As we know, the core of Napoleon’s constitution is the slogan “liberty, equality, property”. The two traditional concepts are joined by the third, more materialistic, which is one of major driving forces for the development of humanity. Like also during Napoleon times, systemic changes are taking place in a number of countries of today’s world, and in this regard, the issue of ownership becomes the most important matter.
Extreme and self-forgetful liberals say, let’s hurry up to get rid of this damned state property. I do not think that such psychology is of market and liberal, the market, perhaps, assumes equal respectful attitude towards all forms of ownership. If we really want to be like the developed countries, the thinking should be diametrically opposite, any ownership is sacred, and any encroachment against it should be viewed as a heinous crime.
Then, the property that is called “government owned”, either good or bad, has sustained us for decades. It is another matter that in early 80-s it finally became clear that this form of ownership is ineffective and leads to the country’s economic collapse. To the point, still Andropov understood it, the spiritual father of Gorbachev. Consequently, the KGB leader was braver in his economic programs that today’s communists.
But the whole problem is that during the communist times the property was not “government-owned” at all. The phrase “People’s owned property” is a nonsense, there is no product in the world, ranging from a large factory and ending with a bunch of mixed greens that belongs to “all people” or “worker-peasant and the public intelligentsia.” Over the centuries, everything always has its master who enjoys the benefits of the product belonging to the latter. The owner for 70 years was the Central Committee with its bureaucratic apparatus and various infrastructures.
Read also
The Communists’ ‘people’s owned property’, thus is a bluff. But often today’s “private-owned property” is also bluff. It actually very rarely belongs to private persons, the goods under the name “private-owned” or “government-owned” are still largely in the hands of a state bureaucracy. The fake “private” is as inefficient, and creates as much opportunities for abuse, as in the case of fake ‘government-owned’. And, here, other defects are followed. For instance, the fact that there is a “right to call” left from the past regime still operates in our enlightened “liberal” century, the state official is calling the private manufacturer and the banker and dictates who should get the goods or credits.
So, in my deep understanding, the sense of privatization is not a change of a signboard rather than formation of a real business (government-owned or private). There is no other way.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
24.07.1996
