossible. However, if we delve into the essence of the anarchism advocated by Pierre Joseph Proudhon, then we will have to admit that this anarchism is one of the varieties of what we now understand by communism - in his anarchism, Proudhon tried to find a middle ground between the ideologies of communism and liberalism.

The main drawback of Proudhonism in comparison with Marxism is the lack of a simple and understandable utopian myth, and therefore attractive to the broad masses of the people, whose intellectual capabilities do not allow them to compare different theories, delving into their features. Proudhon did not have this - indications like: here you do this and that, and you will be happy; instead, he indicated the direction in which to move, and tried to lead his associates there himself, but not very successfully, therefore, when he was gone, there were no people willing to continue research in the direction indicated by him. Based on the results of the sadly ended Soviet social experiment, we can now say that Proudhon indicated the direction in which to move correctly, therefore it is quite possible that if we were also guided by Proudhonism, and not only Marxism, during this experiment, its sad outcome would not was.

His love for outrageous phraseology also played against Proudhon - such expressions as “the philosophy of poverty”, “property is theft”, of course attracted attention to the author’s works, but were perceived by the public literally, and therefore without trying to understand what they mean for their author: “Does he want to make everyone beggars? Does he want to deprive everyone of their property?” - hence the well-known reaction to us: “I didn’t read it, but I condemn it.”

Another reason why Proudhon's teaching remains relevant today is that the entire twentieth century was marked by the confrontation between two ideologies - communism and liberalism, because of which the main intellectual forces were diverted to serve this confrontation, and move forward. there was almost no understanding of the best organization of life in human society, and for political economy the last century was generally a failure - almost not a single new thought - and how significant was the progress in this science in the 19th century!

Looking at the enormous achievements of mankind in the development of science and technology, we should not delude ourselves and think that things are just as good everywhere - our education system basically works on the same principles on which it worked in the century before last - qualitative changes are minimal; and in understanding how we can better arrange our lives, we have advanced almost as little as in the development of the education system, therefore, for a better understanding of the problems of our time, it makes sense to visit one of those positions where social science was in the 19th century.

CHAPTER I
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY,
LAWS OF POVERTY AND EQUILIBRIUM

Welfare in society depends not so much on the absolute amount of accumulated wealth, but on the ratio of production to consumption, and in particular on the distribution of products. In no nation can the power of production be compared with the power of consumption, and since the distribution of products is still much more irregular than their production and consumption, it follows from all this that ill-being is everywhere and constant.

Written at the beginning of the history of the liberal era, we live at the end of the history of this era - and what has changed - the widespread and constant ill-being is not now what it was in Proudhon's time, but it nevertheless has not gone anywhere. Conclusion: it will not go anywhere as long as liberalism is the dominant ideology.

Be that as it may, man shares the common fate of animals: he must eat, i.e. consume, economically speaking. It is this necessity of feeding that brings us closest to cattle; under its influence, we become worse than cattle when we wallow in debauchery or, caught by hunger, are not afraid to resort to deceit, violence, and murder to satiate it.

Here Proudhon showed what threatens a person when he is guided by the ideals of a consumer society - and liberalism teaches us to live that way.

What is industry and labor? Activity, both physical and mental, beings consisting of body and spirit. Labor is needed not only to preserve our body, it is also necessary for the development of our spirit. Everything we own, everything we know, comes from labor; to him we owe every science, every art, as well as every wealth. … As much as the law of consumption seems to humiliate us, so much the law of labor ennobles us. We do not live an exclusively spiritual life, because we are not exclusively spiritual beings; but by labor we more and more spiritualize (spiritualize) our existence. … In a person, the ability to consume is unlimited, while the ability to produce is not unlimited. It is in the nature of things: to consume, to devour, to destroy - the ability is negative, chaotic, indefinite; produce, create, organize, give being or form - a positive ability, of which the law is number and measure, i.e. limitation.

As the Soviet poet said, “the soul is obliged to work,” but the soul of a person in a consumer society is relieved of such a duty - not spiritual, but material consumption should give us satisfaction from life; and even when we consume spiritually, we must do this in the same way as when consuming the material, i.e. satisfied with the very opportunity to use, because by doing so we confirm our social status in a consumer society.

In the development of the conditions of well-being, abundance and wealth are two opposite poles, since abundance can very well exist without wealth, and wealth without abundance.

To understand the philosophy of Proudhon, it is fundamentally important to be able to see the difference between abundance and wealth. Abundance is not only the availability of everything necessary for a normal, by the standards of its time, life - it is also the ability to limit one's needs to these essentials. When we add the need for wealth to our needs, we have to forget about abundance - the rich, no matter how much they have, there is always not enough, because the rich compete among themselves, who has more. The destruction of our Soviet society began with the fact that instead of abundance, as a goal to which society should strive, they began to teach us to see such a goal in wealth.

Man, in a state of civilization, obtains by labor what is required for the maintenance of his body and the development of his soul - no more, no less. The strict mutual limitation of our production and consumption is what I call poverty.- this is our third organic law, given by nature, which should not be confused with pauperism.

And this is the main drawback of Proudhon's philosophy, because of which he was not understood by either opponents or associates - he called poverty the principle of reasonable sufficiency - he used a word that traditionally had a completely different meaning - poverty has always been associated and is associated with the inability to fully satisfy at least some necessary needs. The public saw what lay on top, and did not begin to understand the intricacies of his philosophy. There was no special concept for denoting the state of life in accordance with the principle of reasonable sufficiency at the time of Proudhon, and there is none now. How much sometimes depends on the presence of the right word! - There would be a word equivalent to poverty according to Proudhon, you see, and his philosophy would be better understood, and we would react differently to our liberal democrats, who called the Soviet way of life, in accordance with the principle of reasonable sufficiency, equality in poverty. Soviet life was life in accordance with Proudhon's third organic law - consumption itself and, accordingly, the production of consumer goods were limited in our country.

We have no other calling than the development of our mind and heart, and in order to help us in this, and, if necessary, to force us, Providence has prescribed for us the law of poverty: "Blessed are the poor in spirit." According to the ancients, moderation is the first of the four cardinal virtues; why, in the age of Augustus, the poets and philosophers of the new zeitgeist, Horace, Virgil, Seneca, glorified the golden mean and preached the neglect of luxury; why Christ, in an even more touching speech, teaches us to ask God, instead of all riches, our daily bread. They all understood that poverty is the principle public order and our only earthly happiness. Poverty is the true Providence of the human race.

We are in this world in order to develop in ourselves those qualities that distinguish us from animals; and so that material needs do not distract us from the most important thing, we must limit them in accordance with the principle of reasonable sufficiency - we must focus on what a hundred years later will be called epistemic evolution, so Proudhon's indication of what we should see the meaning of their earthly existence will never lose their relevance.

