eh, they have a very good opportunity. it is clear that it was not easy for a manufacturer to enter a shopping center before, if the situation has changed, there are immediately several dozen stores there. yes, or some kind of detex, there are several acres. uh now the mall realizing they need tenants. we went to meet began to offer, finally, normal conditions. not our manufacturers began to occupy these niches and began to offer good products. she is in demand. well, it is clear that we all expect. uh, increase in attendance at shopping centers next year. here you go, such statistics, we keep such statistics, we work with the association of shopping centers, and on a regular basis and, of course, together with them we work out everything. uh, possible m-th scenarios that could be. well , that is, the pandemic balls are worse in terms of attendance than it is now, but in terms of

retail trade turnover in general , we compare food all the time. yes, he remained at the same level for non-production. eh, the numbers are worse. uh-huh it's minus 9%, but again, no account. uh, consumer goods, and due to the fall of the auto industry, because the auto industry is taken into account in the sale of non-food products. basically activity. uh, there our citizens consumer activity. it remains quite high, not much worse than it was just in the last or the year before the retail chains. they stopped taking the opportunity to cash in on patricia at some point difficult or not, or became more responsible. no, the big ones have also stopped medium regional retail chains. now those people who have undertaken the obligation to put no more than 5% on a wide list of socially significant goods are behaving very responsibly, they notified the federation about this. at their

service and they are required to comply with this notice. they do. well, we looked at rosstat on the average markup on food products. uh wide spectrum. well, including socially significant or those that we hmm, as it were, in fact include, which are not included in the list, but we actually relate to socially, significantly in networks is about 16%. this is still understandable three times more, but again, the list that is clearly recorded by the government. uh-huh there's a decat on the obligation of interest. they are kept clear that there are goods for which the margin is much higher. eh, well, we are starting from the medium network detail. yes, all of them, especially public networks, publish their reports for the period, so it doesn’t matter one way or another. uh, return on sales leaves. uh, somewhere. hmm, about three to five. percent per year. here, but once again i say, yes, those obligations that the retail chains have assumed. but they are not fulfilled by vasily. this is

their position on the one hand, and on the other hand. they understand that they immediately fall under strict surveillance. e of the corresponding type of floor organ. uh-huh and all this can be followed by significant punishment in the form of significant fines. it is no thank you very much for talking. thank you. hello in russia decade of science and technology ntv educational project of the state corporation rosatom about people endowed with knowledge of their technologies present a program on how science will change

our lives in the next 10 years. i am vladimir antokhin. i am ekaterina shugaeva. in 10 years science will abolish private property science will indeed abolish private property. this is anton kuznetsov good evening and pyat tsvetkov, economist hello good evening, traditionally my guests are skeptics. this is konstantin shurunov, a specialist in the field of information security. good evening. i am alexander karasev, clinical laboratory doctor diagnostics. good evening at the end of the program our guests and optimists will make a forecast of what probability in 10 years science will really abolish private property about the history of private property our expert professor kapustin will tell, get ready for the transfer. i asked my university colleagues, economists and philosophers. and what is property in general and what is

private property to explain plainly, well, no one could, although everyone seems to understand what private property is, that is, private property. this is everything that is not the property of the state. definition of state property. no better. this is everything that belongs to the state, but private property itself can be different, for example, copyright property is individual property. and even state-owned, if state structures act as owners. although the state form of ownership remains exactly the same as the others, the individual, group joint-stock corporate historical term, private property arose when the need to separate state property from all others, that is, everything is not state. this is private. well, there is a strange misconception that private property is the undivided

property of the owner. in fact, the private trader has every right to carry out all transactions with his property, but without invading the property of other people precisely for this confusion. even professors of law cannot give a precise definition. what is private property anyway? there are many places where you can watch the winner. but only one single winner can give each martial arts bet one x bet. don't miss the event and people of the week on central television. torrential rain and sleet slowed down the fighting in ukraine, how can kiev take advantage of this respite

? battle for the white house. could again slide into a boring dream in the political ring between trump and biden, if the elections had not black messiah intervened can the famous rapper kanye wales break the american political system and become president? mozart vs. wagner , a private company of americans and british, fighting on the side of ukraine, took the name of the austrian composer, which is what foreign military tourists are actually doing in the battle zone. this will be your central television on saturday at 19:00 on ntv pentalgin is the number one remedy for pain , spasm and inflammation with headaches and other types of pain pentalgin will do without pain for only 4 days a day a year, such a graph turns into a glass back

for 599 rubles. decorative cosmetics up to 45% off bibika diapers. a rate of six and eight tenths of a percent the meeting point of impressions is only on 4 days a year the

counts are the same before the shark turns into a side. from november 25, stop dress for 899 rubles. smartphone infinix for 4.99 rubles. shampoo nature siberica for 99 rubles. stump everything p99 black friday in sportmaster app discounts up to 70% on clothes of famous brands in your pocket, if you have sportmaster app buy turkey breast fillet application. i've

been waiting for such a sale for 500 years, and i said that you're 200 black friday at ozone wake up the shopping in yourself, right now up to 40% discount on tea. ahmad ti set with 12 books letter l for 439 rubles. bacteria and viruses can be found everywhere in every apartment in every school. now they have nowhere to hide to the place knocks down germs up to four times faster than conventional means, invincible cleaning agent to the place at a bargain price in pyaterochka stores for 399 rubles. can i test myself or subscribe?

