Why art lost its taste

[LCR]

Have you already had the opportunity to become acquainted with at least one opus Olivier Sen, one of the most prominent French art critics (I translated his article about the exhibition in Paris, Russia Sots Art, views on which, remember, split). I offer him another story. In truth, the problems it is very similar to the subject of articles by Philip Dejean, but it seems to me that she successfully completes it, and besides, it has things interesting in the light of the recent controversy over the award of Kandinsky. In short, here's the text.

Why art lost its taste

Olivier Sung
"Telerama»

At the last international fair of contemporary art in Paris (FIAC) London gallery White Cube has exposed the work of brothers Jake and Daynosa Chapman, two British artists known for their provocations. The basis of the exhibited works - eleven watercolors produced by Hitler during World War II. These watercolors depicts bleak landscapes and types of cities affected by the bombing. Chapman pririsoval them the rainbow and the bright spots in the spirit of post-hippie. This series was purchased by major European collectors for 815000 euros directly to the opening of the fair.

Читать дальше... 

Chapman, belong to the broad family of artists, manipulators - is a necessary, if you want to be present in the list of 50 most influential artists of modern art. Already in May 2008, the UNP was sold in the same gallery White Cube, with whom they work, a series of thirteen watercolors of Hitler, which they signed and titled: "If Hitler was a hippie, we would be happy» (If Hitler Had Been a Hippy How Happy Would We Be). Under the guise of humor of the absurd, they seek to provoke from the audience reaction of indignation, which in turn will not fail to cause protest the so-called defenders of freedom of art, be honest, this outrage is doomed by definition, since any criticism of creativity Chapman from the standpoint of morality would amount to censorship.

But what actually are products that are so successful selling these English troublemakers spirit? This watercolor, indistinguishable to the naked eye from many products sold in old-clothes shops and at flea markets. They show that Hitler was able to draw пейзажики, banality which did not allow him to enter the High School of Fine Arts in Vienna, but would ensure him a decent career as an amateur artist. As for the "brand" additions Chapman brothers, they are on the same level of mediocrity. And here arises a real question: how "large private kollekuionery Contemporary Art" - we are quoting a message galleries - could buy at this price such minor items?

Let's not belittle our British creators either hypothesis, that their work was acquired only because of the name of the author of "refined" their works, as well as pointing a would have thought of fetishism rather repulsive properties, nor approval of, that the reason for the success of the sale were the names of artists, "finalized" these works, as this would be a manifestation of snobbery customers, nor, finally, the assumption of the speculative nature of this purchase, as such behavior would show the vulgarity of the behavior of these "major collectors". We take on faith that this purchase - a matter of personal taste. "Large private collectors" have seen these works, and they liked nm. They saw in these studies the properties, which caused them the desire to possess them. They bought them with pleasure. What explains this fun? Of course, not the aesthetic qualities of his works, and their uniqueness - as if we were talking about rare antiques. And in general, it is difficult to say what is the beauty of the work, it is not easily defined. Since the end of XVIII century, the Platonic ideal of perfect beauty is irrelevant: "Beauty is not a quality belonging to things in themselves, it exists only in the perception of the individual, sozertsayushego work of art, and every individual is inherent in his perception" - wrote Kant in his Critique of Judgment (1790). That from the time of beauty no longer say, in an extreme case - and whisper furtively. Sometimes it goes so far that the quality of the product to justify the opposite of beauty - ugly - though that word does not particularly like it, because it contains a moralistic (contrasting good and bad) and elitist (some of it is inherent, but not others) nuances. The term "ugly" to define as bad as the term "beauty", and also causes a general suspicion, because all are convinced that both terms neveryaka insufficiently democratic for our era.

In his "Essay on the taste for natural phenomena and works of art" Montesquieu wrote: «The soul of our contemporaries tend to enjoy the three kinds of pleasure: the pleasure of its very existence; pleasures which arise from its union with the body: pleasure, resting on certain customs, rules, habits. In the case of our "further elaborated watercolors" we are clearly dealing with a third type of pleasure. Based on this classification, we can assume that the reputation of the gallery has a value - either because of the high competence of its leaders, either because of snobbery, its customers-collectors. The names of prominent gallery owners - not more than fifty in the world - are functioning as logos major brands they carry the added value: this is the artist-collector with a capital letter only buys into such a gallery. Then we can assume that the tastes of known gallerists shape the tastes of the public, but can we imagine even for a moment that his superiors White Cube loves Hitler watercolors, modified Chapman brothers? And here, incidentally, a counter-question: Is it possible to imagine that Aimé Meg ( Aimé Maeght, the famous French gallery owner, founder of Meg, a patron of contemporary art and poetry until his death in 1981. In his gallery exhibited Matisse, Chagall, Miro, Bonnard, Braque, Calder, Giacometti, Tapes, Bazin, Aleshtnski ...) did not like a sculpture by Giacometti and Miro painting? Here it is, a fundamental gap in the history of the art market, and it occurred quite recently: in our time gallery owner not necessarily have to like Exhibiting their works. They may even feel disgust for them. The sense of taste is no longer present.

But the sense of taste is lost for them because they are do not need it. Indeed, why the art market should behave differently than all other economic markets and, in particular, the financial markets. He lives only a short-term perspective, looking for an optimized profit, all while introducing new trends. By art money rules - like all the others - and the rule alone. In this respect, our society seems to society the second half of the XIX century, born as a result of the industrial revolution - in both endured finance, both inherent frivolity, love of kitsch. But the bourgeoisie of the second half of the XIX century to imitate the aristocracy, she had just pushed to the fore, and most of all she wanted to adopt "an aristocratic good taste," which she was terribly jealous. "Good taste - wrote historian Jean-Louis of Flanders - is the primary social virtue, which characterizes both the inner life of the individual, and his appearance. The notion of "good taste" appeared in the XVII century. Before the Middle Ages, it was important to "hold well, Hatem, in the Renaissance -" well-expressed. However, since the XVII century, the most important was the ability to judgment - about art, literature, music, clothing, gastronomy, in short, everything. Taste was a sign of social affiliation. And the bourgeoisie came to power in the late XVIII century, tirelessly shows and proves that it possesses not only the castles, lands and sostoyaniemi, but these famous "good taste".

