[uploadedimage:137400]
# 要真正认识人民本质的人，需要站在君主的位置上，而真正认识君主本质的人则需要站在人民的位置上。—马基雅维利
从人类历史进行农业耕种开始，人类就开始生活在马尔萨斯陷阱的马尔萨斯世界了。
马尔萨斯圈闭的概念是资源有限。人口不断增长，直到增长到足以开始消耗资源为止。在工业革命之前的数千年之中，没有一个人能摆脱。直到工业革命才摆脱了小农经济的马尔萨斯世界，马尔萨斯陷阱决定了在工业化前的以小农经济为主的国家是无法接受人口过度增长的。
工业革命创造了一种全球经济，一种过剩的经济，在这种经济中，可以生产比需要更多的商品和服务。自工业革命以来，这种过剩一直呈指数级增长。
当我们回顾过去时才能更好的发现当下的问题，小农经济的社会世界中技术发展会带来财富与人口增长，但是，马尔萨斯世界中无论是英明的统治者还是昏庸的统治者都选择限制技术发展与普及教育。
关键在于，小农经济主导下的马尔萨斯世界技术发展并不会改善人口生活水平。在小农经济的情况下增加更多人口只会创造不稳定。不稳定导致饥荒、死亡和战争。
工业革命创造了一种技术爆炸，使人类摆脱了马尔萨斯陷阱。
如果将古代政权的经济发展与人口增长制成图表，排除外部因素与短暂政权（比如外敌入侵与政变）。我们可以发现图表会显示成曲线运动。在人口激增的地方，发生了饥荒。经济发展突飞猛进的地方就发生了战争。
战争和饥荒一直困扰着世界，直到启蒙运动。始于18世纪的工业革命创造了足够的财富，阻止了马尔萨斯式的增长。
工业革命也创造了现代世界。商品的大规模生产导致了一个消费社会，一个人们用赚来的钱买得比他们需要的更多的社会。
马尔萨斯世界过去是，现在仍然是一个马尔萨斯陷阱的世界，人类被困在这里。技术发展是阶梯式的，工业化前技术发展会导致不稳定，但在工业化后的世界是相反的，每个国家必须不断发展科技才能在竞赛中保持生存。
如果我们将工业化前后世界的薪水与人口整理成两份图表，我们将发现工业前的农业世界薪水是几乎固定不变而人口显示出周期性波动的情况。
为什么这很重要？这意味着人类现在并不一定比过去富裕。
而在工业化世界的图表则显示薪水与人口阶梯式高速增长，旧世界的图表显示了一种更加波动的模式。这可能是由于基于自给自足和紧缩原则的小农经济的混乱和动荡。需要回答的问题是，人类在旧世界和新世界的生活方式是否有任何重大差异。旧世界真的是旧世界吗？还是仅仅是旧世界？你必须看的是后者。在这个问题的上下文中，旧世界只是指前工业化时代。你问的是，与现在的生活方式相比，工业革命前人们的生活方式是否存在实质性的差异。
在回答这个问题时，你会看到过去两个世纪里发生的历史过程。
在思考两个时代的不同之处时，重要的是要从不同的角度来看待这些差异。
工业化后世界的经济增长与银行利率波动如果也制成图表，我们会发现市场经济呈现出周期性经济危机。
原因很简单，如果没有市场，就不会有波动，因此不会出现经济危机。
我们在这里看到的是视角的改变。
苏联计划经济的奇葩在于，它完全可以生产过剩的产品让民众不再排队，但为了防止生产过剩造成的供需矛盾来出现经济危机，而主动由政府完全控制工业生产，但人民对消费品的需求不可能完全受物质平衡表与计划报表的左右，必然有很多因素导致计划之外的需求，这就导致多余的需求就只好等着排队，等着生产出来才能得到。
拥有完整工业体系的苏联根本不是无法让自己的人民群众得到充沛的消费品，而是它只是顽固地对抗经济危机而已。如果它放弃对抗经济规律而让民用经济生产更多的消费品与食品或者像现实的俄罗斯一样暂时从国际进口消费品与奢侈品，排队问题会这样严重吗？
就造成了苏联能生产以万为单的坦克、以亿为单位的子弹与步枪、以万为单位的核弹头，却无法让民众享有充足的消费品。排队是一个问题，因为生产和供应不够灵活，无法满足民用部门的需求。
当苏联建设的计划经济不是共产主义理论中理想的工人农民参与的计划经济而是由政府官僚统一分配的计划经济时（理想中的参与型经济由于由劳动者自我调节生产来满足必需，但是这需要足够的民主制度才能做到；我是说劳动者的民主，由劳动者拥有即能在每一个企业与工厂一人一票公平选举所有管理人员的经济上的民主，也能在政治上一人一票公平选举所有行政人员的政治上的民主。遗憾的是，无论是美国与苏联都没有做到。美联储董事会成员不可能由银行员工选举产生，苏联政治局委员也不可能由民众选举产生，美国与苏联都是假借民主的威权国家。只不过，前者是资产阶级专政，后者是官僚阶级专政，仅此而已。）
因此，从统制经济发展而来的苏联式指令性计划经济必然具有单一性与滞后性。例如，在指令性计划经济的产业生产链下，在就工厂的设计、生产过程或将在其中工作的人员做出任何决定之前，就已经做出了是否建造新工厂的决定。
更糟的是，生产资料的量化分配已经由负责计划经济的人员分配了。例如苏联要建设一条食品工厂，先由计划经济委员会、食品加工部门、工业部门、建设部门（苏联后期把部门职能不断拆分与扩编，简直了。）经过不断研究后选择土地并建筑，但是原材料只会先提供理论上需求的原材料，多余的损耗需求另外的计划报表申请。如果有足够的资金，将建造计划工厂的原型，经济部门将估算预期生产成本和成品需求，决定是否建造计划工厂。
而即使食品工厂建成，即使在忽略怠工下的劳动生产率，苏联计划经济国有企业的生产环境也决定产品单一性与无法创新。市场是一个混乱和不可预测的供求系统，不容易生产单一产品。但苏联的计划经济下，生产部门只会判断一种类型产品只需要同一种产品来供需给民众。（最典型的是可乐；苏联在戈尔巴乔夫改革前只引入了百事可乐，百事可乐垄断了苏联市场，在勃列日涅夫时代是无法在苏联找到一瓶可口可乐。更不要说，牛仔裤与摇滚唱片了。）
