How to protect yourself from traitors in power and not ruin the Fatherland?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Social experiment to create a self-made institution of self-government.

At the height of the crisis in 1998, a joint social experiment was carried out in Alma-Ata to create "Social Synergy", a self-made institute of self-government. This system of relationships did not contradict the legislation …

The issue of protection from traitors in power, that is, the issue of blocking such actions that increase the risk of destruction or deterioration of the living conditions of the population under the mandate was traditionally decided in Russia from the top. Moreover, it was successfully solved only when two conditions coincided:

1. The supreme power identifies the ongoing changes precisely as the risk of destruction or deterioration of the living conditions of the population under the mandate.

2. The supreme authority is confident that the deterioration of the living conditions of the population of concern threatens it itself.

How often these two conditions coincided in the history of Russia - decide for yourself. But the whole history of the Fatherland is divided into bright, but very short heroic periods, which are then replaced by long gray "muddy" times. As a reaction to such a “zebra”, our mentality surprisingly combines belief in a good king with a contempt for power as such.

Civil society has traditionally been protected from such inconstancy of the supreme power by long distances, the lack of obligation to comply with the most stringent laws and own self-made institutions of self-government, oppositional - when it came to the internal agenda and traditionally loyal - when it was required to deal with the next aliens.

The state structure, consisting of two parts - the power vertical and the network horizontal, was present in the Russian Empire from time immemorial. Networked-community-based self-government filled the regularly emerging power vacuum and created the opportunity for civil society to intervene in politics when the supreme power was paralyzed or captured by traitors.

The most striking example of such intervention is the militia of Minin and Pozharsky, which solved the problem of betrayal of the elite in a rather radical way.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, through the joint efforts of the right (Stolypin) and the left (Lenin), the network control system was destroyed, and as a result, the entire state structure turned out to be extremely unstable, collapsing every time the vertical of power turned out to be insufficiently firm, balanced and consistent. This was the case in 1917, it was so in 1991, and it will be so forever, until the network mechanism of self-organization of the population, independent of the supreme power, is recreated.

Such a mechanism cannot be created from above. It can only sprout from below. And to create it, a simple desire is not enough. Conditions must ripen, the first of which is the awareness of a real threat, and the second is the refusal or inability of the authorities to respond to this threat. Intellect, honor of conscience has always been insufficient for our man. Another kick is needed, without which all this does not work.

In short, a crisis is needed to create a full-fledged model from scratch. And this crisis is already on the horizon, all self-respecting experts are talking about it, and it is proceeding strictly according to the scenario that the Adventurer described many years ago.

There would be no happiness, but misfortune helped. This is about our long-suffering Fatherland, which has already practiced to survive the civilizational catastrophe in the nineties, enriched not only by the personal experience of citizens-survivors, but also by the collective experience of creating network structures of self-government and self-sufficiency. Today I want to remind you of one of these social experiments.

Time is the height of the 1998 crisis. The place is the wreckage of the USSR in Kazakhstan. The author is Sergey Lachinyan. Further - a quote:

In 1998, at the invitation of the Galaxy club. Alma-Ata I gave several lectures on the topic "Social Synergy"

Lectures were delivered in the midst of the crisis (high mobility of the masses), in an auditorium for 3,000 people, who suggested that the author conduct an experiment to implement these ideas.

As a result, it was decided to conduct a joint experiment to create "Social Synergy", in which at the initial stage about 800 people took part, representing different sections of society - including about 200 pensioners. And there are quite a few legal entities. Subsequently, the number of participants began to grow exponentially, and we do not know their exact number, since many "guarantors" were representatives of their own "virtual corporations" - which included entire settlements, and regional centers acting as one participant (supply-demand) …

Initially, the network solved 2 problems.

1. Providing participants with livelihoods (products, services, jobs, connections, money, etc.).

2. By solving the most acute problem of non-payments at that time (if someone does not remember, local money practically stopped working at that time).

To understand how this network worked, it is necessary to explain the regulations.

There was a control room (telephones, computers) and regular face-to-face meetings.

