A Bunches Thoughts

Of Marin Angel Lazarov

01.

The world is being taken over by the hydra of financial capitalism, which wants to pocket all of its citizens’ income. Citizens themselves are led to believe that it’s all for the sake of efficiency, and that what the robber barons are doing is not robbery, but honest earnings.’ Michael Hudson began his career as a music critic. Everything changed after he had lunch with a translator of Marx’s works. Exploring the systemic links between finance, production and the economy seemed so interesting to him that he immediately decided to become an economist. The best way to learn about the world around you is through practice. Michael got a job on Wall Street, where he did statistical analysis while studying at university. He immediately noticed that commercial banks were more interested in loans secured by real estate, which would bring in a steady interest income, than in start-ups and industrial investments. Later, Michael got involved in foreign trade statistics and uncovered a tax avoidance scheme used by leading oil companies: they resold oil through offshore companies in Liberia and Panama, where the entire fat margin was skimmed off. Later, Michael learned another truth: the helicopter with the money only flies over Wall Street. He also noted that the United States’ financial deficit was mainly caused by its military spending. The Vietnam War forced the US to abandon the gold standard (which Hudson had warned about three years before it happened). But the gold standard was replaced by the US Treasury bond standard. After moving into academia, Michael studied the history of the origin of money. He noted that from century to century, debts grow faster than the economy, leading to bankruptcies and economic polarization if they are not written off. His findings refuted libertarian arguments about the emergence and development of the first ancient economies and formed the basis of a modern branch of anthropology, whose most prominent representative was David Graeber, author of the latest book (“The Beginning of Everything. A New History of Humanity”). His bestseller Debt: The First 5,000 Years was, in essence, a popularization of Hudson’s approach. Hudson never tires of repeating: if a debt cannot be repaid, it must be written off. But there is one debt that cannot be written off: the official external debt of the United States government. Michael is known for his passionate criticism of the financial capitalism that dominates the planet. What can he offer in its place? Probably socialism. However, nowhere in the book did I find a definition of the system proposed by the author. Many of us would like to grasp the essence of the global economy, understand what it is and where it is going. The problem is that this science is not only complex, but also extremely politicized. Its conclusions are not always indisputable because they are based on non-obvious axioms. In such circumstances, there are enough people willing to confuse the minds of ordinary people so that ideas dangerous to those people do not enter their heads. Today, neoliberalism, which dominates the global media, provides a cover for the elites’ desire to resist regulation and progressive taxation. The libertarian idea of minimal government is in fact a way of putting that government at the service of foreign interests. As a result, power ends up in the hands of the richest percentage of the population, while ‘free markets’ and trade are in the hands of creditors and other retires. This crowd is obsessed with its wealth and can never get enough. This is overlooked (I wonder if deliberately?!) by modern economists. They fail to see that without a system of checks and balances, the economy will inevitably become polarized. After all, the wealthy elites, having merged with the government, will only continue to strengthen their position and milk everyone else. The traditional motto of American foreign policy, ‘What is good for America is good for the whole world,’ now sounds different: ‘What is good for Wall Street is good for the whole world.’ Half-measures will not change this situation. It will be necessary to write off debts, carry out tax reform, and create public infrastructure to prevent monopolies. In short, the system needs to be changed. A new, alternative economy is needed that would prevent the emergence of predatory elites who collect economic rent. And for this, we must first learn to distinguish between earned and unearned income. I will ask the question: why is this so important? And I will answer: because unearned income is subject to confiscation. The question of rent was at the heart of economic debates in the nineteenth century. In the end, post-classical economic ideology prevailed, asserting that there is no such thing as rent and, as a result, all income is earned. Statistics for calculating gross domestic product (GDP) and economic growth were built on this basis. The nineteenth century was the century of industrial capitalism. All successful economies were mixed, i.e. those in which the financial sector was linked to a system of checks and balances. Britain achieved dominance through protectionism and support for its manufacturers at the expense of its colonies. The British pound sterling was established as the currency in the colonies. The United States took off in a similar way. After the Civil War, it imposed protective tariffs and embarked on the construction of extensive public infrastructure to support its manufacturers. Today, Chinese students at American universities are taught the doctrine of comparative advantage, according to which an agrarian country should remain agrarian. It is better for it that way! All this is said against the backdrop of praise for American financial capitalism. Its ‘success,’ however, is