(The structure of ownership relations)

Since we speak about the economic basis of a fundamentally new social system, the Russian National Socialism, you must first define the very concept of socialism. After all, anything they call socialism whatsoever is either the Soviet model, Hitler's one, Swedish, or others.

To define the correct terminology, we will start from the very beginning, that is, from Marx. The founder of the scientific theory of socialism defined with certainty that socialism is primarily a social ownership of the means of production, and this definition should be taken as basis to start with. (In fact, the founders of Marxism have moved further on, even denying the institution of private property as such and preaching female socialization and nationalization of children. But even fanatical Bolsheviks had to leave such theoretical extremism without practical consequences as absolutely unnatural and therefore politically dangerous.) There is a public ownership of the means of production, then, it is socialism, and if the means of production are not public, that is some other type, then it is not socialism. It is unequivocally and without any options.

Thus, a qualifying characteristic of socialism is the public nature of ownership of the means of production. The distribution of income in society gained from the economic activity is not whatsoever relevant to the essence of socialism. Therefore, all Scandinavian models, and the like socialism are ideological chimeras, which is redistribution of income from rich to poor hiding normal, classic capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production. In the mean time there is only one practical socialism in the modern history of human civilization known as the Soviet (with minor variations in the socialist countries of the Soviet bloc). It is obvious to us.

Socialism in the Soviet Union was built strictly according to Marx (except exotic overlaps mentioned above). Namely, the public ownership of the means of production in accordance with Marxist theory was interpreted as the property of the state. In this case, the substitution of the society by the state in terms of the structure of ownership underlies the fundamental theoretical flaw of Marxism, which led to the failure of all the countries that followed the Marxist-socialist way.
After all, what is the state? It is a system of institutions, that is an abstraction that exists only in the human mind and has no independent existence in reality. In reality, the government is represented by the people who drive these institutions and who are called public servants or officials. Therefore, in Marx's model of socialism the officials, representing the state as de jure, as de facto have the right to control the means of production and, therefore, all economic activities of the society. Officially, they do not own the means of production, as individuals, as the private property does not exist in the Marxist socialism and everything is state-owned. But in real life, the State in its human implementation  is the officials, no one else!

This means that according to Marx, socialism is actually not based on public ownership of the means of production that involved the participation of the whole society in ownership, that is, each citizen personally, regardless of social status, and the property (although legally mediated by the state) but by only one social group alone, called officials.

What place in the structure of ownership of the means of production belongs to the other social groups and individuals other than the officials? That is absolutely none. Neither individually nor in a group-wide social form; people are represented neither directly nor indirectly in the system of property relations, with the exception of the bureaucracy. The Bolsheviks left the personal property to citizens (except the people of exploiting classes, who were plundered to the skin) after the victory of socialism in Russia, (which, incidentally, is already a heresy from the point of view of Marxist orthodoxy), whilst the means of production were taken away from people. In the mean time the social groups generally did not have anything. The Bolsheviks promised land to peasants, factory to workers, but deceived them. Even sailors were deprived of the water. The Bolsheviks took everything themselves - the party and the Soviet body, as the bureaucracy was called under the Soviets, which became in practice "all possessing" on behalf of the state.

Thus, according to Marx, socialism (that is, in practice, Soviet socialism), according to definition of Marx himself, is by far not socialism, because it is not based on public ownership of the means of production, but on the property (albeit mediated by the state) of only one social group - bureaucracy. The fact that it was a new bureaucracy of worker-peasant origin (imperial ruling elite was cut off at the root) does not amend the matter. The official is official, so is his/her social status, no matter what family he/she is born in.

Hence, from the socio-economic basis evolved social and political superstructure in the form of Soviet power. The fundamental law of political economy stipulates that he who has ownership of the means of production possess the political power in the state. Accordingly, the Soviet system of government was not the workers' and peasants', as claimed by the Bolsheviks, but bureaucratic, as workers and peasants were alienated of the ownership of the means by officials. Soviet power was the power of bureaucrats and no one else. At that, it was a totally new, never seen before form.

Bureaucratic social formations known from history are the Byzantine and the Ottoman Empire, for example, and Russia after the reforms by Peter I. But their officials usually at the same time were the owners of a large private property, including land (if land was the main means of production), and they received income in addition to wages and other income at the place of public service. This made them relatively independent in the material sense, while the state became mixed bureaucratic and landowning form of power.

In the USSR, where the institution of private property in form of the means of production was completely eradicated according to Marxist theory, an officer as an individual under the Soviet egalitarianism was naked, not a stitch (any elite privileges related to the person's position in the state hierarchy do not count on because of their insignificance and impermanence). But that did not stop the party and the Soviet bureaucracy as chemically pure, without any admixture of private interests, social group from having full economic and political power, which it administered at its sole discretion, on behalf of the state.