Of course, this change (or that the change of power) could not have done either without confusion, without any face for. Newly rich people often put themselves in a ridiculous position. So, Mr. Walter, a wealthy banker, described in the Maupassant story "dear friend", who bought the mansion razorivsheegosya aristocrat who organized a magnificent reception on the occasion of the acquisition of giant paintings that the author of the story fun with great wit. For example, Proust, Ms. Verdyuren generously offers Baron Sharlyusu provide certain needy Duchess former concierge room in his luxurious mansion, the Baron replied: "But madam, in this sluyachae, your guests will never reach your apartment, they are all stuck in the room, concierge !. The behavior of this new bourgeoisie is something naive, touching-her desire to rise, samoobrazovatsya, closer to the ideal model. It is no accident that at this time there is a figure of free hkdozhnika, romanticism contrasted with industrialization, as if these two beings - the bourgeois and the artist - could not find a common language, as though between them was inevitable and fatal problem of taste.

In 1912, the Russian poets and artists of the Futurist manifesto published under the title "Slap in the Face of Public Taste». The word "society" here refers to those decision makers who owns and is imposing his own taste, as if it were a standard. The whole history of modern art - the history of Fauvism, the history of German expressionism, the history of abstract painting, Duchamp, Dada, Bauhaus, in short, the entire history of avant-garde - was based on a rejection of bourgeois it poses (bad) taste, his vulgarity, his irresistible love of kitsch. That era ended in the 60's. The twentieth century with the advent of Pop Art, which opened a new era - an era that is based, as in the nineteenth century, the scientific progress tehnichestkom (movies, television, etc.). But if the first industrial revolution marked the transition from the factory (needs) to the factory (capacity requirements), the second was characterized by the transition from popular culture to culture media. The viewer-reader-listener, this revolution has turned to the consumer, and because, as it revealed Hannah Arendt, in his "crisis of culture, popular art can not exist, the product is transformed into a product.

On the theory of Abraham Moulza, when this type of society there is an abundance of surplus funds compared with up to date requirements, bourgeois civilization imposes on the artistic production of its norms. So she enrolled in the nineteenth century, which caused a strong reaction from her contemporary artists. But while the bourgeoisie was the ideal - the aristocracy, the "good taste" which it sought to emulate, while the bourgeoisie of our time is like a child with a foundling, she had no ideal or model, moreover, it seems that few descendants of the aristocracy who have lived to our own era tend to copy this bourgeoisie. This lack of ideal helped her lose all of complexes - the idea of elevation, it totally self-characteristic, it is like all other members of our society: our bourgeoisie democratic, individualistic, and most importantly - it consumes tirelessly, without peredyhu without presyschniya. It is difficult to understand what, in the words of Montesquieu, "the pleasure of her soul form its taste, but it does not matter: social differences are determined in our time is not culture, but money. Bourgeoisie owns the material goods, more importantly, it demonstrates that she possesses them, demonstrates to fall, obscene - Kierkegaard would say that it is triumphant. The fact that many artists, it was possible to buy what they have agreed to comply with the prevailing taste for decoration and kitsch - not news, such sales hudozhnikm existed in the past, many of them will be in the future. Chapman Brothers and the like, the authors of what the philosopher Gilles Deleuze calls "nichtoezhnymi discoveries" to belong to this category of creators.


So in the case of our "major collectors of contemporary art" we are not dealing with a love of art and not even taste. Psychoanalyst Daniel Sibony sees this as a manifestation of some kind of narcissistic game. "Taste is one of the variants of the pleasure principle. If this principle is changing, and taste. Perhaps it should change the definition of the principle of pleasure? Previously, it was a search for solace, the fall of excitation. But this assumes that there is excitement in need of comforting, and people begin to look for phenomena that can cause this arousal. Here, the principle overdozy - former pathogens are no longer active, so they have to change all the time. " Indeed, one could say that it is - to search for originality, but this search is the other way, but in the same blind alley in which society has gone a century ago, it leads to the same confusion (can not buy freedom), to the same inherent conflict between the bourgeoisie, stemyaschimsya adopt your own taste and rebellious artist who knows that an obedient art - the art of the dead.

[Meister]

In my opinion, quite clearly described the Seine causes and problems of the current situation on the art market, and answered our questions: "Who buys and why?

[kozhinart]

Scored in a search engine google: "kitsch as a means to combat rivals" ran into an article.

Objections non-economic order made against capitalism
The argument about happiness
Materialism
Injustice
"Bourgeois prejudices" against freedom
Freedom and Western Civilization
08.12.99
The argument about happiness
Against capitalism are nominated usually two main charges. First: in itself the possession of a motorcycle, a television and a refrigerator does not make a person happy. Second: there are still people who do not have neither the one nor the other and no third. Both provisions are valid, but they do not mean that the blame should the capitalist system of social cooperation.
People who spend their lives at work, can still hope to achieve complete happiness, they seek only to the extent possible, eliminate their psychological concerns, and thus feel better than before. For example, a person who buys a TV, thus as it recognizes that the possession of this subject will enhance their welfare and will make him happier than he was before the acquisition. If it were not so, he would not buy a TV. The doctor can not set ourselves the task of making the patient happy, he can only eliminate pain and bring the patient in the best shape that he could carry vital for all living creatures struggle against everything that threatens his life and tranquility.

Читать дальше... 