limited to a thin layer of elites, while the rest of the economy is mired in debt and the living standards of the majority have been stagnating for four decades. If you look at the Forbes list of the rich, you will see more real estate pyramid builders and monopolists than industrialists. The one per cent has become so rich because it keeps the other 99 per cent in debt. This class of creditors and landowners uses its wealth to control the political system, in which politicians and judges are appointed by big money. Modern financial capitalism seeks to dominate industry not through innovation and cost reduction. Why bother when you can buy companies on credit, then resell their property and impose pseudo-costs on them to pay yourself dividends? As a result, the US economy is being deindustrialized, while digital and infrastructure monopolists are fleecing consumers. It all started quite differently. Classical economists developed the theory of value to isolate economic rent as unearned income. The idea of a free market was freedom from this rent, from farmers, monopolists and creditors who took their income regardless of the costs incurred. Thinkers of the time, from the French physiocrats to Marx, saw the historical role of industrial capitalism in liberating society from the legacy of feudalism with its motto ‘I sit, and the money comes.’ The labor theory of value sought to demonstrate the inefficiency and dishonesty of such practices. By the end of the century, another goal had been added: government investment in infrastructure to prevent natural monopolies from falling into private hands. Since then, much has changed in economic science. First, the religious prohibitions on usury that remained in some places were rejected, then the classical reforms against hereditary land ownership, as well as the logic of increasing economic productivity. The very concept of unearned income has disappeared into oblivion. The idea of exploitation has gone the same way. Today, students do not study the history of political economy, but are given the misleading impression that growing inequality and economic polarization are a temporary anomaly rather than a universal feature of reenter economies. Today’s financial and increasingly privatized economies are focused precisely on the predatory extraction of rent, despite the fact that this is a direct path to polarization and the concentration of wealth at the top of the pyramid. No one cares about increasing productivity and growing prosperity. The main thing is to skim the cream off the top. Looking at this picture, the author (Michael Hudson) of the book admits that even Marx was an optimist when he believed in the philosophy of industrial capitalism. The neoconservative turn that began with Thatcher and Reagan stopped wage growth but led to an explosion of wealth for the One (1%) Percent. Under the slogan of fighting centralised planning, resources began to be distributed by Wall Street rather than elected officials. All profits, regardless of how they are earned, are counted in the gross domestic product. It does not matter that they are actually transfer payments from one hand to another. The hope that banks, remaining in private hands, would focus on industrial lending has collapsed. Today, China is following in the footsteps of the United States at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. It is achieving its goals by keeping the financial sector in the hands of the state. It is not surprising that there is hissing from across the ocean: they have succeeded where the modern United States has failed, where the interests of rentiers have carried out an ‘anti-classical counter-revolution that is deindustrialization America.’ Hudson avoids the expression ‘fight against exploitation.’ But Marxists, whose ideological heir he is, live by this idea of justice. Does he really consider it outdated? In a sense, yes. The fact is that while in Marx’s (Karl Marx) time, capitalists could not do without the broad masses of the proletariat, today their labour is becoming more and more automated. What should these masses, who find themselves on the sidelines of history, do? It is no longer possible to point a finger at someone and say, ‘Here he is, the exploiter, let’s dispossess him.’ This is precisely where Hudson’s argument comes in handy: this income is not earned. The bourgeois did not work hard to get it. And what is not earned must be confiscated. Taken away and divided. Is that fair? Yes, it is! Hudson mentions in a positive light the labour theory of value, which was buried by the Austrians led by Carl Menger (1840–1921). But I have never seen any debate with them on this point. After all, they argued their ideas. What do we see in Hudson? Just regret that economic theory has been taken over by neoliberals. But this did not happen just like that. They came to power at the turn of the 1980s against the backdrop of a serious crisis and stagflation. Who was in charge of the economy before that? Who brought it to this state? The ideological heirs of Marx and Keynes, who worked very much in the spirit of Hudson and promoted the role of the state in the economy. It is futile to look for references to those times in Michael’s books. And this does not speak well for the author. Cons (in the book): Praise for the Chinese model can be found in almost every chapter. Unfortunately, either the author is unfamiliar with it, or he is deliberately distorting (which I believe more) the facts. Yes, the state dominates the country’s financial sector. But private banks are also growing and thriving. And there, you can take out loans and end up in debt bondage. Therefore, all the bad things that the author associates with financial capitalism already exist in the PRC. It’s just that, at this stage, they are not as prevalent.

