2 Answers

  1. I completely agree with F.'s position. Iskander. The semantic load in this statement is carried by the word “stability”, which is synonymous with the word”stability”. Let's try to understand how “chains” and” property ” give stability to society. I think there are different types of stability. On the one hand — negative stability at the level of conservatism, and on the other — positive stability at the level of liberalism.
    Our state was stable during the Soviet period. Then there was no feedback between the consumer and the manufacturer. In the absence of competition, this situation led to the fact that manufacturers could work, regardless of the quality of products. Therefore, the state authorities had to specifically encourage enterprises to take care of the quality of the goods produced. The directive plan was adopted by the center. The state was the owner of the produced products and carried out their distribution. Control over the implementation of the plan, which took the form of a law, was carried out on the basis of administrative and criminal liability. At the same time, the salary did not serve as an incentive to work. Many developed a psychology of social dependency. There was a shortage of everyday goods. All these disadvantages of the command and administrative economy can only be called chains, because they hindered the development of the economy. But there were also advantages: low prices, guaranteed earnings, the absence of unemployed people and, as a result, sustainable development without economic crises. The inefficiency of purely team methods in the economy manifested itself quite early: in the 1960s and 1970s, attempts were made to implement economic reforms.
    Ownership is a more acceptable form of social sustainability. I believe that F. Iskander was referring to private property. Because it contributes to the sustainable development of society.
    We all want to live in a stable society. But if we were faced with a choice, most would choose a market economy with freedom of private ownership, rather than a command-and-control economy with its chains.

  2. This is the first time I hear this statement, but the following immediately comes to mind: the society itself will be stable if it includes property, and vice versa, if the property is taken away from the society, then it will have to be controlled by repression, etc.

Leave a Reply