Американский Научный Журнал THE LAW OF PROPERTY (40-43)

The article discusses the problem of property as a social relationship. The idea of Adam Smith in the classical theory of labor value is accepted as fundamental, but with a significant generalization of this idea from the economic context as a special case to the general theoretical level of social philosophy, at which values are understood as products of both practical and spiritual activity. In this context, property is interpreted not as a person's relationship to things, but as the relationship of people to each other about things. Forms of property are not considered historically, as in Marx, but functionally – as the author sees it. In this version, capitalism and communism turn out to be economic myths, and forms of ownership are determined by the means of individualization of the jointly produced product. Скачать в формате PDF
40 American Scientific Journal № ( 39 ) / 2020

УДК 330.113 ГРНТИ 06.01.07


Крюков Виктор В.
Доктор философских наук, профессор.
Профессор кафедры правовых и социальных наук
Сибирского государственного университета геосистем и технологий.

Victor V. Kryukov
Dr. of Sc (Philos), Prof..
Professor of the Department of Lega l and Social Sciences
of Siberian State University of Geosystems and Technologies.

Аннотация . В статье обсуждается проблема собственности как социального отношения. В качестве
фундаментальной принята идея Адама Смита в классической теории трудовой стоимости, но со
значительным обобщением этой идеи из экономического контекста как особого случая на общий
теоретический уровень социальной философии, на котором ценности понимаются как продукты и
практической, и духовной активности. В этом контек сте собственность трактуется не как отношение
человека к вещам, а как отношение людей друг к другу по поводу вещей. Формы собственности
рассматриваются не исторически, как у Маркса, а функционально, как их усматривает автор. В такой
версии капитализм и ком мунизм оказываются экономическими мифами, а формы собственности
определяются способами индивидуализации сообща произведенного продукта.
Abstract . The article discusses the problem of property as a social relationship. The idea of Adam Smith in
the classi cal theory of labor value is accepted as fundamental, but with a significant generalization of this idea
from the economic context as a special case to the general theoretical level of social philosophy, at which values
are understood as products of both practical and spiritual activity. In this context, property is interpreted not as a
person's relationship to things, but as the relationship of people to each other about things. Forms of property are
not considered historically, as in Marx, but functiona lly – as the author sees it. In this version, capitalism and
communism turn out to be economic myths, and forms of ownership are determined by the means of
individualization of the jointly produced product.
Ключевые слова: стоимость, продукт труда, собстве нность, формы индивидуализации, закон
Key words: value, product of labor, property, forms of individualization, the rule of appropriation.

Social philosophy focuses on the basic categories
of economic theory – value and property. Here we turn
to the problem of property relations between people in
various forms of appropriation of things. The author
has addressed this issue and is ready to offer his own
version of property relations.
One of the founder o f the United States, Benjamin
Franklin, began the text of the American Constitution
with the famous words: all people are born equal, and
from birth they are endowed by God with the
inalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the
pursuit of happiness . The rights of a citizen in society
are ensured by the principle of inviolability of private
Jean -Jacques Rousseau about property
Theoretic idol of Franklin, Jean -Jacques
Rousseau, became famous for his shocking criticism of
“civilized” society. Already in his first, sensational
treatise on bed modern morals ( Discours sur les
Sciences et les Arts, 1750 ), he stated that “... virtue
disappeared as their (sciences and arts) shine rose
higher and higher above our horizon, and the same
phenomenon was observed everywhere.” [1]
All the more shocking was his point of view on the
“sacred cow” of bourgeois society – private property.
In his treatise “The reasoning about the origin and
basics of inequality between people” ( Discourse sur
l’origine et les fond ements de l’inegalite parmi les
homes, 1755 ), he wrote that the emergence of property
was originally associated with deception. “The first one
who fenced off a piece of land came up with the idea of
saying “This is mine!” and found people simple -
minded e nough to believe him, he was the true founder
of civil society.” [2] True, Rousseau understood
perfectly well that it was impossible to return to the
natural simplicity of morals, and property was a
necessary attribute of civilization. In an article for th e
Encyclopedia “On Political Economy” (1755) , he
argued that “the right to property is the most sacred of
citizens' rights and even more important in some
respects than freedom.” “Property is the true foundation
and the true guarantee of obligations betwee n people.”