did someone call kostya? how good is kostya idea to help native substation cardiologists and obstetrician-gynecologists, ambulance new season from monday at 20:00 on ntv scientific investigation by sergey malozemov, new season tomorrow at 11:00 on ntv continuation of the legendary superstar show. the return theme of today's chanson were urban romance after what you see your life will actually share the water and later. the

guitar of may was embodied and the chanson chanson did not happen, how would your grandmother say it’s not like these ski government tunes that were before this is such a number on the verge and beyond, superstar. return season 3 premieres on sunday at 22 on ntv has everything you need to send you to the isolation ward right from here.

the next 10 years and you don’t let me take your phone with you. it's just that i know him so well. well, at least just hold it in your hands alexander vladimirovich why

is it so important for people to own something completely , maybe there are some biological foundations. yes, besides the fact that i'm a doctor. i really love life science biology it if we look the origin of life, which took place about 4 billion years ago, then those same bacteria , primitive life forms, were already fighting for their space for their resources. if we make the simplest experiment, we will plant two bacteria on a petri dish with an artificial environment. they will start to grow. eventually colonies will grow. and they will start to touch, there will be a line of contact , not a single colony will penetrate each other, on the one hand. every bacteria. defends his piece of earth on the other side. it's already their property. collective pass. then a tree grows, a bird builds a nest. she protects her territory by not letting her lay her eggs, well, unlike the cuckoo, who parasitize on this, uh, lions, who already form a family, who hold

the territory, do not allow their other relatives to invade there, that is, they also have, a shared collective form of private property. it turns out that these are some biological foundations and, probably, sometimes we want to conquer, like people a biological species, some foreign territory to seize some property to get some resource, therefore all the biological bases for the fact that private property exists and exists, they are. anton viktorovich and when did private property arise at all? well, here, and who generally led the term itself, well, since the term itself is underdetermined, the essential, like property, and private property, point to someone specific. well no, no no, yes no possibility, as you often do. and even if i point to someone, then experts from jurisprudence of economics. ah, sociology or other disciplines that talk about this, may be

indignant and say. no, that's the classic was this, so the question itself. it doesn’t matter when exactly the term appears, but there are really big problems in order to understand a, uh, when the institution of private property arises, you can apply different criteria to it in completely different ways, but one way or another, the institution of private property is associated with endowing a subject. political rights, at least the presence of political rights determines the existence of private property, and if a indians who share the booty with each other, and keep this booty. yes, we will not, we will not say that this is private property. this is simply a sharing of the common good, and private property is connected with the fact that, in the terms of the renaissance or even the new time, a person becomes sovereign over what he possesses. exactly this. this is the most

important characteristic of private private property as an ideal. and if in a more rigid meaning to say, then, in my opinion. honest property. this is still a phenomenon that stems from the spirit of protestantism. and from the new time and e, omitting the fairly well-known legal economic features of how this happened, you will learn about this, well, a lot, but honestly, that honest property is unknown. it is that it is impossible without selection. e of the subject, as an autonomous without without understanding, autonomy and freedom of the subject, as soon as this philosophical move makes private property becomes possible. thanks great, i understand why you defend your phone so much, because you defend your own autonomy, but does our expert professor

kapustin argue, i’ll start with the game? if someone tells you that my wealth is acquired by hard work, be sure to ask what work. and when i studied at the institute and studied the history of the party, the marxist leninist philosophy of scientific communism and political economy, and then it was already obvious to me that private property gives rise to inequality leads to the stratification of society, motivated by the desire for personal gain and harms all other members of society. does private property even exist? well, for example, i have a refrigerator at home bought by his wife. i keep beer in the fridge, my grandchildren keep ice cream. whose refrigerator is this? to whom its contents belong, you can answer that everything in the refrigerator is common or call it home property or family or ours, or the contents of the refrigerator