It is possible that among the Buddhist itinerant beggars, living on alms, in the dirt and poverty, there are people who feel quite happy and not suffering from envy to the very rich nabob. But for most people, this life seems to be simply unbearable. For these people the desire to constantly improve the external conditions of existence is innate. Who would ever think to put a beggar in the Asian sample average American? One of the most remarkable achievements of capitalism can be regarded as reducing child mortality. Can it be denied that it has removed, at least one of the causes of unhappiness of many people?
Equally absurd second accusation made against capitalism, that the technological and medical inventions benefit not everyone, but only the elect. Changes in people's lives are generated from the most intelligent and energetic individuals. They are confident in themselves the rest of humanity. Any innovation - first luxury of a small number of people and only gradually, it becomes accessible to everyone. The fact that the shoes or forks were distributed around the world for a long time and still many more people get along without them, can not serve as an argument against their use altogether. Elegant men and gentlemen, first began to use soap and water, were the pioneers of mass production of soap for ordinary people. If those who have the opportunity to buy a TV, would not buy it on the grounds that some can not afford this purchase, it does not contribute to, rather, hinder the promotion of the present invention.
Materialism
Frequently criticized capitalism for its supposed inherent in it a crude materialism. It is impossible not to recognize that capitalism tends to improve the lives of people. However, according to his critics, it distracts people from the higher and noble goals. It nourishes the body, but did not give his heart and mind. He called the decline of art. Elapsed time of great poets, painters, sculptors, architects. Our age is able to give only kitsch.
Evaluation of the merits of any product completely subjective. That praise alone, with other causes boredom. There is no general criterion for determining the aesthetic value of the poem or a building. A man admires Chartres Cathedral or the "Menin" Velasquez, is inclined to believe anyone who does not share his enthusiasm, coarse muzhlanom. Many schoolchildren in despair when they have to read "Hamlet." Only the people, endowed with a spark of artistic taste and thinking, are able to evaluate the creation of the artist and enjoy it.
Among those who claim to be educated, always a lot of hypocrites. Assuming an appearance connoisseurs, hedgehogs play out enthusiasm for the art of the past and the long-dead artists. Such sympathy they did not have to contemporary artists are still struggling for recognition of the public. Irrepressible admiration of the old masters from them - a way to express contempt for the new artists who deviate from traditional canons and create new, and - expose them to ridicule
John Ruskin will always be remembered - along with Carlyle, Webb, Shaw and others - as one of the gravediggers British freedom, civilization and culture. This nasty - and in private and in public life - a man praised war and bloodshed and unrestrained aspersions on the political economy theory, which he was not able to understand. He remained a fanatical opponent of the market economy and sang romantic tradition of the medieval guilds. Ruskin admired the art of past masters. But once he saw the work of his great contemporaries Whistler [Whistler, James (1834 - 1903) - American painter, in a manner similar to the Impressionists], he burst into such abuse to the artist, that was prosecuted for contempt and convicted. It is in the works of Ruskin promotes the false idea that the alleged capitalism - except that he is a failed economic system - also contributes to the replacement of beauty persistence of greatness - a nonentity, and art - the consumer goods.
Because people are not unanimous in their assessment of works of art, not just as strongly, as is done when necessary to refute the logic errors or facts of experience, to say that in terms of artistic expression century capitalism is lower than other periods. Yet no one in their right mind would undertake not to disparage the artistic achievements of the capitalist epoch.
The most outstanding art form in this age of "gross materialism and the pursuit of profit," was the music. Wagner and Verdi, Berlioz and Bizet, Brahms and Bruckner, Hugo Wolf and Mahler, Puccini and Richard Strauss - what a glorious constellation! The era in which even such masters as Schumann and Donitstseti, overshadowed an even more outstanding geniuses.
And there were in fact more and brilliant novels of Balzac, Flaubert, Jens Jacobsen, Proust, Victor Hugo's poem, Whitman, Rilke, Yeats. How poor would be our life if we lost art these giants, and set no less than great writers.
Let's not forget the French painters and sculptors, has taught us a new way to see the world and enjoy the light and color
It makes no sense to deny that the era is encouraged, and also encourages all branches of science. But, do not desist critics, all these achievements - the work of specialists, but generalizing the "synthesis" and not learn a little. Can hardly be more absurd to distort the teachings of modern sciences such as mathematics, physics, biology. And what about the works of philosophers, Croce, Bergson, Husserl, Whitehead? [Benedetto Croce (1866 - 1952) - Italian philosopher and historian, founder of the influential ethical-political school of historiography, a prominent specialist in matters of aesthetics. Henri Bergson (1859 - 1941) - French philosopher, a prominent representative of the intuitional - flow, recognizing intuition only reliable means of knowing. Husserl, Edmund (1859 - 1938) - German philosopher, founder of modern phenomenology as a method of analysis of pure consciousness. Alfred North Whitehead (1861 - 1947) - English logician and philosopher, whose writings played a big role in the development of mathematical logic and the philosophy of mathematics.]
Every era is different for its own character and artistic achievements. The imitation of the masterpieces of the past - it is not art, but work on the template. The value attached to the product of just those features that distinguish it from other works. This is called the style of the era.
In one respect, people extolling the past, seems to be right. The latest generation have left no descendants of such monuments as the pyramids, Greek temples, Gothic cathedrals, churches and palaces of the Renaissance and Baroque. Over the past hundred years have been built many churches and even cathedrals and many more government palaces, schools, libraries. But they are nothing of the original: they either mimic the old style, or combine elements of several of the old styles. Only in the architecture of houses and offices lurks something resembling what can be designated as the architectural style of our era. Although, in fairness, ought to pay tribute to the grandeur of some modern urban species, such as the silhouette of New York, in general, one must admit, modern architecture can match the grandeur of the architecture of the past.
The reasons are many. With regard to religious buildings, then underlined conservative churches exclude any innovations. With the departure from the scene of royal dynasties and the aristocracy had disappeared and the desire to erect new palaces. Besides, whatever argued against the capitalist-minded demagogues, means the entrepreneur and the capitalist way pales in comparison with the wealth of kings and princes, that he simply can not afford such expensive construction. Today there is no man rich enough to order the palaces like Versailles or Escurial. Orders for the construction of government buildings today, too, do not give autocrats, who could appoint an architect to his taste, even in defiance of public opinion, or to finance the project, which would have shocked the unenlightened masses. All kinds of committees and councils can hardly go toward the plans of the brave innovators. They prefer not to risk it.
The history has not yet happened, to the broad masses have appreciated his contemporary art. Only small groups were able to give tribute to the great writer or artist. Characteristic of capitalism is not something that the masses are different bad taste, but rather that they, having achieved a certain affluence, become "consumers" of literature - and, of course, very low quality. Book Market is flooded with cheap for a very unpretentious prose, the reader, almost semi-savages in their literary tastes. However, this does not prevent the great artists to create immortal works.
Critics of capitalism have shed tears over the apparent decline of applied art. They compare the old furniture, preserved in the European aristocratic homes and in museum collections, with cheap furniture, manufactured by mass production. When they forget that things have got to the museum, made exclusively for the propertied classes. Carved chest and mosaic tables were not in the miserable huts of the poor. Suggest devil's advocate, who does not like cheap furniture of American workers to cross the Rio Grande del Norte and visit the huts of Mexican peons, who generally live without furniture. [Rio Grande del Norte - the river that separates the U.S. from Mexico (the name of an obsolete: now in the U.S. it is called the Rio Grande and in Mexico the Rio Bravo del Norte). Peons - the peasants are in debt bondage by landlords or employers, and thus making them powerless laborers.] When modern industry is only beginning to supply an array of attributes for a better life, her goal was to produce, possibly cheaper furniture without any was aesthetic criteria. Later, when the development of capitalism has raised living standards of the masses, gradually began to produce things that are not devoid of subtlety and taste. Is that really a very romantic and prejudiced against capitalism deny that more and more people in the capitalist countries live in the interior, which at all desire can not be called tasteless.