American Scientific Journal № ( 39 ) / 2020 41

Marxist version of forms of ownership.
Unlike Rousseau, who interpreted property as a
legal relation, Karl Marx, in his fundamental four -
volume work “Das Kapital”, gaves the property relation
an economic meaning and regarded it as a system -
forming production relation on which the distribution,
exchange and consumption of production products
depend. The property relation arises not as a result of
deception, but out of necessity, and it is determined by
the level of development of the productiv e forces. More
precisely, by what element of the productive forces
plays a leading role in social production.
When there is no technology and a person has only
himself and the simplest hand tools, then he himself
becomes an object of appropriation. Slavery arises. It is
justified by the fact that slaves are barbarians captured,
and savages can and should be forced to work by force.
When the object of labor becomes the basis of
production – land for farmers, water in the Asian mode
of production, herds of ca ttle and pastures for
pastoralists – then natural resources become the object
of appropriation. Feudalism arises. The right to land is
appropriated by the first settler who managed to stake
out a plot: to dig in a pillar with the words “this is my
land!” f or rent. And then the land is “favored” by the
sovereigns for merits, and along with the vassals, there
are serving nobles.
When, as a result of the technical upheaval and the
industrial revolution, the means of production, capital
as “materialized labor”, become the main element of
the productive forces of society, bourgeois property
appears and “owners of factories, newspapers, ships”
take the first roles. And this is also justified. Who is a
proletarian? The one who has drunk everything that he
has worked out, eaten, skipped. And who is a capitalist?
The one who saved every penny and put everything he
saved “into business!” We will not recall the
“grimaces” of the ini tial accumulation of capital, but we
will agree that the main instrument of expanded
reproduction is the capitalization of profit.
These are, according to Marx, the historical forms
of ownership, and then – the public ownership of the
commune of people on the product of production and
the distribution of this product “in fairness”, which is
already beyond the scope of the economy. But this
pseudo -equality and selfish brotherhood we have
already passed during the “socialist experiment”.
The property rule
In the opinion of the author, [4] that is, in my
opinion, [5] all of the above “historical justifications”
for property rights are nothing more than economic
myths. The reason for the illusory nature of such
explanations, I believe, is that the same Marx, who
often repeated that property is a relationship between
people about things, nevertheless determines the forms
of this relationship according to the object of
appropriation. But if property is a relationship between
people, then the forms of this relations hip should be
determined precisely by the subject of appropriation.
In the process of labor, people unite with each
other and the production of all vital goods has a social
character. Marx rightly argued that “a person works
together even when, apparently, he does it alone.” Like
sailor Robinson at Daniel Defoe on a desert island,
behind which humanity invisibly stands. Let's expand
this formula into the opposite statement: a person
consumes alone even when, apparently, he does it
together! When the communa rds put a large cauldron
of stew on a common dining table, then, ultimately,
each communard gets his own bowl, his own spoon and
his own individual ration, because in the process of
consumption material goods are destroyed, amortized
partially or completel y. Therefore, the communards can
wear a single pair of boots only in turn, and not all
together and at the same time, and the eaten loaf of
bread will no longer get to anyone.
The source of the property relationship is the need
to resolve the dialectical c ontradiction between the
social nature of production and the individual nature of
consumption, therefore property is nothing more than a
way of individualizing the jointly produced product.
“The crow -magpie cooked porridge, fed the children.
She gaves this and gaves this, but this one did not gives:
you didn’t chop wood, didn’t carry water, didn’t knead
dough – you don’t have anything! ” – here is a
figurative presentation of the principle of equivalence
of the measure of labor and the share of consumption.
But then what determines the various ways of
individualization and, consequently, the forms of
In the production process, social actors are
arranged in a hierarchy – ranking from bottom to top –
according to the number of participants and the q uality
of cooperation. One person – a man – can not share with
anyone, therefore his property is individual, that is,
indivisible. Of course, he will have to pay taxes on the
maintenance of an official, soldier, teacher and doctor,
but that's another story .
Several people – an workshop, a team, who are
united by direct joint work, can divide their product
according to the amount of living labor – let’s say,
according to workdays or according to the coefficient
of labor participation. And this will be group
ownership, as in a cooperative.
Many people – the collective of a factory, a plant,
a corporation – unite their labor indirectly and do not
interact directly with each other. They can divide their
product only to the extent of materialized labor, that is,
in accordance with the amount of previously expended
labor and capitalized profits. This can be a share
contribution, investment in production, shares of an
enterprise, etc. If there is nothing of this, then the
employee sells his labor and receives its va lue for this
– wages in accordance with qualifications, not counting
on a share of profit. This is collective, it is also
corporate property.
A lot of people – the masses – generally unite their
labor in an indirect way, so here only one way of
distributin g the product is possible: “leveling”. This
method is typical for public institutions, for example,
trade unions, where any member can get a ticket to a
dispensary, send a child to a health camp, etc., because
membership fees are the same for everyone. Mun icipal
or, for example, church property is in common and
equal use. This is mass property, although even here the
chairman of the trade union committee or the head of