因此，在这种情况下滞后性与短缺的是必然存在的。产品供需不是医疗服务，无论苏联生产部门与劳动者如何高速与勤劳也不可能像苏联发达的医疗体系下满足所有公民的车辆、住房与必需品需求。更不可能以与二十世纪的生产力与算力做到即时处理计划经济信息传递。如果，以之后时代的资源与计算网络、信息传播速度来建设一个信息化的计划经济也许能解决短缺问题。（苏联科学家们所希望建设OGAS系统部分概念在现在二十一世纪的市场经济得到实现，比如供应链系统。但市场经济终究很难建设出超越特定行业—全国范围内的自动化经济系统。因为，这不是一个技术问题，而是会影响到很多事情与很多人的利益。只有愿意去触动利益集团的国家或者说一个有组织力的强力政府决心去做才可以。）
数据化网络系统对统计计划系统的优化和简便的统计方式是很有可能帮助政府管理高度集中与控制的计划经济。在日常运算在减少人力的情况下，还能变得更为精确，大幅提高效率与财政预算分配效率。并且劳动者在高强度工作时长下，不可能自主地利用空闲时间学习，来提高思想和培养专业技能与生活爱好。
（这是一个因素，但远非关键因素。苏联中央计划经济效率低下但稳定。关键的错误是戈尔巴乔夫同时进行市场和政治改革，从而引发经济衰退，同时让苏维埃加盟国家对此负责，并使以前被压抑的民族主义情绪得以宣扬。安德罗波夫计划在前者之前进行后者，但他死得太早了。而且他主张的市场改革是必然失败的，冷战社会主义阵营的所有国家都可以进行市场经济改革，唯独苏联不行。因为只有苏联—这个社会主义阵营的领导者才能彻底威胁到美国所主导的经济体系，美国没有任何可能不去趁虚而入毁灭苏联经济。）
没有完美的经济体制，市场经济与计划经济只是运行不同的方式。计划经济没有经济危机但是用效率与创新换取了稳定，效率低下、建设中资源浪费严重、一般情况下企业没有创新动力。市场经济通过企业良性竞争来保证经济增长与技术创新，但是却有周期性经济危机，就与马尔萨斯世界的人口数量相似。考虑到1987年美国股灾与2008年金融危机，2021年之后几年应该会产生第三次经济危机。
终究没有完美的事物，一切都必须改革。
阶级是具有不同于社会中其他群体的内在倾向和利益的群体，是这些群体之间根本对立的基础。例如，使工资和福利最大化符合劳动者的最大化利益，而以牺牲工资和福利为代价实现利润最大化符合资本家的最大化利益，这就导致了资本主义社会内部的矛盾。
整个社会资源与财富向富有者流动，富有者能得到良好与免费的服务。全体社会所有人讨论方向不是人类的未来发展与社会建设、知识，而是个人财富。无论是富有者与劳动者都被消费资本压榨，富有者需要不断保持社会地位与经济能力，如果富有者失去了盈利的可能就会被所有人抛弃。而劳动者则被剥削与压迫。
任何政治制度、法律体系，最终都是要由具体的人去运行的。因此在自由市场下，财富只会越来越聚集于社会阶层上流，这是市场经济的自然规律，不以人为意志所转移的。
在社会阶层博弈过程中，经济高速增长时，劳动者与精英阶层才能达成社会共识来延续或者说隐藏社会矛盾。但当经济增长停滞的时候，一切社会矛盾显现与加剧的时候，互相残杀带来的收益远比合作共赢更有利…
当金融利用活动贷款给劳动者消费，从而把经济危机推迟到劳动者违约的时候；科技革命的作用是保证经济高速增长，让劳动者工资在经济发展中涨长的保证偿还的能力，把经济危机的时间点不断往后延续。就算这个构型被一度长期稳定运行，人类的边际消费和科技阶梯式发展的速度都不允许无穷的经济增长，经济危机仍然要以工人还不起钱这种次贷危机的形式到来。
许多被称为“修正主义”的国家在经济形态上更加呈现出“官僚垄断资本主义”的特征，即执政党党员往往在获得职位时也会获得更多的薪资、房产等待遇；同时，他们也会成立大大小小的公司进行商业活动或直接担任所谓国营企业董事长等高层职务。这与真正的马克思主义或者说社会主义有关系吗？
不，这是市场资本主义。
世界历史终将被宏大的叙事、激发人类行动和想象力的伟大思想所打断。
[newpage]
[uploadedimage:137400]
Since the beginning of human history for agricultural farming, human beings have been living in the Malthusian world of Malthusian traps.
The concept of a Malthusian trap is that there is a resource that is limited. The population grows until it grows large enough that it begins to consume the resource. None could escape for thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution. It was not until the Industrial Revolution that the Malthusian world of smallholder economies was freed from the Malthusian trap that dictated that pre-industrial countries with predominantly smallholder economies could not accept excessive population growth.