Here, I must not hide, a general prejudice rises up against me. Nature, they say, is inexhaustible; labor becomes more and more productive. The day will come when abundance, without losing anything of its price, will be able to be called wealth, therefore, when wealth will be abundant. Then we will have a flooded sea of ​​all goodness, and we will live in peace and joy. So your poverty law is false.

Proudhon seemed to look a hundred years ahead - at the present time, the general prejudice that revolted against him turned into a liberal concept of a welfare society.

Man loves to be seduced by words. In his philosophy, it will always be most difficult for him to understand his own language.

How rightly said of the fundamental difficulty we encounter in the study of philosophy! The very philosophy of Proudhon is a clear confirmation of this - he was never fully understood either by his contemporaries or descendants.

Bearing in mind the limitlessness of the power of consumption and the limited power of production, the most strict economy is required of us. Moderation, lack of luxury, daily bread obtained by daily labor; poverty, which quickly punishes immoderation and laziness - this is our first moral law.

A small but important inaccuracy in the formulation of the law - in the absence of laziness, poverty, unfortunately, cannot punish excesses in consumption, therefore Proudhon further relies on the Creator.

Thus, the Creator, subordinating us to the need to eat in order to live, not only does not allow us gluttony, as gastrosophists and Epicureans suggest, but wanted to bring us step by step to an ascetic and spiritual life; he teaches us moderation and order and makes us love them. Our fate is not pleasure, no matter what Aristippus says: we ourselves cannot deliver to everyone, either by industry or art, what to enjoy, in the comprehensiveness of the meaning that this word gives to sensual philosophy, which considers enjoyment to be our highest good and ultimate goal.

Here Proudhon is in solidarity with the ideals of contemporary Protestantism, and the sensual philosophy he mentioned has become one of the main elements of the liberal ideology, as a result of which the ideals of Protestantism, to which capitalism, as M. Weber showed, owes its formation, were forgotten - the Creator could not oppose anything to his eternal adversary, but perhaps he has not yet said his last word - I would not want this word to be the End of the World.

These three conditions for the development of wealth are reduced to the following formula: more and more equal distribution of knowledge, services and products. This is the law of equilibrium, the most important, one might say, the only law of political economy.

Here the political economy of Proudhon is opposed to the political economy of Marx: what Pierre Joseph considered possible to achieve by improving human nature, i.e. at the expense of education, Karl Heinrich considered it possible only with the dictatorship of the proletariat established in a revolutionary way.

But who does not see that if by education a crowd of workers rises one step in civilization in what I will call intellectual life, if its sensitivity becomes more impressionable, its imagination more refined, its needs more numerous, tenderer and more alive (since consumption must put itself in correlation with these new requirements, and therefore labor will also increase to the same extent), the state of affairs remains the same, i.e. humanity, developing in the mind, virtue and grace, as the Gospel says, but always acquiring only the daily bread of the body and spirit, remains materially always poor? What is happening now in France is proof of this.

Here Proudhon articulated what in the following century Marxism-Leninism called the law of rising needs. What was then in France, we now imagine vaguely, but the witnesses that the Soviet government in practice confirmed this conclusion of Proudhon, now not everyone has yet departed to another world. (Don't forget Proudhon's peculiarities of understanding poverty.) Proudhon believed that what he sees, everyone else sees, however, few people see his evidence even now.

Thus, by the definition of nature, every people, barbarous or civilized, whatever its institutions and its government, is poor, and poorer the more, the more it has moved away from the primitive state, that is, abundance, and has advanced by labor in wealth. .

Try the Proudhon Philosophy Test: Do you agree that the American people are poor?

Work, because as soon as you become lazy, you will fall into poverty and, instead of dreamy luxury, you will not even get what is absolutely necessary. Work, increase, develop your means; invent machines, find fertilizers, acclimatize animals, cultivate new nutritious plants, introduce drainage, plant forests, cultivate new plants, water, clean; breed fish in your rivers, streams, ponds and even swamps; open coal mines; purify gold, silver, platinum; melt iron, copper, steel, lead, tin, zinc; bake, spin, sew, make furniture, dishes, especially paper, rebuild houses; open new markets, make exchanges and revolutions in banks. All this is nothing to you. But to produce is not everything: it is necessary, as I have already pointed out to you, that services should be distributed among all, according to the ability of each, and that the payment of each worker should be proportional to his production. Without this balance, you will remain in poverty and your industry will become a disaster.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his work - according to Proudhon, this is the principle of the ideology of anarchism. Do not believe what is written on the fence - we have learned this well, but we sometimes lack the ability to treat what is written in smart books in the same way - we believe that if Proudhon preaches anarchism, he is no longer relevant for us.

So, when you do everything with the energy of your production and the correctness of your distribution in order to get rich, you will be surprised to see that in reality you can barely support life with labor and that you have nothing to even celebrate the two-day Shrove Tuesday.

It is very similar to an exaggerated description of the Soviet reality of the Stalin era. What follows is a continuation of this description for a later period of our history.

No doubt there is an improvement in individual life, but what does it consist of? From the side of the mind - in the development of knowledge, justice, ideal; on the part of the flesh, in more refined consumption, in relation to the education given to the mind. The horse eats its oats, the ox eats its hay, the pig eats its acorns, the hen eats its grains. They do not change their food, and this does not bother them in the least. I saw how a village worker daily ate only black bread, still the same potatoes, the same polenta, apparently without suffering from this: he only lost weight from excess labor. But the civilized worker, the first to receive the ray of the illuminating word, needs a variety of food. He consumes bread, rice, maize, vegetables, beef, fish, eggs, fruits, milk; sometimes wine, beer, kvass, honey, tea, coffee; salts its nutrients, seasons them, prepares them in various ways. Instead of simply dressing in a ram's skin or a bear's skin dried in the sun, he uses clothes woven from linen, hemp, or paper; uses linen and flannel, dresses like this in summer and differently in winter. His body, no less strong, but formed by purer blood, the expression of the higher development of his spirit, requires the cares that the savage does without. Here is progress, but this does not prevent humanity from remaining poor, because it always has only what is necessary, and not being able to skip a day without immediately feeling hungry.

Well, brothers-"scoops" - do you recognize yourself?

This urban panache, these colossal property, these state splendors, this budget for rent, troops, public works; these incomes are landed, this "liste civile", this noise and crackle of banks, stock exchanges, millions and billions; these delightful pleasures, stories of which sometimes reach you - all this blinds you and, making you believe in wealth, saddens you with your own poverty. But consider that this magnificence is a deduction from the meager average of 3 francs 50 centimes of the income of a family of four persons a day, that it is a levy from the workman's work before wages are fixed. The budget of the armies - extortion from labor; the budget of rent - extortion from labor; the budget of property - extortion from labor; the budget of a banker, businessman, merchant, official - requisitions from labor; therefore, the luxury budget is a bribe from the essentials. So don't cry; accept, as befits a husband, the position given to you and tell yourself that the happiest person is the one who knows best how to be poor.

