Ford and Stalin. How to Live in Humaneness

This extract leads us to assume that H. Ford as businessman is not the type of businessman whose qualities served as the basis for defining the fundamental economic law of the Euro-American type of capitalism. It is so because Ford clearly condemns money-grubbing, i.e. getting a maximum profit from a business and seizing it solely for one’s private needs (we shall speak about it later), proclaimed as a goal that every «normal» member of society seeks to achieve. Ford does not accept the capitalism of his time as a system. He also contrasts the self-seeking money-grubbing that reigns in that system with the universal norm of social behavior: acting to the BENEFIT of other people and society.

Yet unlike the true Marxists — anti-capitalists — Ford is not a revolutionary. He is seeking not to overthrow the social and economic order that has formed in the course of history but to reform it. And he is a reformer who rejects violence as a means to achieve social progress. He is a teacher. He had learned a great deal about organizing production and distribution of products within the society, about politics as a whole (including global politics[60]) and interpreted what he had learned. And he had carefully written that knowledge down in his books[61] to enable others — who share his creative approach to life and to problems one must face in it — could use his knowledge and practical skills to the benefit of their contemporaries and descendants.

But before we go on quoting Ford’s book “My Life and Work” we shall make a short digression into the realm of laws and rights (which are different things).

* * *

Digression 3 :

Objective Rights and Subjective Laws

A right is an open opportunity of doing something while being safeguarded against a retribution for what has been done.

In the Russian world understanding the notions of «right» and «righteousness» are interco

It follows that if one accepts the terms of a theory where «Right» and «Law» are synonymous then one should distinguish between two categories of rights existing in social life:

objective rights given to man and mankind from above. The main right superior to all other is the right of every man to act as God’s deputy on Earth guided by his conscience and in concord with the message of the Revelations[62];

subjective «rights», established in social life by its participants themselves. They depend on their morals and are arbitrary, and can therefore be both righteous and unrighteous.

Consequently conflicts between objective and subjective rights may and do exist in the society. In following objective rights one acts in concord with God’s Will. Those who introduce, interpret and execute subjective «rights» attempt to impede the implementation of God’s Will by their arbitrary rules. In such a case Rights are superior to laws as reflected in an old Russian proverb: «The one who is righteous in the eyes of God ca

Besides any written law characteristic of the society in a specific period of history — if viewed in terms of the theory of control — falls into one of the three following information modules:

algorithms[64] for normal control following a specific conception of social life and of life and activities of physical and juridical persons within this society;

algorithms for defending control that follows this conception against attempts to exercise control within this society following other conceptions that are incompatible with the former one;

algorithms to make up for the deficiencies that are inherent to the conception supported by the algorithms of normal control as such deficiencies give rise to social tension and conflicts.

But the problem of distinguishing between conceptions and the problem of how different conceptions manifest themselves in diffe r ent fra g ments of one and the same legislation common for the state as a whole is beyond the majority of members of parliament, soc i ologists and average people. This results in the deficiency of legi s lative algorithms in most countries. Such deficiency is of a two-fold nature:

in Russia there is no definite conception. It is therefore unclear what laws and their articles reflect normal control within the chosen conception and what parts of legislation are a means of defense against implementation of conceptions incompatible to the dominating one. These are the very reasons why current Russian legislation is contradictory, ambiguous and sometimes no less than absurd;[65]

in Western countries there is a definite conception. Legislation is sophisticated in the part responsible for normal algorithms of control following the biblical doctrine (see Appendix) and in the part meant to mitigate deficiencies inherent to the biblical conception of society which is dominant in the West. Namely, it is the conception of a society financially strangled by Hebrew[66] corporate supranational usury.

Because there is a need to overcome and compensate for their own deficiencies Western legislation on business and financial a c tivities resembles a labyrinth built in the like of «the tower of Bab y lon». One group of businessmen gets a right to hunt the income of other busines s men, employees and the state as a whole aided by lawyers and judges and prosecutors, without ever thin k ing about the consequences of the self-seeking approach encou r aged among them as well as about who, when and by what means is going to disentangle all the complications. That is why Western legal pra c tice is mostly shameless pettifogging to the end of «grubbing some money» on legal grounds or preventing ot h ers from snatching his or her own money. A horde of avaricious la w yers and «jurists» get their parasitic bread from this pettifoggery.