Injustice
Harshest critics of capitalism - the ones who blames him for allegedly gave rise to them injustice.
Idle occupation - to argue, as should be the world works and why it is not what should be, and is subject to the inexorable laws of the real universe. Such fantasies - something harmless to time. But when people begin to understand the difference between fantasy and reality, they become a serious hindrance to improving the external conditions of existence.
The most harmful of all the mistakes - the illusion that the "nature" has given each person certain rights. According to this doctrine nature - friendly and generous to anyone born into the world. Everyone just enough. Consequently, everyone has an inalienable right to require the passing of the society and all their portion, destined by nature. The eternal and divine laws of natural justice require that no appropriated what rightfully belongs to another. Poor eke out a miserable existence just because the unjust people deprived of all their goods destined them by birth. Objectives of church and secular authorities - to prevent such a robbery and, therefore, make all rich and happy.
This theory is false from beginning to end. Nature does not distribute its goods to the right and left, she, on the contrary, very stingy. It limited the number of all necessary to sustain human life. She inhabited the land animals and plants that have the desire to harm human life and health is innate. It has at its disposal forces and elements, dangerous to humans. Only thanks to his ability to use the main gun, given him by nature, that is, the mind, man was able to survive and achieve prosperity. Wealth, which visionaries, romantics feel free gift of nature, in fact, conquered people collaborating in the general system of division of labor. With regard to "distribution" of wealth, it would be absurd to refer to any divine or natural principle of justice. The point here is not limited to the distribution of shares of common stock, granted to man by nature. Rather, the aim is to develop those social institutions that can continue and expand the production of all necessary man.
World Council of Churches, an ecumenical organization of Protestant Churches, said in 1948, "Justice demands that the people of Asia and Africa, for example, are more able to use the products of machinery" <see The Church and the Disorder of Society, New York,. 1948, p. 198>. [In the twenties of our century in the Protestant movement emerged to unite all Christian churches, called ecumenical. Since 1948, the ecumenical movement is headed by World Council of Churches.] Such a statement makes sense if we assume that God gave mankind a certain number of cars on the assumption that these benefits were equally distributed among nations. However, the capitalist countries treacherously seized most of the stocks than they were entitled, and, thus, the people of Asia and Africa were left destitute. What a disgrace!
In fact, the accumulation of capital and investing it in the car, a source of relatively higher welfare of the peoples of the West, are possible only thanks to the very free capitalism, which is the essence of the above document mercilessly distorted, which he rejects on moral grounds. Do not blame the capitalists in the fact that Asians and Africans do not have the ideology and policies, which would develop the local capital. Innocent capitalism and that the policy of the leaders of these countries does not allow foreign investors to provide them with "machine-made products. No one can deny that millions in Asia and Africa are mired in poverty because they adhere to the primitive methods of production and waive the benefits that would make it use more advanced equipment and modern technology. They have only one way to alleviate the unhappy fate - to accept unconditionally free capitalism. They need private enterprise, the accumulation of new capital, we need the capitalists and entrepreneurs. It is absurd to put a rebuke to capitalism and capitalist nations of the West is the lamentable state, which chose to backward peoples of Asia and Africa. Repair work may not appeal to "justice", and the replacement of a dead-end politics politics of common sense, that is free of capitalism.
It is not idle speculations about abstract "justice" allowed to raise the welfare of the common man at its present level, and the activities of people who are stuck labels' inveterate individualists, "" exploiters. " Poverty backward nations - a result of their policies of expropriation, discriminatory taxation, foreign exchange control, discourage investment of foreign capital, while domestic policy prevents the accumulation of local capital.

Anyone who denies capitalism on moral grounds as an unfair system, just do not understand what the nature of capital, as it appears, and remains, as well as what benefits you can have when used in manufacturing processes.
The only source of that additional means of production is saving. If all manufactured goods consumed, the new capital does not arise. But if consumption lags behind the production and abundance of newly produced goods over consumption goods used in further manufacturing processes, these processes are now carried out with the help of more inputs. All means of production - are intermediate goods, a step on the road leading from the initially used input factors of production, ie, natural resources and human labor, to the end, ready-to-eat foods. All these means of production, sooner or later wear out in the production process. If all products are consumed and thus the means of production used in their manufacture, not replaced, then the capital, too, turns out to be "consumed". In this case, further proceedings may be carried out only on a smaller number of means of production and, consequently, it will give less output per unit of natural resources and labor. To avoid such a loss-making production and prevent disinvestment, it is necessary to transfer the funds to preserve capital, the replacement of production consumed in the manufacture of goods used.
Capital - is not a free gift of God or nature. He - the result of conscious of limiting its consumption. It is created and multiplied through the economy and saved abstained from the waste.
Neither the capital nor the means of production can not by themselves improve the efficiency of natural resources and human labor. Only if reasonable use and invest the savings could increase production per unit cost of natural resources and labor. Otherwise, these funds are dispersed or dissipated.
The accumulation of new and preservation of previously accumulated capital, and also use it to increase productivity - all the fruits of deliberate human effort. It is the merit of people who save money and do not allow the costs exceed the parish, that is, capitalists earn interest, and entrepreneurs, ie people who were able to use existing capital to better meet the needs of the consumer and are paid a profit.
But neither the capital nor the means of production themselves, as well as the manipulation of the capitalists and entrepreneurs with the capital could not improve the lives of other people, if these people did not respond to all actions of the capitalists in a certain way. If workers behave as they like to present the case supporters of the "iron law of wages" [formulated by German socialist Ferdinand Lassalle (1825 - 1864) position that the average wage under capitalism, reduces to the minimum necessary to sustain life and reproduction] he has enough imagination only to have to spend their earnings on food and produce offspring; accumulation of capital would be consistent with population growth. All profits generated from the accumulation of additional capital would be absorbed by the growing number of people. But man does not react to improve the external conditions of life as do rodents or microbes. He has other needs besides food and progeny. In capitalist countries, the increase of accumulated capital ahead of population growth. This leads to the fact that the marginal, that is close to the limit productivity increases compared with the marginal productivity of material factors of production. Hence the tendency to raise wages. The share of total output, going to meet the needs of workers, increases compared to the proportion that goes to interest capitalists in the form of rent - the landowners. <Gains without suffering. They are income from the ability to adapt the use of material means of production and labor to changes in supply and demand. They depend only on how great it would be without the device mismatch and how it managed to overcome. These changes are temporary and disappear after removing inconsistencies. But since the changes in supply and demand occur again and again, as always there were new sources of profits.>
On the productivity can be said, only referring to the marginal productivity of labor [under the theory of marginal (marginal) utility value is created by three factors: labor, capital and land, part of each factor is determined by its marginal productivity, ie the size of the increase in output obtained by increasing the (per unit) of this factor in the immutability of the other two], that is, decline in net output, which would be obtained as a result of the removal of production per employee. Only then does it compare with a certain economic value, with a certain amount of goods or its monetary equivalent.
The concept of productivity, which apply when talking about an alleged natural law working to attribute productivity gains only to himself, makes no sense and defies definition. It is based on the mistaken view that it is possible to calculate the proportion of physical involvement of each of the various complementary factors of production in output. For example, if a person cuts the paper with scissors, it is impossible to assess their contribution to achieve the final result by the scissors (or each of the two blades) or a person employed by them. For the release of the car needs a variety of machines and tools, various raw materials, labor of many different workers and, above all, an engineering project. But it is impossible to determine what proportion of participation in the manufacture of the vehicle should be physically attributed to each of the participants, whose cooperation it needed.

