Страница 13 из 14
As a result, the conflicts between the canons of EACH (including secular Law) holly books, its canonical interpretations and real life is solved by people believing God directly in accord with his consciousness and in the wholeness of perception of particular circumstances of life.
This is the background of the outlook for considering codified and not codifies laws and separating them into two categories:
a normal algorithm of self-management of a society in accordance with Providence in particular circumstances;
subjective ‘rights’, established on the base of degradation-parasite moral, which hampers creation of the Lord’s Kingdom on the Earth.
Ownership is one of many rights. It id exercised by the subjects-owners in relation of property subjects. The right is exercised either by disclosure or by default. At the same time, disclosures in real life can be oppressed by collateral defaults. The breach of Biblical Commandment ‘thou shalt not steal’ by the Biblical prescript to Jews to deal in global usury based on racial, corporate foundations can serve an example of such a state.
Albeit if the subjectively established ‘rights’ entrench upon breaking of rights objectively given from Above, the objective rights will work, even if there is a delusion that the subjective ‘rights’ are exercised. An example is the Ascension of Christ, reported in the Koran Revelation (4:156) and explaining the meaning of the Solomon’s prophecy. But the ‘eye witnesses’ who did not sincerely believe God, authenticated the Crucifixion of the Holly Man, after which they have been maintaining the cult of execution of holly people for thousands of years in a mindless hope to achieve the bright future basing on that faith, contrary to the word: ‘You will be given to your faith’.
The concepts of social structure based on good will, people ca
The notion of right of ownership to capital goods has a special position among the ownership rights, because it is the source of lots of things in legislative control of economic life of society.
The notion ‘right to own capital goods’ is meaningfully explained only as the right to control production and output distribution, either personally, or through proxies.
The notion of right to such objects as land, mines and carriers, water and other natural resources means the right to organize labour of people exploiting the natural resources, as well as a right to restrict access to non-productive use of them (for leisure purposes, etc.)
Right (seen as a subjective right, established by society) and cost are intrinsic features of social organization, not nature. When such rights are purchased, we pay for the result of human labour activity in the past, present or, a possible result in the future. Pay for the cost of natural resources and goods, which do not have cost, is a limitation by nominal paying capacity to use them and create the sources of payment for the work, which facilitates their reproduction by forces of nature itself.
The notions of private and public ownership are co
Property is private, in case the staff servicing the capital goods as a whole does not have a real possibility to immediately suspend from office those who violated their trust and hire or promote from their circle new managers.
Property is public, if the managers who violated trust or did not cope with their responsibilities to enhance management quality can be immediately excluded from the management sphere on the demand of the staff servicing the aggregate capital goods. It is based on the condition that the social base of the managerial corpus is not a limited social group where the representatives of other groups are not admitted.
Public property for something in a managerial sense is impossible to introduce by laws, because there is a dominant view that public de jure is nobody’s de facto, and the nobody’s de facto will become private, personal or corporative. Furthermore, the right to fire a manager can only be useful when the staff realizes that the only reason of firing him is inability to manage at a necessary quality level in accordance with the concept of social life, which is supported by the society. In particular, the use of a managerial position for personal and family-or clan enrichment may be a reason of instant firing.
But the same right in hands of a mindless crowd and a sponging lumpen proletarians will force the most qualified and caring managers out of business and replace them with talkers, who will call their own professional inadequacy to be sabotage of their inferiors, and will make a lot of fuss before they will be expelled; and the public property will be robbed by a lumpenised crowd. It happened in 1917 and caused a disaster, the same thing happened during the perestroika and ‘democratisation’.
Public property right comes from the outlook of a particular person and the society as a whole, but not from juridical declarations. Firstly a moral-outlook basis should emerge, which will turn collectively used property to capital goods into social property, whatever legal implementation. Only later, the domination of public property de facto will express itself judicially. If there is only judicial formality, but there is no moral-and-outlook basis, the ‘public’ property is doomed to remain private property in hands of a corporation of villain managers.
That is another reason why there will be no revival of capitalism in Russia, and there will never be ‘civil society’.
Private property may be either personal, or corporate. In the last case it may formally look like public. In the USSR, ‘nationwide’ state and cooperative-state farm property were formally public, but because of ‘elite’ exclusiveness and the lack of public control over the state bureaucracy, who started to reproduce itself from generation to generation in dynasties, the public property as a whole turned into private ‘elite-corporate’ property, whilst the response of the rest of the population of the USSR was nothing but condonation. It was the showing of real state of moral in the CPSU and among the non-party members. At the times of perestroika and ‘democratisation’ the judicial base was put under the factual state.
However it did not fit the ideals of everybody, so the ‘elite-corporate’ perestroika and ‘democratisation’ were doomed to collapse, because in Russia there is internal, conceptual power, which is an alternative to the global, charlatanic and daemonic power.
Global policy of creation of the Kingdom of Lord on the Earth will be implemented in Russia in accordance with the objective plan, given from Above. This is the policy of cleansing to free the Earth from everyone who opposes it.
Afterwards
If the stuff of the brochure does not seem to be full and detailed enough to you, you may find much more detailed materials on the website http://mera.com.ru/category/library/ in ‘English’ section.
The Internal Predictor of the USSR
[1] By global policy we mean heterogeneous activities targeted at executing purposes at the whole humankind level, irregardless of the fact whether such activity is a component of domestic foreign policy, or it is performed by the local or multinational mafia.