42 American Scientific Journal № ( 39 ) / 2020
the district administration may have hidden
preferences. But this is a corruption.
Finally, the total society as a whole can distribute
its wealth – primarily natural resources – exclusively
according to needs. Let's say a peasant needs land, but
only as much as he can cultivate. An entrepreneur needs
a mine or a piece of forest land to extract wood, but
only to the extent that he can collect the means of
production and make a profit. And me, a university
professor, do not need either land or a gold mine,
because I cannot do anything worthwhile with them,
and if they are forced upon me, I will quickly go broke.
For those who can and want to exploit natural
resources, there are concessions, long -term leases,
perpetual and hereditary use, but only use, not property.
And in this case, we are dealing with public property,
since the same land i s not a product of labor (apart from
the cultivation invested in it): it is God's, that is, it is the
property of our grandfathers and fathers, mine and
yours as residents of this country, our children and our
grandchildren. Users will give the agreed part of the
profit to the manager - the state, and it, our dear, will
give us, sinners, a small fraction through the social
items of the state budget.
What determines the level of socialization of
labor? Resource intensity (labor, energy, raw materials,
financ e, technology, know -how) of the thing being
produced. If I can produce something without the help
of other people – it say, grow potatoes in the garden and
even sell the surplus on the market, then I am a typical
individual entrepreneur and, in theory, I a m not obliged
to share with anyone.
If I want to build a home, then I cannot cope with
all my desire alone, and I have to involve a group, even
relatives or friends, and put them a reward, or even hire
workers altogether. And with the team, you need a
calc ulation.
If I want to mass produce a product and saturate
the market with it, I have to invest capital, that is, create
an enterprise, purchase raw materials and hire labor,
and on a scale corresponding to the complexity of the
product: from a candle facto ry to a car factory. This is
already a corporation and typical capital as “value
producing surplus value.”
But, for example, no one, not even a transnational
corporation, can handle the spaceship “Shuttle”: here it
is necessary to unite thousands of teams under the
auspices of the state within the framework of a national
program. The laying of roads and communication lines,
the launch of satellites and the launching of ships, the
production of tanks and aircraft are supported by a
government order. The part icipation and control of the
state is necessary in “natural monopoly” – finance,
energy, transport, communications, and finally in the
“defense industry”! And this is public property, part of
which, but only part (without fanaticism!) – can be
privatized f or specific investments and certainly not for
voucher pennies, but at real cost.
Here it is – the law of property: the form of
individualization of a social product is determined by
the level of socialization of labor, which, in turn, is
directly proportio nal to the value of the resource
intensity of the result produced.
And finally, is it possible to influence the
hierarchy of social subjects and shift the level of
socialization of labor in one direction or another?
Naturally, this happens due to the impro vement of
technologies and the introduction of innovations, and
then this level decreases or increases depending on the
simplification of production or the appearance of more
complex products.
But it is possible to influence artificially, by force
methods, from total nationalization in one case up to the
socialization of chickens and the collectivization of
everyday life in communes, and then we will get the
“longed -for” communism, but at the same time a total
deficit, since with a general equalizing distri bution, the
incentive to work will disappear as such. In another
case, we can declare a total privatization, which liberal
reformers promised by oath to every Soviet citizen, and
we will get “terry” capitalism in its “pure form”.
Needless to say, neither o ne nor the other has been
anywhere and never, and indeed it cannot be, since total
collectivization and total privatization are the
asymptotes, the idealizations, i.e., really unattainable
limits of the organization of the economic life of
society. In the first case, the forms of real distribution
will go into the shadows and a criminal “black market”
is formed, and in the second, the declared individual
owners will inevitably begin to unite, stray into
companies, forced to do so by the very nature and scal e
of social production. And this is nothing more than a
mixed economy , which is what the author of “Das
Kapital” called a natural -historical pattern.
Such a state of society cannot be introduced by
legislative means, and this was already clear to Karl
Marx : “... Society, even if it fell on the trail of the
natural law of its development, ... can neither jump over
the natural phases of development, nor cancel the latter
by decrees.” [6]
Trying to directively embody this or that
ideological myth into economic reality – whether
communism or capitalism – is an occupation that will
generate only, in the words of Immanuel Kant, “a lot of
funny fussy movements, and nothing else.” It’s
approximately as if the Parliament of Russia sudden ly
adopted a law that from January 1 of next year all
citizens of Russia should become greens: after all, we
will not turn green anyway. True, there are many law -
abiding, first of all, officials who in the morning before
the job or service will smear their faces with green
paint, doing their usual show. However, coming home
in the evening, they will wash off this paint with great
pleasure and become ordinary people.
The natural state of a mixed economy society of
mankind will acquire when its contradictions are
correctly resolved, when democracy makes it
impossible to push society to extremes, to social
asymptotes, and economic policy will be subordinated
to true, not imaginary values, common sense, and not
economic mythology.