Thus, we can abstract from the time all the considerations that prove the incorrectness of such a treatment problem, and ask yourself which of the two factors causes an increase in productivity, labor or capital? And if we put the question so emphatically, it will have to answer: capital. Total U.S. production (per unit of labor) are now precisely because more than in the preceding period or in economically backward countries (like China) that the modern American worker has at its disposal more cars and appliances, besides better . If capital equipment (per worker) would remain at the same level as it was three centuries ago in the United States, or on what it is in modern China, the volume of production (per worker) could not grow. The only thing that can increase the volume of industrial production in America - while the total number of employed workers - is an investment of additional capital, which in turn can be gained only through savings and cost savings. It is those who accumulate and invest capital, we must increase productivity of all those engaged in production.
Raise the wages of workers and allow them to enjoy a growing share of production volume of which can increase due to additional capital accumulation is possible only because the pace of capital accumulation exceeds the rate of population growth. The official doctrine or circumvents this fact in silence, or denies it. However, the policy of trade unions clearly demonstrates the fact that their leaders are well aware of the correctness of the theory, which is publicly branded as absurd bourgeois apologetics. That is why they are trying to limit the number of laws against immigrant job-seekers and to prevent the influx of new people in all sectors of the labor market.
With higher wages does not depend on "productivity" of individual workers, but only on the marginal productivity of labor, is illustrated by the fact that wage increases even in a field, where "productivity" of the individual has not changed. For example, the barber shaves the client in the same way as did his colleague, two hundred years ago. Butler also waiting at the table, Prime Minister of Great Britain, as was once the butler, catering to Pitt and Palmerston. And in agriculture, certain types of work performed by the same tools that were centuries ago, but the wages of such workers has increased significantly compared with the past. This was only possible due to higher marginal productivity of labor. Employer butler keeps his way to work at the factory and must therefore pay the equivalent of increasing output, which would make use of another person at the factory. Wage growth butler must not own merits, but only the fact that an increase in invested capital exceeds the increase in the number of workers.
Any psevdoekonomicheskie doctrine, minimize the role of savings and capital accumulation, are ridiculous. It is the fact that in a capitalist society is available more capital goods than in non-capitalist, makes a society richer in the first second. Workers were able to improve their lives thanks to the fact that increased volume of capital equipment for each potential worker. As a result, most of the manufactured consumer goods goes to the workers. Perhaps, neither Marx nor Keynes, nor any other of the lesser-known opponents of capitalism would be unable to disprove the following assertion: there is only one way to increase wages and permanently for the benefit of all who wish to work - namely, to accelerate the pace of increase in capital to population growth. If you think it's "unfair", the blame should be nature, not man.
"Bourgeois prejudices" against freedom
History of Western civilization - a history of continuous struggle for freedom.
Social cooperation under the division of labor is the main and the only condition for success in the struggle for human survival and in an effort to improve their material well-being. But since human nature is what it is, society can not exist if it does not have laws that prevent "disobedient" to commit acts that are incompatible with the vital functions of society. In order to maintain peaceful co-operation must be ready to resort to violent repression of those who violate the peace. Society can not do without the apparatus of coercion, that is, without a state and government. But here another problem arises: to limit the power of people performing governmental functions, so that they do not start to abuse the power and bring down the rest to slavery. The purpose of any struggle for freedom - to keep the armed defenders of peace, governors, police officers in certain limits. The political concept of freedom of the individual means: freedom from arbitrary police.
The idea of freedom has always been characteristic of the West. East of the West is distinguished, above all, that the peoples of the East never developed the idea of freedom. The continuing merit of the ancient Greeks is that they first realized the importance of institutions that safeguard freedom. Recent historical research makes it possible to determine the origin of certain scientific achievements, which previously were attributed to the Greeks, from the eastern sources. However, the idea of freedom, no doubt, originated in the cities of ancient Greece. Of the works of Greek philosophers and historians, she moved to the Romans, and then - to the Europeans and Americans. It became the main point of all representations of people of the West rightly ordered society. It was she who gave birth to the philosophy of free enterprise, which has the duty of all hitherto unprecedented achievements of the epoch of capitalism.
The aim of all modern political and legal institutions - to protect individual freedom against encroachment by the government. Representative government and rule of law, independence of courts and tribunals, the administration of the intervention, the law on individual liberty, trial and damages in the event of illegal actions of the administration, freedom of speech and press, the separation of church and state, and many other institutions have always pursued the same goal : limit the omnipotence of officials and to protect the individual from arbitrariness. The era of capitalism liberated people from all vestiges of slavery and serfdom. It put an end to atrocities and reduced penalties for crimes to the minimum necessary in order to deter the offender from committing the offense. She put an end to torture and other methods of indecent treatment of suspects and criminals. She finally abolished all the privileges and proclaimed the equality of all citizens before the law of yesterday have become the tyrants, thus, to free citizens.
Tangible improvement of life were the result of these reforms and innovations in government policy. When all privileges were abolished and everyone was given the right to enter into competition with the legitimate interests of others, it gave free rein to those who are resourceful enough to develop new industries that are now so necessary for normal life. The population has increased, but even increased, it was better to live than fathers.
In the countries of western civilization and have always been apologists for tyranny, that is completely arbitrary autocrat or the aristocracy, on the one hand, and the absolute injustice of other people, on the other. However, since the Enlightenment, their number began to decrease. Triumph the cause of freedom. At the beginning of the XIX century it seemed that stopped the march of freedom is impossible. The most prominent philosophers and historians believe that the historical development leads to the establishment of institutions that guarantee freedom, and no tricks and wiles of the supporters of slavery can not prevent the trend towards liberalization.
On the question of the liberal social philosophy is often overlooked an important factor that contributed to the development of ideas of freedom, namely, the crucial role to play in educating the elite of ancient Greek literature. Among the Greek authors were supporters of the omnipotent state authorities such as Plato. [Plato (428 - 348 427 - 347 BC. E.) - Ancient Greek philosopher. In his works, especially the later period, gave praise of a powerful state. In an ideal society, according to Plato, there is no place private property, and the government should take even the regulation of marriage, raising children, etc.] But the basic content of the Greek ideology was the principle of freedom. The Greek, if you compare them with contemporary socio-political institutions were oligarchies. Freedom, by statesmen, philosophers and historians glorified as the supreme good of man, was the privilege of a minority. Denying freedom Metekov and slaves, Greeks, in fact, advocated a despotic hereditary caste of oligarchs. [Metekov - residents of Greek policies (city-states) personally free, paying taxes, are obliged to perform military service, but devoid of political and civil rights. Metekov were mostly migrants from other policies and tempered the will of the slaves.] It would be a grave mistake to assume that their praises were insincere. In praise of freedom and fighting for it, they were no less ingenuous than the American slave-owners, who for two thousand years later, very sincerely and willingly put their signatures to the Declaration of Independence. [Declaration of Independence was adopted July 4, 1776 Congress, representatives of the British colonies revolted against British rule. The Declaration proclaimed not only the formation of a sovereign state - the U.S., but also the right of all people to life, liberty, equality. However, under pressure from the slave-owners did not pass the item of the draft declaration, condemning slavery.] It is the political literature of ancient Greece gave rise to the idea tiranobortsev, Whig philosophy, teaching Altuziya, Greece, John Locke, the founders of modern constitutions and bills of rights. [Whig - a political party that existed in England in the XVII - XIX centuries. The Whigs opposed royal absolutism, for the rule of parliament. Altuzy Johann (1557 - 1638) - Netherlands politician, theorist of law. Proclaimed ideas of sovereignty and the rule of the people, the government's responsibility to the people. Grace Hugo de Groot (1583 - 1649) - Netherlands lawyer, social scientist and statesman. One of the founders of the doctrine of natural law, which is based on the nature of man, aspiring to a peaceful conversation. John Locke (1632 - 1704) - English philosopher, developed in particular, the idea of social contract as a source of power, obliged to protect the natural human rights to personal liberty and property.] It is the study of classical heritage, the main feature of education in the era of liberalism, prevented the fade to the spirit of freedom in Britain since the Stuarts, the time of the Bourbons in France and in Italy, riven by internecine strife. [Royal dynasty of Stuart rule in England from 1603 to 1649 years. and from 1660 to 1714. House of Bourbon took the French throne from 1589 to 1792. and from 1814 to 1830. Italy has been shattered for many centuries, until 1870] Nobody Bismarck, who was with Metternich most sworn enemy of freedom among all the statesmen of the XIX century, it is recognized that even in the Prussia of Frederick William III gymnasium, where education based on the Greco-Roman literature, was the stronghold of Republicans <see: Bismarck, Gedanken und Erinnerungen, New York, 1898, Vol. I, p. 1>. [Frederick William III (1770 - 1840) - King of Prussia since 1797 was carried out, especially after the collapse of Napoleon's reactionary domestic policies aimed at suppressing the democratic movement and strengthening the military.] Desperate attempts to exclude classical Studies of the programs of liberal education and thus destroy himself his spirit were one manifestation of the resurgent slave ideology.