Due to these circumstances, the Soviet political system was a bureaucratic dictatorship and nothing else because all the property, and, with it, all the power belonged only to the social group of officials and no one else. Soviet democracy with its formal attributes, like constitution, parliament, elections, etc. was pure fiction. Party-Soviet privileged class (higher officials), built into a rigid vertical hierarchy headed by the leader of the Communist Party - Soviet Emperor, tightly controlled all the aspects of the life of the country. Ruthlessly suppressing the slightest hint of political opposition and pursuing recurrences of private enterprise in the economy (profiteers, currency dealers, underground work shops, etc.), the Soviet power prevailed over the nation, slowing its spiritual, political, and economic development.

Marxist-Leninist socialism eventually led to what can only bring ideological dogmatism, based on the erroneous theory, and multiplied by the political totalitarianism, i.e. stagnation; decay and death of the regime which fall in 1991 caused great harm to the Russian statehood and territorial integrity of the ruined empire.

After seventy years of Marxist experiment in Russia and two decades of failed attempts to plunge the country into a cave capitalism we have now what we have, that is a complete disgrace. Since this disgrace is organically unsustainable and it will die by itself in a little while, there is nothing to talk about. We need to think about what to do next. Our party thought of it and came to the following conclusions.

Russia needs socialism, that we are sure of. First, socialism is by definition a more progressive formation than capitalism preceding it in evolutionary spiral, so socialism is our future, and it makes no sense to alienate the future trying to improve capitalism. Second, socialism embodies the idea of social justice which is very close to mentality of the Russian people (thanks to that Bolsheviks had success in their socialist revolution), while capitalism takes root on the Russian national ground, to say the least, badly, and roughly speaking, did not catch on and takes completely perverted forms.

But this statement does not mean that we advocate a return to the Soviet past, the restoration of socialism in Russia, according to Marx, since that Marxism became a victim of civilized bankruptcy; not at all. We offer other way.

Specifically, we propose to correct the Marxist theory of socialism in the very core of it, in regard to the nature of ownership of the means of production. The property, in our opinion, should not be state owned but private, at that for the most part not a capitalistic but socialistic. And private socialistic property is neither a sophism nor a logical paradox.

Basic means of production should not be owned by the state (and in fact a social group of officials, as it was in the Soviet Union), but by the society, namely, all citizens as individuals. Ownership of the basic means of production - the main and politically decisive part of the economy - should not be state owned, but public.

This means that every citizen of Russia, as private person, by right of birth should be the owner for the whole life of the equal and inalienable share in all the major companies, which are the backbone in various sectors of the economy. With such ownership of the basic means of production (in reality, not declaratively by all people, private,  but not public), the population of the Russian Federation in social and economic terms will be a homogenous community of private owners - of equal size and equal co-owners of the main part of the economy.

According to the immutable law of political economy, which links the ownership of the means of production with the state authority, this form of ownership of the basic means of production renders the Russian citizens into real carriers of political power. Private property of all people will be so social and economic foundation of genuine people power, which should be the social and political superstructure in the socialist formation (not as bureaucratic dictatorship in the USSR). Then all fits together - the main property and its derivatives, which is the state power, will belong to the people, which is the real SOCIALISM in contrast to the Marxist model.

People who happen to be citizens of Russia, without exception, will be the largest private owners of enterprises, while restricted in the right to dispose of their shares of public property. This share can not be in any way passed into other hands, it will only be owned for life and will enable a citizen to receive income from it. This restriction is necessary to make the socialist system irreversible, preventing the possibility of redistribution of property (and with it the power) "a la Chubais” and the restoration of capitalism in this way.

Currently, less than one percent of the population of the Russian Federation owns the lion's share of the national wealth. Yet this percentage of privateers is the largest business and it should be pressed up, transferring their assigned property rights into hands of all citizens of the country. It is right and just, since the origin of the largest private property in Russia as a result of fraudulent privatization is purely criminal. Natural resources, given to Russia by God and therefore, by definition, belonging to all the people, as well as the main company built by the collective efforts of the same people under the Soviet regime, which had been stolen from the state by a bunch of crooks in the Yeltsin radical reforms proceeded by Putin. The stolen property should be returned to the victim, that is, the people, which is obvious.

Similarly, the largest enterprises should be transferred into the public property on the principle stated above, since that these enterprises continue to belong to the state due to Soviet inertia (that is the officials). This will address the socio-economic basis of the bureaucratic-oligarchic regime that robs Russia and destroys it. And in its place a new basis will arise, a system of ownership of the basic means of production, developing political democracy.

 The formula of the new socialist system - the property of the people + power of the people. In contrast to the Soviet, that is bureaucratic socialism; the new socialism will be a national, as the nation is a combination of people and the state, the people are made to manage their own affairs. The unity of the national wealth and its derivatives such as public state government, for the first time in human history, will be done in Russia and it is called NATIONAL SOCIALISM, it is impossible to define this system otherwise without distorting its essence.