The Industrial Revolution allowed for the creation of a global economy, one of excess, where more goods and services could be produced than what was needed. This excess has been growing exponentially since the Industrial Revolution.
In the world of smallholder societies, technological development would have brought wealth and population growth, but in the Malthusian world, both the wise and the foolish rulers chose to restrict technological development and universal education.
The point is that technological development in a Malthusian world dominated by a smallholder economy does not improve the standard of living of the population. Adding more people to a small farming economy would only create instability. Instability leads to famine, death, and war.
The Industrial Revolution created a technological explosion that has allowed humanity to escape the Malthusian trap.
If we graph the economic development and population growth of ancient regimes, excluding external factors and transient regimes (e.g. foreign invasion and coup d\u0027état). We can find that the graphs will show as curved movements. Where there was a spike in population, a famine occurred. Where there was a spike in economic development, a war occurred.
The warring and famine plagued the world until the Enlightenment. The Industrial Revolution, which began in the 1700s, created enough wealth to halt the Malthusian growth.
The Industrial Revolution also created the modern world. The mass production of goods led to a consumer society, a society where people buy more than what they need with the money they earn.
Malthusian world was and continues to be a world of Malthusian traps where human beings are trapped. Technological development is laddered, pre-industrial technological development leads to instability, but in the post-industrial world it is the opposite, each country has to keep developing technology to stay in the race for survival.
If we organize the salaries and population of the pre and post industrial world into two charts, we will find that salaries in the pre-industrial agricultural world were almost constant while the population showed cyclical fluctuations.