Even what a hundred years ago, few imagined what a powerful force will soon acquire the ideas against freedom. It seemed that the ideals of freedom so firmly entrenched in the minds of people that no reversal would not be able to destroy them. Of course, it would be useless to attack the freedom to openly call for a return to slavery. But anti-liberalism captured the mindset of people, being made-up under sverhliberalizm, ie the implementation and realization of the ideas themselves freedom. He came under the guise of socialism, communism, planning.
Any sensible person from the very beginning it was clear that the aim of the apologists of socialism, communism, planning is the destruction of freedom of the individual and the establishment of the omnipotence of government. However, the majority of intellectuals who had joined the Socialists, was persuaded that, speaking for socialism, they are fighting for freedom. They called themselves "left wing" and "democracy", and now they are claiming more and the definition of "liberal."
We have already mentioned the psychological factors that have prevented the intellectuals and the masses to read them properly assess the situation. They - though unconsciously - clearly felt that if unable to fulfill its far-reaching ambitions, it is only through their own fault. They simply were either not smart or resourceful enough. However, they did not want to confess to his own ineptitude either to themselves or their fellows, better to find a scapegoat. They convinced themselves and tried to convince others that the reason for their failure lies not in themselves, and the injustice of the economic organization of society. Under capitalism, they argue, only very few have the opportunity to fulfill your potential. "In a society that lives on the principle of" laissez faire ", the freedom can be achieved only by those who are able to buy it" <N. Laski, article "Liberty" in the "Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences", IX, p. 443>. [Laissez faire - part of the expression "Laissez faire, laissez passer" (фр.) - "lets you do (they want), let go (where they want). First performed in 1758 at the Assembly of the French Physiocrats of the mouth of the economist JC Gorne to describe a policy of a free, no development of regulated market economy.] Thus, they concluded, the state should intervene in society to administer "social justice" that is, in their submissions to give dissatisfied with his position of mediocrity "according to his needs."
Until the question of socialism remained a subject of theoretical debates, people are not able to think rationally and clearly, could seriously believe that under a socialist regime, the preservation of freedom is possible. But these illusions were shattered when the Soviet experience has shown everyone what the conditions of life under the socialist system. Henceforth, the apologists of socialism forced to distort the self-evident facts and manipulate words, trying to prove the compatibility of socialism and freedom.
The late Professor Laski is now - during the life of a famous member and chairman of the Labor Party, called himself a "non-communist" and even "anti-communist" - tells us that "In Soviet Russia, Communist, of course, feel quite free, but it is clear he is aware and the fact that in fascist Italy, he had this freedom will not be "<H. Laski, article "Liberty" in the "Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences", IX, p. 445 - 446>. Indeed, the Russian has the right to obey the orders of his superiors, but worth it if only for one hundredth of a deviation from the "correct" way of thinking, which is designated by those in power, he is subjected to merciless destruction. All politicians, bureaucrats, writers, musicians, scientists found themselves victims of "cleansing" were not - strictly speaking - anti-Communists. Rather, they were staunch communists, the old party members, who in recognition of their loyalty to the Soviet ideology of the supreme leadership has entrusted senior positions. Their only fault was that they did not manage to immediately adjust their ideas, political views, the contents of its books and symphonies to the ideas and tastes of Stalin. It is hard to believe that all these people "could feel the freedom", unless you make sense of the word freedom, directly opposite to where it is normally used.
In fascist Italy, of course, there was no freedom at all. She took over the notorious Soviet model "one-party system" and in full compliance with it destroyed all dissent. But even in the implementation of this principle between the Bolsheviks and the Nazis still a huge difference. Thus, for example, lived in fascist Italy, a former member of the parliamentary group of Communist deputies Professor Antonio Gratsiadei remaining before the hour of death true to his communist beliefs. [Gratsiadei Antonio (1873 - 1952) - Italian economist, member of the Communist Party from 1921 in 1928 as one of the leaders of the "right wing" was excluded from the Communist Party. After the liberation of Italy from fascism once again became a member of the Italian Communist Party.] As emeritus professor, he received a government pension and had the opportunity to publish in the most famous Italian publishing their works, which are specimens of orthodox Marxism. His lack of freedom was, apparently, less rigid than the freedom of the Communists in Russia, which, according to Lasky, "certainly, it is felt the freedom."
Professor Laski with particular pleasure several times repeats the well-known truism that freedom means in practice is always a freedom within the law. Moreover the law, he continues, seeks to "ensure the sanctity of the life, which is recognized as desirable by those who control the state machine" <Ibid., P. 446>. That is how the laws operate free country: they protect society from attempts to incite civil war and the violent overthrow of the government. But Lasky makes a serious mistake, claiming that in a capitalist society, "the desire of the poor dramatically change the property rights of rich immediately endangers all the prospects of freedom" <Ibid., P. 446>.
Take, for example. Karl Marx, who, incidentally, is the idol of most of Professor Laski and his associates. When, in 1848 - 1849's he was actively involved in organizing and conducting the revolution (first in Prussia and then in the other Germanic countries), then - being essentially a foreigner - he was evicted and moved with his wife, children and their maid in Paris, and later in London. <About the activities of Marx in 1848 - 1849 gg. See: Karl Marx, Chronik Seines Lebens in Einzeldaten (Karl Marx, the chronicle of life in the dates), Vol. Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, 1934, pp. 43 - 81.> Some time later, after unsuccessful revolutionaries were granted amnesty, he was allowed to return to any place in Germany, and he has repeatedly used this resolution. Henceforth he was a fugitive and voluntarily chosen place of residence London. <In 1845, Marx voluntarily relinquished Prussian citizenship. Later, in the early sixties, he was going to start a political career in Prussia, but the request for the return of his citizenship was not granted, and, thus, career became impossible. Apparently, this is what prompted him to stay in London.> Nobody prevented him at the base of the International Association of Workers (1864), an organization whose purpose, as he himself admitted, was to prepare a great world revolution. Nobody bothered him in the interests of the organization to travel to European countries. He calmly wrote and published books and articles, which, if we use the expression Lasky, openly called for "radical change in the property rights of the rich." Marx slept peacefully in London, in his apartment on Maitland Park Road 41, 14 March 1883.
Or take the British Labor Party. Their attempts to "radically change the property rights of the rich" - as is well known to most Laski - never seen combat, which is incompatible with the principle of freedom.
Marx, as the opposition, he could live quietly, writing and calling for revolution in Victorian England, as well as the Labor Party can freely engage in political activity in posleviktorianskoy England. In Soviet Russia would not tolerate the slightest opposition. That's the difference between freedom and slavery.
Freedom and Western Civilization
Those who criticize the legal and constitutional concept of liberty and the institutions established for its implementation, are right on one thing: protection of the individual against arbitrary acts by itself is insufficient to make it free. But to emphasize this indisputable truth means to force an open door. None of the advocates of freedom have never asserted that the guarantee against arbitrary government - enough to release. The only thing that gives citizens full freedom, which is only compatible with life in society - is a market economy. No Constitution and Bill of Rights in itself does not create freedom. They only protect against abuse of police power that freedom, which gives the individual an economic system based on competition.
In a market economy, everyone has the opportunity to seek such a provision in the structure of the social division of labor, what he wants. He is free to choose a profession, which seems to him most suitable to serve the society. This man has no rights in a planned economy. Here the authorities decide what people will do. In their discretion, he will either be promoted to a higher position, or, conversely, on a previous post. The individual at the mercy of the authorities. Under capitalism, anyone can call at any competition. If you feel that you can offer people a better quality product, or more cheaply than others, you are entitled to prove their abilities. Thy plans not threatened by lack of funds: the capitalists always interested in people who will be able to derive maximum advantage from their foundations. The success of a businessman depends only on how to behave consumers who always buy what they like most.
Work is also independent of the arbitrariness of the employer. The businessman, who will not be able to hire the most qualified workers and keep them high enough wages to move to other places, paying for its sluggishness reduction in net income. Recruiting employees, the employer does not provide them with grace. They are for him is as necessary means to achieve success, as raw materials or plant equipment. Work also has the opportunity to choose an occupation which he liked.
In a market economy does not stop the process of social selection that determines the position and income of every individual. It happens that the great wealth decrease and does taper off, while people who only yesterday were the former poor achieve a high position and acquire status. In an environment where no one has the privileges and the government does not protect anyone's personal interests from the threat of more workable and businesslike beginners, those who acquired the capital account for each day to win it again and again in competition with others.