And now take the trouble, with the help of the above description, to discern in yourself the quilted jackets of liberal Russia; at the same time, remember the recommendations of K. Marx to get out of a similar situation and compare them with the recommendations of his opponent Proudhon.

Ancient wisdom foresaw these truths. Christianity positively defined the first law of poverty, bringing it, however, as is generally characteristic of any religious teaching, in relation to the spirit of its theology. Opposing pagan pleasures, it could not look at poverty from a real point of view; it presented her suffering in abstinence and fasting; dirty in the monks, cursed by heaven in repentance. Except for this, poverty, exalted by the Gospel, is the greatest truth that Christ preached to people.

Well, what about himself, why did not he begin to be guided by ancient wisdom and the example of Christ? - It was also necessary to stir up business with new religion, as a modification of the old - it was necessary to create a system for making new people by instilling in them a new understanding of the old truths - this is exactly what Jesus Christ did in his time, and he is still with us, unlike Proudhon.

Poverty is decent; her clothes are not tattered like a cynic's cloak; her dwelling is clean, healthy and quiet, comfortable; she changes her underwear at least once a week; she is neither pale nor hungry. Like Daniel's companions, she is healthy, eating vegetables; she has her daily bread, she is happy. Poverty is not contentment: that would already be a corruption for the worker. It is not fit for a man to enjoy contentment; on the contrary, he must always feel the sting of want. Contentment would be more than corruption: it would be slavery; but it is important that a person be able, just in case, to rise above the need and even, so to speak, do without the necessary. But, in spite of this, poverty also has its heartfelt joys, its innocent holidays, its family luxury, a touching luxury, which ordinary moderation and simplicity in household outlines more vividly.

Here is Proudhon about the same thing that various preachers have been preaching for centuries - happiness is not in money - liberalism is trying to convince us of the opposite.

It is clear that there is nothing to think of avoiding this poverty, the law of our nature and our society. Poverty is good, and we must regard it as the principle of our joys. Reason commands us to consider our life with simplicity of manners, moderation in pleasures, diligence in work, unconditional submission of our inclinations and desires to justice.

One hundred years later, Abraham Maslow, in his theory of self-actualization, refined and experimentally confirmed Proudhon's "the law of our nature and our society"- a person can aspire to the high and sublime only after his basic vital needs are satisfied in accordance with the principle of reasonable sufficiency. And the Soviet communist priests stuck the label of a bourgeois ideologist on this Abraham - why the hell, you ask?

CHAPTER II
ILLUSION OF WEALTH,
THE BEGINNING AND GENERALITY OF PAUPERISM

The purpose of man on earth is spiritual and moral perfection; this appointment requires him to live a moderate life. Concerning the power of consumption, the infinity of desires, the luxury and splendor of the ideal, the means of mankind are very limited; it is poor and must be poor, because without this it falls, as a result of the deception of the senses and the temptation of the mind, into bestiality, it becomes corrupted bodily and mentally and loses, as a result of enjoyment itself, the treasures of its virtue and its genius. This is the law that is prescribed to us by our earthly position and which is proved by political economy, and statistics, and history, and morality. Peoples who pursue material wealth and the pleasures it brings as the highest good are in a state of decline.

Is this the liberal world, or what, are they in a state of decline? - Do not say “gop” until you jump over - the Khokhol brothers say in such cases. But even Proudhon's opponent, Karl Marx, preached the decline of capitalism; Marx himself answered why the one who falls still does not fall - this will not happen as long as there is enough space for the development of productive forces (PS). And now we keep talking about the decline of capitalism; on the occasion of the crisis, especially many prophecies are heard, but somehow I don’t hear in them estimates of the size of the space available for the development of the PS - for what forces is it insufficient?

The progress or perfection of our race is all in justice and philosophy. Increasing prosperity occupies a place in it not so much as a reward and a means to happiness, but as an expression of the science we have acquired and a symbol of our virtue. If we lived, as the Gospel advises, in the spirit of joyful poverty, the most perfect order would reign on earth - there would be no vice, no crime; by labor, reason and virtue, people would form a society of wise men; they would enjoy all the prosperity that their nature is capable of. But this cannot be at the present time, this has not been seen at any time, and precisely because of the violation of our two greatest laws - poverty and moderation.

What was not visible in the 19th century is not visible in the 21st century; Are people destined to ever see with their own eyes what Proudhon saw in his daydreams about the future?

Coming out of the abundance of early times, forced to work, having learned to determine the value of things by the labor spent on them, man succumbed to the fever of wealth; it meant losing the road at the first step.

Having gone astray, a person no longer sees the value of labor behind the value of things - a person in a consumer society is judged not by what he can do, but by what he owns, which is reflected in the saying: “If you are so smart, why are you so poor?" - such questions we ask, according to Proudhon, due to the fact that our faith is now like this:

Man believes in what he calls wealth, just as he believes in pleasure and in all the illusions of the ideal. Precisely because he is obliged to produce what he consumes, he looks to the accumulation of wealth and the enjoyment that results from it as his goal. He pursues this goal with ardor: the example of some who have become rich assures him that what is accessible to some is accessible to all; if it were otherwise, he would consider it a contradiction in nature, a lie of Providence. Strong by this conclusion of his mind, he imagines that he can increase his possessions as much as he likes and find, by means of the law of values, primeval abundance. He saves, collects, profits; his soul is saturated, revels in the idea.

Liberalism was still in its diapers, and Proudhon had already formulated the basic idea of ​​an ideology that would become dominant in the next century.

The present age is permeated with this belief more madly than all those which it claims to replace. Governments, as far as they can, favor flight and the service of material interests; religion itself, once so severe in its language, seems to support them too. To create wealth, to accumulate money, to enrich oneself, to surround oneself with luxury has become everywhere the main rule of morality and government. With this new ethics, they learned to kindle the love of money, contrary to what the ancient moralists said, namely, that first you need to make people moderate, chaste, modest, teach them to live on a few and be content with their share, and that already then everything will go well in society and the state. It can be said that in this respect the public consciousness was, so to speak, turned upside down: everyone can now see the result of this strange upheaval.

Proudhon could not foresee that the next century would surpass his century in that madness of faith in the power of wealth of which he speaks. There is nothing surprising in this - the public consciousness, through the efforts of the ideology of liberalism, continues to be in a state turned upside down, and the result "of this strange coup" continues to worsen that, as in the time of Proudhon, "everyone can see now".

Meanwhile, it is obvious to anyone who has ever thought even a little about the laws of the economic order that wealth, like value, does not so much mean reality as relation: the relation of production to consumption, supply to demand, labor to capital, product to wages. pay, needs for action, etc. - a relation that has a generic, typical expression of the average day of an employee, considered from two sides, costs and product. The working day is, in a nutshell, the trading book of public property, changing from time to time.