Why is this important? It means that human beings are not necessarily better off now than in the past. Whereas the graphs in the industrialized world show a stepwise and rapid increase in salaries and population, the graphs of the older world show a more fluctuating pattern. This could be due to the chaotic and turbulent nature of a smallholder economy that was based on the principles of self-sufficiency and austerity.
The question that needs to be answered is whether or not there are any significant differences between the way human beings in the old world and the new world lived.
Is the old world really old world or is it just old? It is the latter that you have to look at.
In the context of this question, old world just means pre-industrial. By that, you are asking if there were substantial differences in the way that people lived before the industrial revolution compared to the way that people live now.
In answering this question, you are looking at the historical process that has occurred over the past two centuries.
When thinking about how two eras differ, it is important to look at the differences in perspective.
If economic growth and bank interest rate fluctuations in the post-industrial world were also charted, we would find that market economies exhibit cyclical economic crises.
The reason for this is simple, if there were no markets, there would be no fluctuations, and thus no economic crises.
What we are looking at here is a change in perspective.
The oddity of the Soviet planned economy is that it is perfectly capable of producing excess products so that the people no longer stand in line, but in order to prevent the contradiction between supply and demand caused by overproduction to come to an economic crisis, and the initiative of the government to completely control industrial production, but the people\u0027s demand for consumer goods can not be completely subject to the material balance sheet and planning statements, there are bound to be many factors that lead to demand outside the plan, which leads to excess demand will have to waiting in line and waiting for production to be available.
It was not that the Soviet Union, with its complete industrial system, was unable to provide its people with an abundance of consumer goods, but that it was simply stubbornly fighting the economic crisis. If it had given up fighting the economic laws and let the civilian economy produce more consumer goods and food or temporarily imported consumer goods and luxuries from the international market as Russia did in reality, would the queuing problem have been so severe?
It caused the Soviet Union to be able to produce tanks by the tens of thousands, bullets and rifles by the billions, and nuclear warheads by the tens of thousands, but to be unable to let the population enjoy sufficient consumer goods. The queuing was a problem because the production and supply was not flexible enough to respond to the demands of the civilian sector.
When the planned economy built in the Soviet Union was not a planned economy with the participation of workers and peasants, as was the ideal in communist theory, but a planned economy with uniform distribution by government bureaucrats (the ideal participatory economy would have been met by the self-regulation of production by workers, but this would have required sufficient democracy to do so; I am talking about the democracy of workers, i.e., the democracy of workers having the ability to elect fairly, one person, one vote, in each enterprise and factory I mean the democracy of the worker, the economic democracy of the worker who can fairly elect all managers in every enterprise and factory, one person, one vote, and the political democracy of the worker who can fairly elect all executives in politics, one person, one vote. Unfortunately, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union has done so. It was impossible for the members of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve to be elected by the employees of the banks, and it was impossible for the members of the Politburo of the Soviet Union to be elected by the people; both the United States and the Soviet Union were authoritarian states pretending to be democratic. (Only, the former was a bourgeois dictatorship and the latter was a bureaucratic dictatorship, that\u0027s all.)
Thus, the Soviet-style command-planned economy that developed from the unitary economy was necessarily homogeneous and lagging. For example, under the industrial production chain of the command-planned economy, the decision on whether or not to build a new factory was made long before any decisions were made regarding the design of the factory, the process to be used in its production, or the people who would work in it. If sufficient funding is available, a prototype of the planned factory will be constructed, and the economic department will estimate the expected cost of production and the demand for the finished good, deciding whether or not to build the planned factory.
And even if the food factory was built, even if labor productivity under the neglect of slack, the production environment of the state-owned enterprises of the Soviet planned economy dictated product homogeneity and the inability to innovate. The market was a chaotic and unpredictable system of supply and demand, one that did not easily lend itself to the production of a single product. But under the planned economy of the Soviet Union, the production sector would judge that only one type of product was needed to supply the population with the same type of product. (The most typical example is Coke; the Soviet Union introduced only Pepsi before Gorbachev\u0027s reforms, and Pepsi monopolized the Soviet market, so it was impossible to find a bottle of Coca-Cola in the Soviet Union during the Brezhnev era. (Not to mention, jeans and rock records.)