At these meetings (usually several hundred people) "virtual corporations" were formed. - Where the desired products for the participants were determined (for example, sausage), suppliers of raw materials (for example, farmers from those present or according to their recommendations) were selected, the producers (sausage shop) were selected according to the same scheme, suppliers - intermediaries (fuels and lubricants, compound feed, etc.) to pay (supply) the farmer, and finally, the volumes of supplies of products and their cyclicality were determined.

From the moment of creation, usually 1-2 days were spent on contracts with performers, and then this structure began to work in a continuous cycle, like a "virtual corporation", regularly supplying the club (to the network) with the appropriate products.

Since the sum of the discounts averaged 60% (see the diagram on the link, after 10% was allocated to the club and 10% to the guarantors-organizers, the product (sausage) of guaranteed quality cost 40% less than on the wholesale market.

Naturally, this led to an avalanche-like increase in its consumption (what about relatives? And neighbors? And how can a pensioner earn extra money?)

According to this scheme of "virtual corporations" of a synergistic cycle, there are no restrictions on production volumes, since any deficit is immediately compensated by the involvement of an additional link.

Thus, the problem of non-payments and sales is solved, and in an emergency, all participants can receive compensation not only with money, but also with the goods, raw materials, services they need (money, no one eats anyway …). Moreover, a sample of such a large number of participants provided access to absolutely any goods and services (from agricultural machinery and electricity quotas, to air travel and opening an account abroad).

However, over the entire period of the experiment (about 10 months), there was never a situation of "money shortage".

By the way, initially, it was this question that caused a lot of emotions, they began to worry that if everyone in the club would exchange services and goods, then where would the money come from? After all, you have to pay for the communal apartment, give the children, buy things, etc.

But due to the fact that within the network, the cost of most goods and services (and guaranteed high quality) was 40 to 80% cheaper than outside it, this is equivalent to the fact that for every dollar in the network you could buy twice as much as " overboard "- and the money was brought into the network in batches … (who does not remember, at that time the dollar was the firm means of payment). There was a time when they began to offer to sell goods only for services to club members or to limit payment in money.

Here it is natural and the answer to the question of what made people strive so much to the club, and its members to vouch for them …

And if, I think, there are no questions with the desire to enter the network (this is work, and goods, and communications, and social protection), then about the incentive for guarantors it is necessary to say especially.

First, about the guarantors themselves and their functions.

The organizational network was built according to the simplest scheme - each participant had to have at least 2 guarantors. The guarantors responded with a certain fixed amount of the surety. So at the top echelon for club managers and businessmen, this amount was 2100r. (approximately the cost of the apartment at that time). For the middle management, river 100.

For pensioners and low-income people p. 10.

This amount was deposited by the guarantors (the depositary of the official bank was used to ensure the legality of operations). Naturally, by depositing this amount, the guarantor assumed financial responsibility for the good faith of the person he was vouched for, since in the event of his bad faith, this amount went to pay off debts. The entrance to the network was free, it was enough to find guarantors.

Accordingly, any transaction (service) within the guarantee amount ("action quantum") was insured with this deposit and could be performed multiple times (say 5 times a day …) - without risk for the participants. Since, in the event of any force majeure, the amount of the deposit covered the losses - which was carried out by the decision of the guarantors. That is, any conflict situations or overlaps with those for whom they vouched were "judged" by those who vouched. According to the scheme led-vouched-you answer.

If the guarantors had disagreements and they refused to pay (for example, in the case of complaints from a "brawler"), after a certain time the complaint passed to the guarantors, etc. A complaint that triggers the "blocking" process, according to the regulations, could do each participant in a transaction or "chain of services", and without any explanation. Thus, if a controversial issue (conflict) arose, both participants simply put complaints to each other … and the next day, to solve the problem, their guarantors joined them. If they did not find a common language, then the next day the guarantors of the guarantors joined (blocked), etc.

Here is a small remark at once - for the entire time of the network operation, such a "transition" has never happened …

Usually, the very threat of the escalation of the conflict and the transfer of the complaint to the next "floor" provided sufficient responsibility of the parties for resolving the conflict. (Otherwise, the entire chain of guarantors risked getting a revocation of the surety and being excluded from the network).