What Proudhon considers obvious to anyone who understands something in the economic order is in fact far from being so obvious as it seems to him, and his conclusions are not very conducive to the manifestation of evidence. Compared with Marx's political economy, Proudhon's political economy looks amateurish. It is regrettable that the two outstanding thinkers, despite heated debates, did not understand each other - Proudhon did not understand Marxist political economy, and Marx did not understand Proudhon's philosophy.

It follows from this concept of the working day that total production, the expression of total labor, can in no way appreciably exceed the general necessary need, that which we have called daily bread. The idea of ​​doubling or tripling the production of a country is the same as doubling and tripling an order from a manufacturer of linen or cloth, without paying attention to and without taking into account the proportional increase in labor, capital, population and market, especially without taking into account the development of mind and morals going hand in hand. what requires the most care and costs the most - this idea, I say, is even more reckless than the squaring of the circle - this is a contradiction, nonsense. But this is precisely what the masses refuse to understand, the economists refuse to explain, and this is what governments are very prudently silent about. Produce, do business, get rich - this is your only refuge now, when you do not believe in either God or humanity!

And our modern hopes for economic growth continue, through the efforts of academic economists, to remain "more reckless than squaring a circle"- they don't have “what requires the most care and costs the most” - "hand in hand the progressing development of mind and morals".

The consequences of this illusion and the bitter disappointment that follows it irresistibly are the irritation of desires, the awakening in the poor and the rich, in the worker and in the parasite of immoderation and greed. Then, when disappointment comes, arousal in him of indignation at his evil lot, hatred of society and, finally, bringing it to crime and war. What brings disorder to the highest degree is excessive inequality in the distribution of products!

Who else would explain this to the modern rulers of Russia. Involuntarily, Leskovsky's Lefty comes to mind: "Tell the sovereign - in England, guns are not cleaned with bricks!"

If every French family, consisting of a father, mother and two children, enjoyed an income of 3 francs 50 centimes; if, at least, the minimum did not reach for poor families, always very numerous, further 1 franc 75 centimes, half of 3 francs 50 centimes, and the maximum did not rise for the rich, always much the smallest, further 15 or 20 francs, assuming that every family produced what is needed for consumption - there would be no poverty anywhere; the people would enjoy unheard-of prosperity; his wealth, quite rightly divided, would be incomparable, and the government would have every right to boast of the ever-increasing welfare of the country.

Again good intentions Proudhon paint us a picture of Soviet reality; what we lacked was wealth "perfectly properly divided". Dissatisfied with the imperfection of the division, we returned to the past:

But the difference between property is in reality far from being so small: the poorest families are far from able to earn an income of even 1 franc 75 centimes, and the richest are resolutely unwilling to receive only ten times as much.

Marxism, without thinking about how much this inequality is due to the nature of man himself, proposed to cut this Gordian knot - to eliminate the rich as a class. Proudhon tries to unravel this knot.

Where does this striking disparity come from? It might be accused of greed, which does not stop at any fraud; ignorance in the laws of value, commercial arbitrariness, and so on. Of course, these reasons are not without influence; but there is nothing organic in them, and they could not long resist the general censure, if they were not all rooted in one principle, a deeper, more respectable form, but the application of which produces all evil. This principle is the same that impels us to seek wealth and luxury, and develops in us the love of fame; the same that gives rise to the right of our strength, subsequently the right of our mind, this is the feeling of our personal dignity and significance, a feeling in its noble application that produces respect for the neighbor and for the whole of humanity and generates justice.

I would like to say: but from this place, please, slow down - how does it happen - the love for one's neighbor as for oneself, preached in the biblical commandments, and the love for wealth have the same nature? To understand Proudhon we will be helped by the interpretation of Hegel's philosophy from A. Kozhev, in which the main motive human activity it is considered a thirst for recognition, which a person can receive both in caring for his neighbor and at the expense of possessing wealth.

The reverse consequence of his [principle] is that before all of us we not only prefer ourselves to others in everything, we also extend this arbitrary preference to those whom we like and whom we call our friends. ... The most just person has a disposition to value his neighbor and help him not according to his merits, but according to the sympathy that his personality inspires. This sympathy breeds friendship - a holy feeling; it wins us a patronizing disposition - a matter as free in its nature as trust, and in which there is still nothing unjust, but which soon gives rise to indulgence, partiality, charlatanism, social distinctions and castes. The progress of labor and the development of social relations alone could show us what is fair in all this and what is not; one life experience could show us that if in our relations with our neighbors a certain value of friendly sympathy can be admitted, then all partiality must disappear before economic justice; and that if equality before the law matters anywhere, it is when it comes to remuneration for work, about the distribution of services and products.

A perfectly logical explanation of the nature of corruption, which lacks specific guidance on how to overcome it.

Exaggerated high opinion of ourselves, abuse of personal relationships - that is why we violate the law of economic distribution, and this violation, combined in us with the desire for luxury, gives rise to pauperism.

The conclusion that modern economics has also reached, using other justifications for this, is that economic growth alone cannot eliminate poverty in the liberal world, since it is structural in nature, i.e. is generated by the relations of production operating in society.

The next proposition, as true as it is paradoxical: the normal state of man, in civilization, is poverty. In itself, poverty is not a misfortune: one could call it, following the example of the ancients, a comfortable existence, if a comfortable existence in ordinary language did not mean a state of property, although not reaching wealth, but nevertheless allowing one to refrain from productive labor.

The paradoxical understanding of poverty proposed by Proudhon greatly prevented this doctrine from becoming popular.

Pauperism is abnormal poverty, acting destructively. Whatever the particular case that produces it, it always consists in a lack of balance between a man's product and his income, between his costs and needs, between the dreams of his aspirations and the strength of his abilities, therefore, between the positions of people. It is always a violation of the economic law, which, on the one hand, obliges a person to work to maintain life, and on the other hand, measures production with needs. For example, a worker who does not receive in exchange for his work the lowest total average income, let's say 1 franc 75 centimes a day for him and his family, belongs to the paupers. He cannot, with the help of his insufficient wages, restore his strength, maintain his household, raise his children, much less develop his mental faculties. Insensitively, he falls into dryness, into demoralization, into poverty.

There is a bottom, which, having fallen, a person can no longer rise from it. Say what you like, but the Soviet government made sure that people did not fall into this bottom. In connection with Russia's search for the bottom of the crisis, it would be interesting to know how Proudhon's conclusion is applicable to states - bad forebodings make us assume that there is a line here too, having crossed it, we will not be able to go back.

And this violation of the economic law, I repeat, is at the same time a fundamentally psychological fact; it has its source, on the one hand, in the idealism of our desires, on the other hand, in an exaggerated sense of our own dignity and in our little appreciation of the dignity of others.

Here Proudhon lacks the knowledge that Marx had - an understanding of the contribution of production relations to the existing state of affairs; on the other hand, Marxism lacks an understanding of the influence of psychological factors on social dynamics.