Therefore, in this case lags and shortages are bound to exist. Product supply and demand are not medical services, and no matter how fast and hard-working the Soviet production sector and laborers are, it is impossible to meet the needs of all citizens for vehicles, housing, and necessities in the same way that the Soviet Union\u0027s developed medical system did. It was also impossible to deal with the planned economic information transfer instantly with the same productivity and arithmetic power as in the 20th century. If, with the resources and computing networks and speed of information dissemination of the later era, the construction of an information-based planned economy might be able to solve the shortage problem. (Soviet scientists hope to build OGAS system part of the concept in the twenty-first century market economy is now realized, such as the supply chain system. But in the end, it is difficult to build an automated economic system beyond a specific industry - nationwide. Because, it is not a technical problem, but will affect many things and many people\u0027s interests. (Only a country willing to touch interest groups or a strong government with organizational power determined to do so can do so.)
The optimization of statistical planning systems and the simplification of statistical methods by data-based network systems are likely to help governments manage highly centralized and controlled planned economies. Daily calculations can be made more accurate with less manpower, and the efficiency and budget allocation can be greatly improved. And workers are not likely to use their free time to study on their own to improve their thinking and develop professional skills and life hobbies under the intense working hours.
(This is a factor, but far from a critical one. The Soviet centrally planned economy was inefficient but stable. The key mistake was for Gorbachev to undertake both market and political reforms, thus triggering a recession while holding the Soviet union states accountable for it and allowing previously repressed nationalist sentiments to be asserted. Andropov planned to carry out the latter before the former, but he died too soon. Moreover, the market reforms he advocated were bound to fail; all the countries of the Cold War socialist camp could carry out market economy reforms, but only the Soviet Union could not. (Because only the Soviet Union - the leader of the socialist camp - could completely threaten the economic system dominated by the U.S. There was no possibility that the U.S. would not take advantage of the situation and destroy the Soviet economy.)
There is no perfect economic system, market economy and planned economy are just different ways of functioning. A planned economy has no economic crisis but uses efficiency and innovation in exchange for stability, inefficiency, waste of resources in construction, and in general no incentive for companies to innovate. A market economy ensures economic growth and technological innovation through healthy competition among firms, but has periodic economic crises, similar to the population size of the Malthusian world. Considering the 1987 U.S. stock market crash and the 2008 financial crisis, a third economic crisis should occur in the years after 2021.
After all, there is no perfection and everything must be reformed.
Classes are groups with intrinsic tendencies and interests different from those of other groups in society, and are the basis for fundamental antagonisms between these groups. For example, maximizing wages and benefits is in the maximized interests of workers, while maximizing profits at the expense of wages and benefits is in the maximized interests of capitalists, which leads to contradictions within capitalist society.
The entire society flows resources and wealth to the rich, and the rich get good and free services. All society discusses not the future development of mankind and the construction of society and knowledge, but individual wealth. Both the rich and the workers are squeezed by the consumer capital. The rich need to maintain their social status and economic capacity constantly, and if the rich lose the possibility of profitability they will be abandoned by everyone. The laborer, on the other hand, is exploited and oppressed.
Any political system, any legal system, is ultimately run by specific people. Therefore, under the free market, wealth will only be gathered more and more in the upper social class, which is the natural law of the market economy and is not transferred by human will.
In the process of social class game, when the economy grows at a high rate, the workers and elites can reach a social consensus to perpetuate or hide the social conflicts. But when economic growth is stagnant and all social contradictions are revealed and intensified, the gains from killing each other are far more beneficial than the win-win cooperation...
When finance uses activities to lend to workers for consumption, thus postponing the economic crisis until the workers default; the role of the technological revolution is to ensure high economic growth, so that workers\u0027 wages rise long in economic development to ensure the ability to repay, continuing the point of economic crisis further and further back in time. Even if this configuration was once stable for a long time, the marginal consumption of human beings and the speed of technological ladder development do not allow endless economic growth, the economic crisis will still come in the form of workers can not pay back the subprime mortgage crisis.
Many countries called \"revisionist\" are characterized by a more \"bureaucratic monopoly capitalism\" in their economic form, i.e., members of the ruling party often receive more salary, real estate, etc., when they get a position; at the same time, they also set up large and small companies for business activities or directly hold a position of At the same time, they also set up large and small companies to carry out business activities or directly hold top positions such as chairman of so-called state-run enterprises. Does this have anything to do with true Marxism or socialism?
No, it\u0027s market capitalism.
The history of the world is punctuated by grand narratives, great ideas that have galvanized human action and imagination.