In the framework of social cooperation in the division of labor, each depends on how highly valued services offered to them by consumers, which, incidentally, belongs to himself. Purchasing or, conversely, not buying goods or services, each as it serves a member of the Supreme Court, awarding anyone - not excluding himself - a definite place in society. Everyone participates in the process of determining the income of each - from someone higher, someone - lower. Anyone has the right to make such a contribution to the common cause, for which the company will reward its higher earnings. Freedom under capitalism means: you will depend on whose whatsoever estimates no more than the others depend on yours. When in production, there is no division of labor and a draw absolute economic autarky, can not be given freedom, but this one.
No need to remind that the main argument in favor of capitalism and against socialism - not even the fact that socialism expectancy of the elimination of all "remnants" of freedom and turning them into complete slaves, and the fact that socialism is not feasible as an economic system, as in the socialist society excluded the possibility of economic calculation. [L. Mises, first proved in the early 20's. That without a free market economy can not calculate the performance of specific industries, technological innovation, investment and, consequently, the society will be deprived of the economic compass.] Therefore, socialism is not considered as a system of economic organization of society. This - means the destruction of social cooperation, the path to poverty and chaos.
Talking about freedom, we are not concerned with basic economic contradictions between capitalism and socialism. We note only that Europeans differ from an Asian exactly what he was accustomed to freedom and formed by it. Civilization of China, Japan, India, the Islamic Middle East even before their acquaintance with the Western way of life can not, of course, assume the barbarian civilizations. These peoples for many centuries, even millennia ago, have made tremendous strides in industry, architecture, literature, philosophy and education. They founded the mighty empire. However, later, their forward movement has stopped, they lost their cultural vitality, and they have forgotten how to cope with economic problems. Their intellectual and artistic genius faded away, artists and writers began to replicate traditional designs, theologians, philosophers and lawyers, all as one, have engaged in the interpretation of ancient sources. Monuments erected by their ancestors once, collapsed, the empire disintegrated. People lost their life force and remain indifferent to the continuing decline and impoverishment.
Philosophical and poetic monuments of the ancient peoples of the East can compete with the most valuable works of the West. But now for many centuries in the East, not a single large book. Intellectual and literary history of our time can hardly remember the name of an Eastern author. East ceased to participate in the intellectual strivings of mankind. He had remained alien and incomprehensible to the problems and controversies that agitated the West. In Europe, it was shaking, in the East - stagnation, laziness and indifference.

