«… for of course it is not the employer who pays wages. He only handles the money. It is the product that pays the wages and it is the management that arranges the production so that the product may pay the wages» (put in bold type by the authors).

[91] This is similar to the principle of the first stage of communism if Marxist terminology is to be used: «take from each person according to his ability, give to each person according to his contribution».

[92] This feeling gave rise to enthusiasm in work. We have all been taught since 1985 by «humanist democratizers» that Stalin the tyrant and despot exploited this enthusiasm in the most atrocious way. And he has left this enthusiasm to his successors, and they have gradually stifled it in the years that passed since Stalin’s murder.

[93] The difference between income from the enterprise’s sales of its products and its expenditure on raw materials, component parts and services provided by outside enterprises that are consumed in the production proper.

[94] In a normal macroeconomy such loans must bear no interest or be granted on preferential terms, i.e. the sum to be returned to the enterprise must not exceed (and sometimes be even less) than the amount of loaned money.

[95] However Russian defenders of rights also keep silent on these problems as if being utterly dumb. Unlike these people H. Ford saw clearly how this issue relates to a human being’s freedom:

«If you expect a man to give his time and energy, fix his wages so that he will have no financial worries. It pays. Our profits, after paying good wages and a bonus—which bonus used to run around ten millions a year before we changed the system—show that paying good wages <i.e. the main part of payments, the salary> is the most profitable way of doing business» (Ch. 8. “Wages”).

[96] Production output can be calculated both in natural values and by production costs. H. Ford say the following on this subject:

«A department <i.e. operating departments> gets its standing on its rate of production. The rate of production and the cost of production are distinct elements. The foremen and superintendents would only be wasting time were they to keep a check on the costs in their departments. There are certain costs—such as the rate of wages, the overhead, the price of materials, and the like, which they could not in any way control, so they do not bother about them. What they can control is the rate of production in their own departments. The rating of a department is gained by dividing the number of parts <i.e. manufactured accounting units of departments’ production> produced by the number of hands working. Every foreman checks his own department daily—he carries the figures always with him. The superintendent has a tabulation of all the scores; if there is something wrong in a department the output score shows it at once, the superintendent makes inquiries and the foreman looks alive. A considerable part of the incentive to better methods is directly traceable to this simple rule-of-thumb method of rating production (put in bold type by the authors). The foreman need not be a cost accountant—he is no better a foreman for being one. His charges are the machines and the human beings in his department. When they are working at their best he has performed his service. The rate of his production is his guide. There is no reason for him to scatter his energies over collateral subjects.

This rating system simply forces a foreman to forget personalities — to forget everything other than the work in hand. If he should select the people he likes instead of the people who can best do the work, his department record will quickly show up that fact» (Ch. 6. “Machines and Men”).

[97] Besides, superior executives should be responsible for employment assistance within the bounds of the enterprise including organizing and financing retraining for employees dismissed from the units of the enterprise and ensuring that their financial status does not deteriorate.

And the macroeconomic system organization should be likely responsible for employment assistance at other enterprises also ensuring that the financial status of employees dismissed from regional enterprises does not deteriorate if it is possible.

These two factors of the micro- and macrolevels are one of the way by which the priorities of the society’s economy manifest themselves: whether the priority is satisfying the needs of people or serving various morally unhealthy clans of oligarchs and their spongers.

[98] This is a kind of «party maximum» for the managerial sphere. («Party maximum» was the limit of income for ALL-UNION COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIKS) members. Experts and executives received a smaller salary in comparison to non-party people holding equivalent posts. In the first years of the Soviet regime this maximum protected the party as a means of social self-government from crooks and go-getters. It was later abolished as though it was unnecessary.

Besides if one works more than one’s associates (in this case employees) one needs more time to recover his strength. One therefore has neither strength nor time to spend on sprees and the minimum income which enough to satisfy healthy the needs of one’s own and one’s family is not higher than that of an employee who works less and who has time to spend some money on show business and recreation.

[99] This statement by H. Ford makes clear how broad the gap is between his idea and the idea advocated by mass media while planned economy of the USSR and Russia was being destroyed. Mass media said that if a businessman works for himself he works for society. H. Ford sees it the other way round: if a businessman works for society he receives a right to have a share in the product of collective labor. The condition that Russia is in after a decade of reforms carried out under the motto «by working for himself the businessman works for society!» shows that this motto is nonsense and that H. Ford was right.

Reforms should be carried out not by E. Gaidar’s theories or according to recommendations from the economic school of venality and corrupt morals headed by «Chicago rabbi» (Milton Fridman, Nobel prize winner, born 1912) and other «armchair intellectuals» of their kind. Since they do not feel any kind of interindustry balance. Reforms should conform to the moral and ethic principles of bolshevism which were stated by different people, H. Ford being one of them.

[100] Not only of economic, scientific and technical progress but also of moral and ethic progress or regression. The latter was the case in the post-Stalin USSR and provided moral and ethic grounds for the attempt to restore capitalism which begun in 1985.

[101] In other words, good will of people who understand this necessity should result in establishing a system of organizing social life and the life of its every member that it is expressed in. But this leads us to the problems of conceptual power in society — creating a conception of social life and organizing the control of its multiindustrial production and consumption system.

[102] H. Ford implies that the family is a seed that the society grows from in subsequent generations. In accordance with the role family has the married woman first of all keeps the house, gives birth to children and brings them up. This is what her social role consists in and no one can substitute her in that role due to the biologic features of the species called «Homo sapiens». She has a right to be busy with something else only after she conscientiously fulfils what is destined to her. The man has a different mission in a family which is also determined by the biology of our species: he must ensure that the woman fulfils her internal family mission by taking part in social activities. This means that the remunerations he receives for performing socially useful work is not his personal income but the income of the family he lives in.