It is this spirit of luxury and aristocratism, which still lives eternally in our so-called democratic society, and makes the exchange of products and services deceptive, introducing into it partiality; he, contrary to the law of values, even contrary to the law of force, is constantly plotting by his universality to increase the wealth of his chosen ones with innumerable particles stolen from the payment of everything.

This is a verdict on the unborn liberal world. This is also very important for us - to understand that our democracy is just a pseudo-democracy, therefore, the spirit of liberalism is still "scheming to increase the wealth of his chosen ones with countless pieces stolen from the payment of everything".

The facts by which this false distribution appears in the general economy are:
a). The development of parasitism, the multiplication of positions and crafts of luxury. This is the state to which we all strive with all the strength of our pride and our sensuality. Everyone wants to live at the expense of everyone, to occupy a sinecure, not to indulge in any productive labor, or to receive a reward for his services that is not commensurate with the public good.
b). Unproductive enterprises, insignificant, without regard to savings. What citizens are in private life, it is necessary that the state be the same in turn.
c). A surplus of the governmental element, which in turn came from all these causes.
d). Absorption by capitals and large cities, which, from whatever angle they may be considered, even as centers of production, but especially the production of luxury, never return to native labor everything that is stolen from it, and work only for the amusement of the idle and the enrichment of some philistines.
e). An exaggeration of capitalism that leads everything to financial matters. In relation to the manufacturer and the banker, money may be called capital, because it represents a certain quantity of raw materials; in exchange, where money serves only as an instrument of exchange and is only not consumed as a pledge, a bank note, it is imaginary, imaginary capital: only products of labor are real capitals.
f). Changes in the value of a coin, resulting either from the high cost, or from the cheapness of metals, or from the exportation of money, or from damage to the coin. This results in a huge hype at a loss to both producers and consumers.
g). Finally, the rise in prices for apartments and almost all consumer goods.

The stated facts, acting on each other, are increased by their interaction.

Proudhon's list of shortcomings of capitalism, which remains relevant in our time, is more complete than that of Marx. If the list has not been reduced by a single item in a century and a half, there is no longer any hope that capitalism will be able to get rid of these shortcomings, with the exception of "rising prices of almost all consumer goods"- the consumer revolution in the time of Proudhon was difficult to foresee.

Among the poor, pauperism is characterized by the slow hunger of which Fourier spoke, hunger at all moments, all year round, throughout life - a hunger that does not kill in one day, but is composed of all deprivations and all regrets, which constantly destroys the body, dulls the mind, corrupts conscience, disfigures generations, gives rise to all diseases and all vices, among other things - drunkenness and envy, disgust from work and frugality, meanness of the soul, rudeness of conscience and morals, laziness, begging, fornication and theft. ... The parasite has a different manifestation: it is no longer hunger, but, on the contrary, insatiable voracity. It has been proven by experience that the more an unproductive member of society consumes, the more, due to the arousal of appetite in him and the inactivity of his members and mind, he tends to consume.

Simply put, impoverishment leads to the degradation of the individual, moreover, impoverishment is not only material, but also spiritual, which makes the rich victims of pauperism:

As the rich man succumbs to the flame of pleasure that burns him, pauperism seizes him more, which makes him at once wasteful, selfish and miserly. And what is true of gluttony is true of all kinds of pleasures; they become more demanding as they saturate. The luxury of the table is only a fraction of unproductive costs. Soon, as soon as whim and vanity are mixed in, no treasures will be obtained; among the pleasures, poverty is felt. Such a consumer must fill empty chests - then pauperism completely seizes him, attracts him to risky enterprises, shaky speculations, to games, swindles and, finally, takes revenge with the most shameful ruin for offended moderation, justice, nature.

Two poles of one phenomenon, and the result is one - the indefatigable desire for consumerism is accompanied by changes in the psyche, which can also be considered as degradation.

It must not be imagined that between these extremes, in that middle position where labor and consumption are more correctly balanced, that there families are outside this scourge. The tone is given by the wealthy class, and everyone tries to imitate him. The prejudice of wealth, the illusion inspired by it, disturbs souls. Do you understand now why moderation, simplicity of life, modesty in everything are for us not only virtues, so to speak, supercomplete, but the most positively indispensable?

To understand what Proudhon is trying to convey to us, we are helped by the concept of Dasein from Martin Heidegger - those whose power is based on wealth, using this power, form the vector of its being in society - Dasein - orienting us to the ideals of the consumer society, because of which and one can fall under the blows of that scourge of fate of which Proudhon speaks. This can only be resisted if another Dasein is made attractive, for which book sermons alone are not enough - we also need an organizational structure that orients people to life in accordance with the true Dasein, until this is not the case, the following conclusion of Proudhon will be true:

Such is the course of pauperism, common to all mankind and all social strata.

The course of pauperism common to all mankind is the course of liberalism.

In the chain of shortcomings that bring peoples to hostile clashes, it is not the pauperism of the crowd that is the most unbearable. The first place here is occupied by the impoverishment of sovereigns; it is followed by the impoverishment of the nobles and the rich. Here, as in everything, the masses of the people stand in the background. The poor man, in general beggary, does not even have a place of honor.

It is quite suitable for explaining the reasons for the catastrophe that happened to us - the degraded Soviet party elite wanted to convert their power privileges into wealth, but as a result we got what we got -

"here, as in everything, the masses of the people stand in the background".

The rich, the great consumers, are like - if I may be allowed to compare - like huge quadrupeds, subject in their size and strength much more than a rabbit, a squirrel, a mouse, to starvation. The main reason for the termination of such childbirth is that they have nothing to live with. This evil happens to the aristocratic estates, to the rich and prosperous families. Always in need, among the mob, who suck the juice out of them even more than they serve them, mired in debt, besieged by creditors, bankrupt, they, of all the victims of pauperism, if not the most entertaining, then certainly the most irritated ...

Proudhon wrote about the ruined feudal aristocracy, but we can attribute his words to those who now lead our communists in the Communist Party of the Russian Federation - although they are fed from the parliamentary trough, they are the most annoyed of all the victims of pauperism - they don’t know where to go, therefore the only thing left for them is to get annoyed, pretending to care for the welfare of the people.

Nature, in all her creation, has adopted as a rule: nothing superfluous. Economy of means, said Fourier, is one of its main laws. That is why, not content with condemning us to work, she gives us only what is necessary and raises poverty to us as a law, thus ahead of the instructions of the Gospel and all monastic rules. And if we oppose her law, if the lure of the ideal leads us to luxury and pleasure, if exaggerated self-respect induces us to demand more for our services than is necessary for economic reasons, nature, quick to punish us, dooms us to beggary.

Those who do not want to blame themselves can blame nature for everything that happened to us and to our country during the capitalist restoration. Repent, sinners, and vow to oppose the law of Nature, then, perhaps, she will take pity on you and allow you to know the true joys of life.