How the claims work looked like in practice.

Let's say that someone has done a promised service (work) in bad faith or has not paid the money, or has not delivered the goods and received a complaint. The guarantors figured it out - and compensated from the deposit.

Suppose they decided that their protégé is innocent or will correct themselves - they again made a "quantum" to the deposit and gave it another chance. It happened again - again, again compensated for the loss, but the guarantee was already withdrawn … which is tantamount to being excluded from the network.

That's it, the question is closed.

Since, by "habit", many participants arranged a squabble - and made unreasonable complaints, they flew out of the "club" as soon as possible (receiving a counter complaint and losing their guarantors). So the network was quickly cleared of inadequate ones. And then they still "grazed" at the club, but acted as ordinary customers. In fact, only the upper echelons and the core of the club were the "correct" guarantors. They just put on deposits at 2100 and voucher for the next 2x.

Of those who signed up for 100, more than half received this amount from the applicant, moreover with an additional payment, in their favor for the risk.

Then even such a business appeared among pensioners, to act as a surety … There is nothing wrong with that - since if the deposit contains the required surety amount, then for the normal operation of the network, it makes no difference who exactly put it there. But the rogues, bargaining with sureties - like some of their protégés, quickly flew out of the club. Approximately according to this scheme - force majeure broke out, one, two, three, everywhere the same problematic guarantor and his problematic guys, who eventually file a complaint with him - all get banned.

Well, if he copes, then it means not a rogue, but the manager who managed to put together a team has no complaints, no problems.

Here one could tell a lot of interesting stories about how this sausage business grew to an international scale … how innovations were instantly "introduced" - because if on the way of grain for feed it was possible to process it in an innovative way and get, say, 20% additional weight gain, then no one asked, what are the risks, etc. - you can! set the installation and get your share at the end of the month - half of the weight gain of each bull (in comparison with the control) - Moreover, "scam" is deliberately excluded, from all sides there are guarantors, and it does not matter that one poor inventor, and another rich farmer - justice guaranteed … otherwise all this "bunch" of inadequate, together with the inadequate farmer, is free.

There were quite a few interesting stories with officials, tax officers and lads. There is no point in telling them here, it is only important that everyone, without exception, found their place in the network - and in the constructive role of creators.

It turned out that there are no "superfluous people" or "villains" and any person can do a useful job in cooperation. The same an official who now takes a bribe of 100 rubles for not letting in, and as a result brings harm in 1000. In this system, performing his direct duties well, begins to benefit society, business and the state. Since, having received a similar reward for a job done correctly - a job done correctly … (I emphasize not a bribe as usual, but some indirect, but important service - say, getting to know the right person or medical assistance), he has an incentive to work as intended, and not sabotage, for the sake of multi-way: - sawing (bribe) - risks - finding ways to attach money - risks - finding ways to spend - risks - work on buying the desired service - risks - service …

He just takes, and immediately receives this service. Of course, this is a great incentive to do your job well … Moreover, the "number of storeys" of the bosses does not matter - people and problems are the same everywhere.

Now, how to provide the search for goods and services.

To do this, everyone filled out an individual questionnaire - where there were columns - "I suggest" and "required." the section where he has “required”, put “I suggest.” That's the whole simple scheme.

It was much more difficult to ensure the accounting of complaints and other functions of the regulations.

It is the lack of automation (i.e., mobile Internet, exchange protocols for transactions, accounting units of the equivalent, simple and effective classifiers that enable the user to form requests, the lack of automated search for supply / demand matches and automated tracking of complaints, ratings, etc.) etc.) or, as they would say now, the lack of BLOCKCHAIN technologies did not give us at that time the opportunity to expand this network. And in the end, it led to the impossibility of further maintaining the regulations in manual mode, and as a result, to its collapse.

We were too ahead of our time … But this experience is now of great value - if only because we now know how it works in practice, and not only in virtual circuits and heads.