The reason for this situation is clear. In the East, was not the most important: the idea of human freedom from the state. East never raised the banner of freedom, not trying to oppose the rights of the individual power of rulers. No one here was indignant at the arbitrary tyrants, and therefore, naturally, did not develop the legal of the code that would protect citizens' property from confiscation by the whim of a tyrant. On the contrary, misled by the idea that wealth alone is the cause of poverty for others, even the people disapproved of the custom of tyrants to take away the most successful merchants of their property. This excluded the large accumulation of capital and barring the path to those benefits, which occurred in the presence of substantial investment. This prevented the emergence of the "bourgeoisie" and, therefore, the appearance of people able to patronize writers, artists, inventors. Nationals of the People were cut all the way to move, except one: to achieve something you could only service of the princes. Western society was community of individuals competing in the fight for the top awards to the east - a bunch of broken, wholly dependent on the mercy of the king. The energetic young man in the West looks at the world as a field of its activities, where it can achieve all: fame, honors, riches - for his ambition is nothing unattainable. His contemporary, languid and relaxed young man of the East, can only repeat the path required by the environment. Noble self-confidence inherent in the Europeans, found brilliant expression in Sophocles' choral hymn in "Antigone", praising the man and his enterprise, in Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Nothing like this has never sounded in the East.
Is it conceivable that the descendants of the people that created the European civilization, have abandoned freedom and voluntarily surrendered himself to the power of the omnipotent state? They agreed to be cogs in a giant machine, invented and driven all-powerful leader? Surely the example of stopped in their development of civilizations, they abandon the ideals for the attainment of which was brought more than one thousand victims?
Ruere in servitium, they plunged into slavery, sadly noted Tacitus, speaking of the Romans, the time of Tiberius.

[Самвел]

Сообщение от kozhinart

Philosophical works and poetic monuments of the ancient East can compete with the most valuable works of the West. But now for many centuries in the East, not a single large book. Intellectual and literary history of our time can hardly remember the name of an Eastern author. East ceased to participate in the intellectual strivings of mankind. He had remained alien and incomprehensible to the problems and controversies that agitated the West. In Europe, it was shaking, in the East - stagnation, laziness and indifference

The struggle between East and West, it is a war between consciousness and unconsciousness. West or capital can not live without the expansion, it has something to live should grab more land and their wealth is called a barbaric progress. One word of woe to anyone who seeks justice, not remember who said it.

[Art-lover]

It is clear that the blame for all Kant with his "no accounting for tastes." Once the taste of "no man's land, then why would it not work? Top hudrynka institutions simply were the last who managed appropriated taste.
Olivier Sen writes that gallerists taste discarded as unnecessary. This statement can be strengthened: the taste was sent to landfill, because it became a hindrance art business, and in the first place - the market sverhspekulyativnyh short-term investments.

Public purchase of works of art for big money - an act of approval by the bourgeoisie of his preference as a standard. If the money is divine, the commodity, which is paid big money - is holy, beautiful and full of all perfections. Pay the largest amount, and you prodemonstriruesh the most impeccable taste.
More than that, you pridash object of their preference status is not just socially prestigious, but also objectively beautiful - confounded Kant even without the help of the Neoplatonists. In the role of the latter had samoupolnomochennye artinstitutsii, for which he will receive the grand prize.

The contemporary art market slid into the path of inflation of the bubble, which has already led the world economy into crisis. The question now is only one: whether purses bourgeois as dimensionless, as the vanity of their owners?
If not, I'll predict: a o. time we will witness the second round of the battle Plato - Kant.

PS. The texts, which resulted in kozhinart, owned by Ludwig von Mises, a prominent economist, singer of the free market. All of them were written before 1950.
I give a piece of von Mises, sheds a balm for the soul of businessmen, offended by free artists, but at the same time protecting the freedom of independent artists from the encroachments of the powerful businessmen.

Читать дальше... 

There are baseless conceit of writers and bohemian artists allows them to condemn the activities of the businessman as unspiritual "making money". In fact, the entrepreneur or founder company takes much more intellectual ability than the average writer or artist. Mistake many people claim to intelligence, is precisely that they can not understand how much capacity and a sober mind is required in order to start and successfully run a company in the business world.

The emergence of a fairly large class of such irresponsible intellectuals is one of the most negative phenomena era of modern capitalism. Their obsession and fussiness discourage them from thinking people. They all hindrance. Humanity has nothing to lose, if it is a bit to reduce the temperature of these people, if not eradicated would have their circles and groups.

However, freedom - is the freedom for all. Any attempt to restrict the freedom of these decadent-writers and would-be painters would mean that the authorities be given the right to decide what is good and bad. This would be tantamount to the socialization of intellectual and artistic pursuit. It is not known, it would get rid of the useless and odious personalities, but surely would have put insurmountable obstacles to the development of creative genius. Strengths of this world - not fans of fresh ideas, trends, styles in art. They are generally against all innovations. Their power always means strict regulation of all, and it creates stagnation and decline.

Moral decay, promiscuity and intellectual sterility of a class is not very moral writers and artists - this is the price that humanity must pay in order to enable a true pioneer creators have their say. Freedom must be guaranteed to all, even the most unworthy people to unintentionally interfere with the few who can use it for the good of mankind. That freedom, reaching to immorality, which used a semi-indigent inhabitants of the Quartier Latin in Paris, was one of the prerequisites for the emergence of a few truly great writers, painters, sculptors. First we need a genius - to breathe the air of freedom.

After all, not the frivolous lifestyle bohemian blame for the fall of morals, but only what the community graciously accepts it

.