02

It is not good for man to be alone’ (Genesis 2:18), said the Lord. Contemporary psychologists and psychotherapists eagerly discuss the dangers of this condition, coming up with new recipes for happiness. But is it really that bad? Is it harmful for everyone? For some, loneliness is a period when one can reflect on spiritual matters and change oneself, while for others it is a difficult and painful ordeal. But one way or another, when this state becomes the ‘norm’ of life, internal disharmony begins. Every person is born to give to others the love that God has placed within them, and when this does not happen, the divine plan is lost, and the person becomes a ‘thing in itself.’ Solitary confinement has always been considered one of the most severe and cruel punishments. By their very nature, people always need community; loneliness is unnatural and uncomfortable for them. It is only in relationships with other people that one’s own ‘I’ is revealed and manifested, and one’s creative potential is unlocked. Nowadays, people are distant from one another. The pursuit of material well-being and social status takes away all their vital energy, leaving them with no strength or time to build trusting relationships with one another. This is especially true in huge metropolises, where people can live next door to each other for years without knowing one another. In such huge urban ‘oceans’, where everyone is constantly rushing somewhere, not hearing or noticing each other, there is less and less room for love and mutual understanding. The result is mass alienation, the forgetting of our ancestors’ traditions, and a lack of simple human communication. The phenomenon of ‘loneliness in a crowd’ has been described by many scientists, and it is now more relevant than ever. A person may be surrounded by thousands of other people, but still not receive warmth and support from them. Living people are replaced by mechanisms and cold social media accounts, and internet communication creates only a weak illusion of being needed and in demand, beyond which the notorious feeling of loneliness is still keenly felt. This problem particularly affects the institution of the traditional family, which is becoming less and less relevant to young people. The image of a lonely person is in vogue today. The modern mass media presents loneliness as a blessing and marriage as a collection of hassles and problems. According to the mass media, it allows you to be independent, free from family worries, not accountable to anyone for anything, and not to take on the burden of responsibility. In other words, ‘have fun and don’t think about anything!’ The trend of being single is inextricably linked to a focus on oneself, one’s ego. The position of a single person is falsely presented as the most advantageous and convenient. The main message of the modern mass media is that it is easier and simpler to survive alone, and this is successfully accepted by many as a lifestyle. The image of a single, free woman is successfully created by the modern media. She is independent, selfish, ambitious, successful and self-sufficient. Beautiful goods and famous brands are all she needs to be happy. Modern training courses for women with titles such as ‘How to become a bitch’ are, alas, becoming more popular every day… At the same time, the image of a single, free man is being created – a macho man who also enjoys living alone, enjoying the same fruits of consumer culture. But sooner or later, everyone realizes that these images are false and do not bring happiness. When a person is completely alone among material goods, without love and support, then comes the realization that modern models of ‘happiness’ are wrong. The cult of selfishness is widespread in the media. We are encouraged to think first and foremost about ourselves, our interests and desires. Such attitudes are promoted as positive, with advertising slogans saying things like: ‘Allow yourself this! Pamper yourself! Think about yourself!’ There is an imaginary feeling of loneliness when a person is fixated only on themselves, their desires, does not seek to love, is egocentric, and exaggerates their feelings and experiences. It is difficult to build relationships with such people; they are avoided because they give nothing in return during communication, but only consume. But at the same time, there is also real loneliness, which is felt by a large number of people all over the world. But to despair and become despondent in such a situation is to cause the greatest harm to oneself, to one’s soul. And if a person struggles with their sinful nature, if they seek God and connect with Him, it means that they trust Him. If such trust exists, then the feeling of loneliness is quite surmountable, and this tragedy of earthly human life is resolved. Many lonely people cease to believe that the Lord can change their lives for the better. They cease to trust God. Having suffered many setbacks in life and been burned by the cruelty and misunderstanding of those around them, many people begin to fear loving and doing good to others. The fear of new pain, new trials and insults stems from a feeling of excessive self-love and vanity. Such people think first and foremost about themselves, their feelings and emotions (‘How can I prevent them from hurting me? What will happen to me?’). We all suffer from loneliness to some extent. It is a difficult trial for everyone, but it is important to remember that those who bear this cross willingly, without complaint or reproach, receive comfort from the Lord, and it becomes a feat for them. According to Christian teaching, the best remedy for loneliness is faith in God and helping others. Every person, even the sickest and weakest, can help another. As Simeon of Athos said, ‘To help another person, you don’t have to be strong and rich — it is enough to be kind.’ Let it be a kind word, valuable advice or a sincere prayer. Only by treating others with love and kindness can a person break the chains of loneliness and become truly needed and sought after.