We are all, therefore, subject to the law of poverty. This is required by our perfection, the very law of our labor. Leaving aside the inequality of labor and ability, which can produce a difference in income, a difference which is not generally noticeable, we generally produce only what we need for subsistence. If some of us get more or less than the rule, it is our common fault: reform is required.

The comrades understood that the rule of life has been violated, and therefore a reform is required. Who else would say what it should consist of and how to do it. And no one will correct our common guilt for us, but they can add something else to the punishments that we have already received for our guilt, if we do not begin to correct it.

Pauperism, considered in its psychological foundations, follows from the same sources as war, i.e. from the meaning of human personality. This innate idolization of wealth and fame, this religion of inequality, could deceive for a while: they must disappear before the conclusion from direct experience that a person, doomed to daily work, to strict moderation, must seek the dignity of his being and the glory of his life in something completely different, than in the satisfaction of luxury and the vanity of domination.

The Soviet government confirmed this conclusion of Proudhon in the practice of its direct experience - we had something different about which he speaks, but our communists were guided not by Proudhonism, but by Marxism, with its primacy of the material over the ideal and spiritual, and therefore liberalism managed to seduce us, as a result of which we are again looking for "the dignity of one's being and the glory of one's life ... in the satisfaction of luxury and in the vanity of dominion."

CONCLUSION: WHY PROUDON AND NOT MARX?

Karl Marx wrote in The German Ideology: "Philosophy and the study of the real world relate to each other like masturbation and sexual love" - ​​this opinion continues to be as relevant today as it was in Marx's time, especially in relation to that philosophy , which is created by philosophers on the payroll on a need-to-know basis. Despite a negative assessment of the usefulness of philosophy for practice, Marx found something to take from it - in this respect we can learn from him. In the time that has passed since then, philosophy has still gained a lot of useful things; one can also benefit from a lot of things in its old baggage, including from what Marx abandoned. At the previous step, I showed the usefulness of Feuerbach's philosophy, now from the dark basement I brought into the light of God the philosophy of Proudhon, which Marx severely criticized in his "Poverty of Philosophy" - Comrade Karl Heinrich did not see the lack of love in the philosophy of Comrade Pierre Joseph, and she is there definitely is. I do not blame Marx, because I myself know how difficult it is to understand the language of philosophy, no matter who speaks this language, and therefore criticism is an indispensable element of philosophical discourse - any philosophy contains criticism of other philosophies. How justified the criticism of Marx, I will try to show in the next publication, in it we will also sum up the dispute between the two thinkers - tomorrow we will deal with this.

INTRODUCTION 3
1. WEALTH AND POVERTY. CONCEPTS AND ESSENCE. 5
2. INEQUALITY. SOCIAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS
POVERTY AND WEALTH 8
3. CAUSES OF POVERTY IN RUSSIA. 12
CONCLUSION 16
REFERENCES 17

INTRODUCTION

Wealth and poverty are concepts closely related to social stratification. Social inequality is closely related to economic inequality, which characterizes the uneven distribution of society's scarce resources - money, power, education and prestige - between different strata or strata of the population.
The main measure of inequality is the number of liquid values. This function is usually performed by money. It is their number that determines the place of an individual or family in social stratification. If inequality is presented in the form of a scale, then on one of its poles there will be those who own the largest (rich), and on the other - the smallest (poor) amount of goods. Thus, poverty is the economic and socio-cultural state of people who have a minimum amount of liquid values ​​and limited access to social benefits.
Wealth is an abundance of material and non-material values ​​in a person or society, such as money, means of production, real estate or personal property. Wealth also includes access to health care, education and culture. In sociology, a person who has significant values ​​in relation to other members of society is considered rich.
In our country, the upper class of owners, accounting for about 3% of the total population, began to form in the late 80s, when Russia turned to market relations, democracy and a Western-style class society. Within about five years, both the class of the rich "new Russians" and the social lower classes of society, whose standard of living is below the poverty line, have been formed.
The issues of wealth and poverty have been studied by both economists and sociologists. Adam Smith created a theory about the nature of capital and how to increase it. David Ricardo developed Smith's views and supplemented them with original theories of land rent and international trade. Thomas Malthus was the first to show that rapid population growth posed a great threat to the wealth of a country. John Stuart Mill deepened the theories of his predecessors and substantiated the need for a free market for the greatest economic growth and increasing the wealth of people and society.
Among the sociologists who study the problems of social and economic inequality are P. Sorokin, P. Abrahamson, Gordon L. A. and others.
The theme of wealth and poverty worried people at all times and epochs. Now, during the global financial crisis, when thousands and millions of people are falling into the abyss of poverty, this topic becomes especially relevant.

1. WEALTH AND POVERTY. CONCEPTS AND ESSENCE.
At all times and eras, the concepts of wealth and poverty have been interpreted differently. A. Smith believed that wealth and poverty are relative concepts. What is considered poverty in one society may look like wealth in the eyes of the inhabitants of another. In the closing passage of the first chapter of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, he argued that a deep division of labor, the use of machines and knowledge, lead to the fact that the market is able to provide even the lowest strata of society with a decent level of well-being. If we take into account all the complex mechanics of market coordination, Smith noted, “we will understand that without the assistance and cooperation of many thousands of people, the poorest inhabitant of a civilized country could not lead the way of life that he usually leads now and which we very wrongly consider simple and ordinary. Of course, in comparison with the extraordinary luxury of a rich man, his furnishings must seem extremely simple and ordinary, and, nevertheless, it may turn out that the atmosphere of a European sovereign is not always so superior to that of an industrious and careful peasant, insofar as the atmosphere of the latter surpasses that of many African kings, absolute masters of life and freedom of tens of thousands of naked savages.
Marx, unlike Smith, was convinced (and even tried to justify this belief in the form of a law) that "as industrial capitalism develops, the wealth of the few will increase and the poverty of the majority of the rest will spread." Is this belief true? Even a simple look at the history of Western societies over a hundred years after Marx's death shows that he was wrong.
Developed industrial capitalism has created and continues to create for large masses of people the highest material standard of living in the history of mankind. But for us, this question remains relevant. In today's Russian society, which is changing its economic form, one can clearly see an increased stratification between wealth and poverty.
Moreover, the improvement of material living conditions does not in itself solve the problem of the relative distribution of wealth and income. It is quite possible that when the poor begin to live better, the rich become even richer, and the relative gap between them persists or even widens. To help deal with these issues allows the discussion of theorists and historians of economics around the so-called Kuznets curve.
S. Kuznets studied statistical data characterizing the relationship between economic growth and income distribution. The general trend here is that the distribution of income as economic growth tends to equalize over time. Based on the materials of many countries at different stages of industrialization and the development of a market economy, Kuznets established a statistical pattern - the "Kuznets curve". According to her, during the transition to a market economy, inequality in the distribution of income first increases sharply, but then tends to gradually decrease.
Nowadays, the prevailing opinion is that this pattern is true not only for developed Western countries, but also for those societies that modernized the economy later. In all societies, this transition has been accompanied by a sharp and rather prolonged increase in inequality. Individual countries differed in the degree of intensity and duration of this process, but the general trend was observed everywhere.
If we turn to history, we can find that by the end of the 19th century, significant inequality existed in all industrialized and industrializing states. It was most noticeable in England, and surpassed even what is taking place today in many countries of the "third world". The inequality reached its highest point before the First World War. But in the period from the 1920s to the 1950s. in Western countries there was a noticeable equalization of the incomes of the population, after which the situation stabilized and has remained without noticeable changes since then.
It was also found that the regularity of income equalization between the upper and lower strata of society is not so affected by the social (redistributive) policy pursued by the state. Sensible government redistributive measures may have accelerated the Kuznets curve alignment phase, but this alignment occurs without such intervention. Liberal economists even argue that too much redistribution through taxes and pro-poor programs can backfire by stifling individual enterprise. It can be said that. there is a choice between equality and economic efficiency: excessive equality can lead to a decrease in the average standard of living of society. Enterprising and talented people are placed in a position in which it makes no sense for them to use their enterprise and abilities.
Thus, we can conclude that the assessments of the market economy differ depending on whether they are viewed from an abstract humanistic position and the ideal of equality, as Marx did, or from the point of view of efficiency for satisfying material needs.