References :
[1] Руссо Ж. -Ж. Способствовало ли развитие
наук и искусств улучшению общественных нравов?

American Scientific Journal № ( 39 ) / 2020 43

[Has the development of the arts and sciences
contributed to the improvement of public mores?] /
Трактаты . – М.: Академия , 1969. – С. 14. Rousseau
J.-J. Treatises. – Moscow: Academy Publishing, 1969.
– P. 14. (In Russian)

[2] Руссо Ж.-Ж. Об источнике и основаниях
неравенства между людьми [On the source and
grounds of inequality between people] / Трактаты . –
М.: Академия , 1969. – С. 72. Rousseau J. -J. Treatises.
– Moscow: Academy Publishing, 1969. – P. 72. (In
[3] Руссо Ж. -Ж. О политической экономии [ On
political economy ] / Трактаты. – М.: Академия, 1969.
– С. 72. Rousseau J. -J. Treatises. – Moscow: Academy
Publishing, 1969. – P. 72. (In Russia n)
[4] Kryukov V. Basics of axiology . Why do we
appreciate it? / Monograth. – Scholars’ Press:
International Book Market Ser vice Ltd. – Beau Bassin,
Mauritius. – 2020. – 181 p. – P. 89 -95.
[5] Kryukov V. Pyilosophy in a simple and clear
presentation: monograph. – London: SCIEURO, –
2020. – 200 p. – P. 94 -100.
[6] Маркс К. К критике политической
экономии [To the Critics of Poli tical Economy] / К.
Маркс , Ф. Энгельс . – Соч . – Т.23. - С. 10. K . Marx , F.
Engels . – Op . – V.23. – P. 10. ( In Russian )


Леонтьев Рудольф Георгиевич
д-р экон. наук, профессор,
почетный работник высшего профессионального образования РФ,
главный научный сотрудник ВЦ ДВО РАН,
г. Хабаровск , Российская Федерация


Leontyev R.G.
Computer center of the Far East office Russian Academy of Sciences
Khabarovsk , Russia

Аннотация . В статье подвергнуты анализу представленные в отзыве официального оппонента
(профессора) списанные им оценки достоверности положений и выводов исследования менеджмента
аэропортами местных воздушных линий. Доказано, что эти оценки являются фальсифицированной
информацией, предназначенной для придания данному о тзыву видимости высококвалифицированного
документа государственной научной аттестации и тем самым запутать все экспертное сообщество и других
представителей научной общественности о релевантности, рассмотренной оппонентом диссертации.
Annotation . The artic le analyzes the reviews written off by the official opponent (professor) written off by
him of the reliability of the provisions and conclusions of the study of airport management of local airlines. It is
proved that these estimates are falsified informati on intended to give this review the appearance of a highly
qualified document of state scientific certification and thereby confuse the entire expert community and other
representatives of the scientific community about the relevance considered by the oppo nent of the dissertation.
Ключевые слова: Аэропорты, местные воздушные линии (МВЛ), государственная научная
аттестация, диссертация, отзыв официального оппонента, фальсифицированные оценка, достоверность
положений и выводов диссертации.
Key words: Airports , local air lines (MVL), state scientific certification, dissertation, official opponent’s
review, falsified assessment, reliability of the provisions and conclusions of the dissertation.

Между невежеством и знанием
лежит пропасть.
Японская пословица

Известно, что в соответствии с пунктом 20
(абзац 1) действующего тогда “Положения о
порядке присуждения ученых степеней”,
утвержденного постановлением правительства РФ
от 30 января 2002 года № 74 (в редакции
постановления правительства РФ от 20 июня 2011
года № 475), «диссертационные советы назначают
официальных оппонентов по диссертации « из числа
компетентных в соответствующей отрасли науки
ученых ».
Однако, «диссертационный совет ДМ
223.005.02 при Морском государственном
университете и м. адм. Г.И. Невельского» по
диссертации Милой назначил первым
официальным оппонентом д.э.н., профессора,
директора института международного бизнеса
ВГУЭС Латкина А.П., который ни по образованию,
ни по роду научной и преподавательской
деятельности и ни по областям его научных
интересов никак не связан со сферой транспорта и,
особенно, в области гражданской авиации. В 2012
году не были известны его "ваковские" и обычные
научные публикации в этой же сфере.
Поэтому профессор Латкин А.П. в 2012 году не
являлся «ученым, компетентным в