03

Loneliness… You are surrounded by cheerful friends, laughter and pleasant bustle, music is playing, couples are dancing, but your soul is restless and you want to leave. A rainy autumn day and an evening walk in the park have brought you sad thoughts and driven you into melancholy. At home, a cold bed awaits you, an uncooked dinner, an open bottle of wine, a single empty glass on the table and… Loneliness. It’s like rust… it started with a small empty space, it started from the inside and slowly eats away at you completely. It eats away at your romantic desires, your bright thoughts. Loneliness turns you into a creature with a sad look in your eyes. Your bright, colorful world begins to fade. Your lips have already forgotten what a smile and healthy laughter are. There is no longer a bright spark in your eyes, only complete disappointment and wild fatigue. Disappointment from unfulfilled hopes, collapsed plans, empty promises. Exhaustion from the endless search for happiness, from false love, pretended lies and a series of failures. Loneliness… time passes, years fly by and you get used to the idea of it. It becomes the norm in your life. It becomes a part of you. And you are a lonely wanderer, misunderstood by everyone, unloved by anyone, wandering through labyrinths, looking for a way out, waiting for help. Loneliness is a dead end, a closed path. A train that has derailed, a road leading nowhere. A swan that has strayed from its flock. A dried-up lake… A plundered nest… Loneliness is the most exquisite test of strength of spirit!

Poetry

IT’S ALL OVER

They said, ‘It’s all over.’

I got up,

Put on my old coat,

Went out the door

And still couldn’t understand

What was missing.

I tried to remember

And discovered that I had lost my memory.

Old paintings dripped

From the walls of my home,

And blurred spots

Remained fresh.

The paint seemed wet,

Quite new —

Its smell strangely excited me.

I looked down at my feet

And saw a worm.

It was rushing somewhere,

Bending in its own way

And picking up speed.

I also quickened my pace

And I noticed a new beauty all around,

Apparently, it had been mistreated

And more than once.

The wind whipped my faceWith the wrinkled palms of leaves.

The road was deserted.

I was in a hurry everywhere.

I remembered the old joys of freedom,

Fainted after sharp turns

And began to understand

That I didn’t want to live again.

A belated streak of a comet —

A couple of words in the nameless sky:

“It’s all over.”

And now I lie on the ground,

Humming a forgotten love song.

Beautiful, isn’t it?

(Marin Angel Lazarov)

Marin A. Lazarov (amata) was born 63 years ago – on 24 April 1961. During his life he wrote more than 1000 poems. I hope no one will argue with me that Marin’s poems are the best that gave the world Bulgarian poetry at the end of XX century and the beginning of XXI century.