2. INEQUALITY. SOCIAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS OF POVERTY AND WEALTH
The concepts of poverty and wealth are inextricably linked with the concept of social and economic inequality.
The essence of social inequality, as already mentioned, lies in the unequal access of various categories of the population to socially significant benefits, scarce resources, liquid values.
The essence of economic inequality lies in the fact that a minority of the population always owns most of the national wealth. In other words, the smallest part of society receives the highest incomes, and the majority of the population receives the average and the smallest.
The latter can be distributed in different ways. In the United States, the smallest incomes (as well as the largest) are received by a minority of the population, and the average - by the majority. In Russia today, the majority receives the lowest incomes, a relatively large group receives the average incomes, and the minority of the population receives the highest incomes.
Inequality characterizes society as a whole, poverty - only part of the population. Depending on the level of economic development of the country, poverty covers a significant or insignificant part of the population.
To measure the scale of poverty, sociologists identify the proportion of that part of the country's population (usually expressed as a percentage) that lives near the official line, or threshold, of poverty. The terms “poverty rate”, “poverty margins” and “poverty ratio” are also used to indicate the scale of poverty.
The poverty threshold is the amount of money (usually expressed, for example, in dollars or rubles) officially established as the minimum income that an individual or family needs only to buy food, clothing and housing. It is also called the "poverty level". In Russia, he received an additional name - the cost of living.
Sociology distinguishes between absolute and relative poverty.
Absolute poverty is understood as such a state in which an individual is not able to satisfy even the basic needs for food, housing, clothing, warmth, or is able to satisfy only the minimum needs that ensure biological survival on his income. The numerical criterion here is the threshold of poverty (living wage).
Relative poverty is understood as the inability to maintain a decent standard of living, or some standard of living accepted in a given society. Typically, relative poverty is less than half the average household income in a given country.
Relative poverty indicates how poor a particular individual or family is compared to other people. It is a comparative characteristic in two parameters. First, it shows that a person (family) is poor in relation to the abundance or prosperity that other members of society who are not considered poor have. The first meaning of relative poverty is the comparison of one stratum with other strata or strata. Secondly, it shows that a person (family) is poor in relation to some standard of living, for example, the standard of a decent, or befitting, life.
This border is quite flexible. Even 40 years ago, a black-and-white TV in the USSR was considered a luxury item available to a few. In the 90s, a color TV appeared in almost every family, and black and white is considered a sign of modest prosperity, or relative poverty. Soon those who cannot afford to buy a Japanese television or computer will enter the category of relative poverty.
The lower limit of relative poverty is the subsistence minimum and/or the poverty threshold, and the upper limit is the so-called decent standard of living. A decent standard of living reflects the number wealth that allow a person to satisfy all reasonable needs, lead a fairly comfortable lifestyle, and not feel disadvantaged. According to a representative study (surveyed 4,000 respondents from 38 regions of the Russian Federation) conducted by Russian sociologists, only 11.4% of Russians have incomes that are at the level of a decent life or exceed it. At the end of the 90s, according to statistics, 30% of Russians received incomes below the official subsistence level. Thus, the level of relative poverty is 11.4%, and absolute - 30%.
11.5% includes the rich (including the so-called "new Russians") and part of the middle class - those who, according to their own assessment, live "normally". From 100% of the population we subtract 30% of the poor (since living below the official poverty line, or the official subsistence level, actually means being in a state of poverty), as well as 11.5% of those living at a decent level (relative poverty level), and we get 59 6% of those located between the absolute poverty lines (bottom) and relative poverty (top).
The data of sociologists testify: the richer a person, the higher his claims. Poorer people have rather modest ideas about how much money they need to "live normally." The rich have ambitions and pretensions inevitably growing. Another trend: the younger the age, the more money is required in order to live normally. In 18-25-year-olds, the level of decent life (in any case, according to their own ideas) is 1.5 times higher than in 60-70-year-olds.
Another trend is this: the higher the education, the higher the level of aspirations. For those who do not have a secondary education, this level is 2 times lower than for those who have a diploma of higher education. Finally, residents of Moscow and St. Petersburg have a level of claims 3 times higher than residents of rural areas. Thus, people in the countryside believe that they need less money for a normal life than city dwellers. To some extent, this is understandable: life in the countryside is still largely based on the products that subsistence farming provides - milk, meat, vegetables from the garden. In addition, the farther from the direct production of vital goods, the more various intermediaries, and hence the higher the price of consumed goods. However, the traditionally lower level of claims of the inhabitants of the province and the absence of the influence of the so-called conspicuous consumption due to the nature of the dominant subcultures (for example, visits to the theater, gym, cafes, etc.) play an equally important role here.
It follows from this that universal for all layers and social groups there is simply no level of decent or “normal” life. For each class and category of the population, it has its own, and the range of values ​​​​is very significant.