 The new national socialism will be RUSSIAN, it means that the state-forming Russian people, which is about 80% of the country population will own 80% of Russian assets, and hence the proportional share of political power.

RUSSIAN NATIONAL SOCIALISM – that is right, that is just and in Russia it can not be otherwise. And it does not involve any discrimination of other country nations, which will automatically receive shares of ownership and participation in power in proportion to their population. Such a structure of power and ownership will be a critical factor in maintaining national equilibrium in multiethnic Russia, the current violation of which by Russophobian ruling elite generates the most dangerous for the Russian statehood inter-ethnic tension. In addition, participating in the possession of the all-Russian wealth and subsequent participation in the governing will be difficult obstacles to overcome in terms of ethnic separatism, because the withdrawal from the Russian Federation will automatically result in the loss of the right of each nation and each individual person to share in the common domain.

Nation-wide system of private property should be distributed applied to the basic means of production, that is given to Russia by nature, and to the largest enterprises created by the collective efforts of all the people. This is the main part of the national economy and therefore the only politically important part, but it is not limited to economics. There is still that part of the economy, which is formed by small and medium enterprises.

It seems reasonable not to socialize this remainder, but to leave it in the classic private property form, individual and group (joint stock companies, etc.), because of the incommensurability of market sizes - beer pub in public property, that is, with 140 million co-owners-shareholders,  looks funny. It is neither Gazprom nor Norilsk Nickel, pub running is a big headache and the profits from it in all-Russian scale are not substantial, you loose more than make when trying to control it. Nationalizing the medium and small businesses is economically irrational, and the Soviet experience shows this very clearly.

Soviet practice shows that the system of the command economy generated by pervasive state ownership of the means of production requires advance planning of all from a single center for many years ahead. In terms of growing national economy and the acceleration of scientific and technological progress, the system loses its effectiveness exponentially. It is not flexible enough and very slow to response. To make something in ten years, it is necessary to plan it now and to link it with thousands of other economic parameters in the whole country, to approve and strictly abide planned tasks in specified time and in specified amounts. The economy of developed socialism was drowned in prohibitive amounts of planning and administration. Besides, life goes on, and the products, which are now advanced, at the time of production become almost certainly off-market. In short, the administrative and planning system is not working in the world today.

The market is more flexible and better able to meet rapidly changing needs. Of course, this is not a wild market, which is rampant in Russia now, enriching fraudulent elite and plunging the general population into poverty. The market should be regulated. Managing it is the economic function of the state in the Russian national socialism.
State based on public property, that is, socialist state, should define the goals and parameters of national economic activity in favor of the public interest, which is planning for economic development. Executing the plans will be responsibility of economic actors, that is, private enterprises, both public and all the rest. When managing this process, the state will not use administrative-command methods; which are impossible with private ownership of the means of production, only economic methods will be used.

To this end, financial controls, including banks, shall be passed into the state ownership. (Usury, based on the loan of bank interest, is a phenomenon which is non-productive, but parasitic, therefore it is alien in its nature to socialistic society.) Adjusting the mode of corporate lending and currency flows as a whole, the state will be able to direct economic development into the mainstream of implementing the targeted plans without direct administration, and without prejudice to the private initiative.

This last point is very important. Freedom of economic activity is one of the fundamental freedoms of individual and it is required for the development of national economy. Private entrepreneur fulfills necessary for public function, responding quickly to changes in science and technology and economic conditions, to constantly varying needs of the economy. Economic competition between the Soviet-socialist and Western capitalist systems has shown that at the micro level of production of goods and services for the population the state planning can not compete with private enterprise.

It is a historical fact, and stepping again on the rake of Marxist prohibition of private property and private initiative would be foolish. Therefore, under the Russian national socialism fundamental industrial problems will be solved by major public-private enterprises, and the problems of smaller scale – by individual private businesses, and all this will be subject to general economic regulation by the state.

Thus, the structure of ownership of the means of production under the Russian national-socialist formation will be as following:

- Public private ownership of the basic means of production;

- Individual (group) private ownership of the means of production that are not classified as major (small and medium enterprises);

- State ownership of financial institutions (and, of course, on a very narrow range of companies involved in defense and security, which therefore requires a special regime of secrecy).

Implementing this system of ownership can be done very fast, with no fundamental legal reforms, and on the basis of the current Constitution of Russian Federation, which stipulates for a mixed economy. Of course, it is required then to overcome the opposition of the ruling elite, but it won't take a serious effort, especially when the idea of the Russian National Socialism would possess the consciousness of people. For this purpose we work in the party.

Alexander Nikitin

The secretary of TSPS PZRK "Russia"