3. CAUSES OF POVERTY IN RUSSIA.
In economic psychology, when analyzing attitudes towards poverty, three groups of causes of poverty are distinguished:
1) structural (responsibility is placed on an extremist society, poor governance and economic forces);
2) individualistic or personal (responsibility for poverty lies with the behavior and personality traits of the poor);
3) fatalistic (the cause of poverty is seen in the absence of luck and twists of fate).
According to surveys, fatalistic explanations of poverty are more characteristic of residents of the countries of the East (India, Indonesia). In Western countries, the explanation of poverty by individual or structural causes dominates.
What do young Russians see as the causes of poverty, those who will create our near future? A survey of student youth aged 17-18 was conducted. Not all surveyed are depressing by the sight of the poor and beggars and forced contacts with them. Most of the subjects believe that the division into rich and poor in society is a social norm. The result obtained is not surprising, given that most of the lives of the young people we surveyed passed against the backdrop of economic reforms in Russia, which gave rise to active processes of stratification of society.
At the same time, the subjects do not agree with the fatalistic approach to poverty. They rather share the position that people themselves are to blame for being poor (but with a wide range of opinions). And the greatest degree of agreement and unanimity was caused by the statement about the responsibility for poverty of state policy. It is curious that the greater the rejection of poverty and the denial of the normativity of a strong economic stratification of the population, the greater the claims to state policy. (The factor of personal responsibility for one's material well-being or poverty is confirmed by a statistically significant negative correlation between the fatalistic position and the position of personal responsibility for poverty).
It should be noted that the personal approach to poverty is of the greatest interest. It is the study of the personality of poor people, according to scientists, that is one of the main contributions of psychology to alleviate the severity of the problem of poverty. Personal theories of poverty provide contradictory material, however, the authors of individual publications and reviews still identify some “constants” of the psychological portrait of people that demonstrate objective or subjectively experienced poverty (in which a person perceives himself as poor). Consider these enduring characteristics of the poor:
Time constant: the poor have a current orientation and short-term views on the future, i.e. they are not inclined to postpone the satisfaction of their desires (postpone current less valuable goals in order to achieve later but more important ones). The option of time preferences for materially prosperous people is noted by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer: “The current state should be looked at as a fence against many possible evils and troubles, and not as a permission or even an obligation to buy worldly pleasures for yourself.”
Spatial constant: Poverty is more often associated with such a style characteristic of an individual as an external locus of control, i.e. a person believes that the events of his life are controlled by chance, luck, stronger personalities or forces beyond his understanding, and not due to his own behavior.
Energy constant: the desire for success is weakly expressed, there is no predominance of the achievement motive over the motive of avoiding failure (people are more afraid of defeats, disappointments than they wish for success).
Information constant: low self-esteem (also self-esteem, self-confidence). The basic attitude of a person with a "market" psychology - the willingness to be responsible for the specific result of their work - is formed precisely in people with high self-esteem and an adequate level of claims.
It is important that qualities that prevent poverty and, on the contrary, contribute to material well-being, can be formed. Foreign psychologists saw one of the psychological causes of poverty in our country and the countries of the former socialist camp, for example, in the overestimated level of consumer claims of our population after the opening of the Iron Curtain. Some authors attribute this phenomenon to the fact that the majority do not have developed financial self-control, i.e. the temporal perspective of economic behavior is just violated.
Our domestic poor, that is, people experiencing economic deprivation, are in most cases not lumpens, but victims of sharp stratification and the costs of the economic policy of the transition period. But the objective causes of poverty do not diminish the role of subjective causes, so an important socio-political task is to promote a favorable modernization of the country by influencing the personal variables of people.
As a strategic line of Russia's development, a transition from the psychology of poverty to the psychology of wealth or material well-being is necessary.
Constantly exploring changes in psychological portrait representatives of various social groups in the post-perestroika period, positive changes were found in the spatial component of the personal prerequisites for material well-being. Our population, especially young people, understands more and more that it is necessary to rely, first of all, on oneself; in values-means puts volitional qualities in the first positions.
And another important shift was found in the research - the strengthening of the achievement motive, the need for success (energy component), especially when you consider that in macroeconomic studies of foreign psychologists, there is a positive correlation between the severity of the need for achievement among members of society and indicators of the country's economic growth. (It should be noted, however, that these positive changes are present in the active part of the population. In parallel, there is an increase in alcoholism, drug addiction and other forms of deviant behavior. Unfortunately, the trend of social Darwinism is manifested in society: the strongest survive).
Two other components of the psychology of material well-being leave much to be desired. Russians still have a low self-esteem (information component) at the macrosocial level due to identification with an "economically backward country".
True, in recent times there have been positive trends in the resuscitation of citizens' self-esteem. They are associated with some favorable changes in foreign policy, as well as signs of stabilization in the Russian economy and politics. It is important to overcome the inferiority complex formed among Russians over the past 15-20 years, to remove the label of economic backwardness. Behind the Iron Curtain, the country was too self-sufficient, but had its own, different from Western, technologies that did not fit well with the world when the curtain was lifted. Nevertheless, Russia has sufficient potential to move from the status of developing to the status of developed countries.
CONCLUSION
Thus, we can conclude that wealth and poverty are concepts expressing the economic aspects of social inequality.
In today's financial crisis, this is especially clear. The poor are getting poorer, while the rich are trying to make money out of the crisis. At all times, in moments of social and economic upheavals in society, there were people who successfully made money on the misfortune of others.
Poverty is global social problem, actively researched and having many similarities around the world. Theoretically, poverty, according to most researchers, is the inability to maintain a certain acceptable standard of living, so "classical" poor families have existed everywhere and at all times. And, unfortunately, the more the rich get richer, the more the poor will get poorer. This is especially true for Russia with its unstable economy and instability in society. Although the average income, taking into account the income of both of them, as government structures do, shows that Russia is not the poorest country at all, it's just that the redistribution of income is constantly leaning in favor of the rich.
It cannot be said that the state uses various programs to reduce poverty in our country. All developed countries of the world constantly continue to improve their systems of social support for the poor. They are trying to find the line beyond which this support should not go, so as not to undermine the foundation of the economy - the desire of people to work, because this is the only way to provide yourself and your loved ones with a decent and, moreover, comfortable existence.

LIST OF USED LITERATURE

1. Anthology of economic classics: In 2 vols. M., 1991. Vol. 1.
2. Giddens E. Stratification and class structure // Sociological research. 1992. No. 11.
3. Gordon L. A. Poverty, well-being, inconsistency: material differentiation in the 1990s // Social sciences and modernity. - 2001. No. 3.
4. Zherebiy V. M., Rimashevskaya N. M. The problem of fighting poverty in the development of foreign government and international organizations // Poverty: a view of scientists on the problem / Ed. M. A. Mozhina. - M., 2004.
5. Zubova L.G. Representation of poverty and wealth, 1996.
6. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology: Proc. for universities. / A. I. Kravchenko, V. F. Anurin. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2006.
7. Levykin I. T. Interaction of equality, freedom and justice in the dialectics of group and individual consciousness // Lifestyle and state of mass consciousness. - M., 1992.
8. Marx K. and Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. M., 1987.
9. Ovcharova L.M. Poverty in Russia. Peace in Russia, 2001.
10. Smith A. Research on the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. M., 1962.
11. Sorokin P. A. Man, civilization, society. M.: 1992.
12. Tikhonova N. E. The social structure of Russian society: the result of eight years of reform // Social sciences and modernity. - 2000. No. 3.
13. Schopenhauer, A. Aphorisms of worldly wisdom / A. Schopenhauer. - M., 1990.
14. www.poverty.net.ru