are still private property. it just hides under different names. who what man always cooler, right? the main thing is that the grandchildren do not store beer in it. here, and i'm all about the phone, and konstantin mikhailovich here. look at the scooter. indeed, it is not written that he is mine on volodya's phone. although, well, conditionally i hate volodya on the phone, what is there? well, yes, but the most interesting thing is that we don’t have any checks or contracts left, when, while in general, it all works. like here. keeps well, returning to the question of what property is before the 19th century , people did not think about it at all. they considered that property. yes, this is something biological , something taken for granted by god at the beginning of the 19th century, the german philosopher classic johann fichte defined property based on action. if there is an object and i can do

whatever i want with this object and i am the only person who can do it, then this object is my property, that is, property is the possibility of exclusive free action. in other words, if you've read the novel dune or watched the movie dune based on the novel by frank herbert the true owner of value is the one who can destroy it. this is all a simplified definition of gamno-fifty. so, what is property? how can this property be established? how can i make it so that only i have the possibility of exclusive free action with this subject, or with power. try to take it away from me either through a contract, and this is called a right, or a combination of force and a contract. and this is called the state. that is, this is what

people do not understand, what fichta first understood, and then what people most people do not understand until now the state is the source of property. we don't have any out-of-place abstract property. and the state is recognized and called upon to protect it. not without a state. we just don't have property. this is what our businessmen are now gradually understanding, who thought that they had property all over the world in croatia, spain , britain, and then suddenly it turned out that they had no property outside the russian federation. all this. maybe like this. that they get their own, but they cannot, because the state proves it on the basis of force, and force it doesn’t matter, as it were, a combination of force and law, but the state is a source of property,

the only one in the modern world, therefore any property of a person is truly property only in the territory of the state where he is a citizen. well, valeria anatolyevich but the attitude to private property generally depends. well, from the place of residence of the sex of the nationality of the country to find out here probably to answer this question. now will definitely have to figure it out. what is private property and try, maybe not give a definition, but at least classify it somehow. the first approach is the ownership of the means of production factories factories the natural resources of the earth that rent a large property and, for example, my personal belongings a refrigerator where something was stored the car on which i go to work to work the apartment in which i live. i'm even a little different. yes, this is all property, but these are completely different things of mine,

and the personal things that i own are mono, they do not provide for the extraction of profit do not provide for the exploitation of man. actually , the means of production, just focused on making a profit for exploitation, and now the question is, how do we feel about this, if we are talking about private ownership of the means of production. 1% of the richest people owns 50% of all property in the world. how to take this naturally negatively, but within this category of countries, which well, let's say, have a good attitude towards the concept of the owner of capitalist countries to call it in the old way is japan and where 1% of rich people owns only 25%. in our country, as 1% owns 50% of the property. but,

for example, in south africa, the richest 1% owns five percent. that is, what i'm leading to is where this big gap is. there is the worst attitude towards private property, which allows you to exploit a person, there i have a small gap in japan. it is clear that there is probably a relationship. there are laws that mitigate the not very good situation in operation, let's move on nationality. yes. e. well, you know, it all depends on the level of development of this nation and their foundations, well, for example, each nation, probably its own criteria. e lucky walls. why, for example, to have there 10 camels or 20 sheep well, in other, probably nations. this is not the most important, not the most important criterion. the main criterion is, probably, spiritual development. and that’s why it doesn’t come to the fore anymore, but on the other hand, the concept of envy remains, if society has a

wide spread among the rich and the poor, then it will envy will be envy, not even just for private ownership of the means of production, but also for the critical property that we have, it is clear that the more developed nations are nationalities. they probably have a more loyal relationship with what their neighbor has. i would probably point it out. can i then, well, not that bet me all the questions, how does a biologist love himself biology. maybe, after all, it does not depend on spiritual development for some, for example, on blood type. after all, for some entire nations , once uh, and. it seems to me that there is still a relationship with people, of course, and still somewhere on the head, such as documents do not allow. and so long ago they would have read a person as a slave to private property, but to inheritance. yes, you can acquire citizenship, and citizenship gives the right to private property in certain countries. all this exists to this day. and so they turned to the thought of konstantin

mikhailovich yes, here i cannot but agree that there is force there is an agreement and uh, remembering the word hmm start, it seems that this is called a social call cunning manipulation and so on. how can you get around the contract without using force. man has succeeded in this, we take biological mechanisms. we take, uh, various manipulations. and this is how we try to discredit. we are trying to win the best piece. and who do they belong to? there is no land. they are a common earth, round. we are inexpensive. eat somewhere from the center, which geographically may not actually correspond to the political border, who owns the very tree that i spoke of, on which the bird leaked its nest, these are already our conventions of agreement , socio-political elements. accordingly, we are in contact here somewhere. we ourselves come up with the most profitable rules, and then someone a little bit of them, it seems to me outsmarts and

, accordingly, after that, other new rules begin again, the contract. it seems to me that this is a compromise, and we are always looking for this compromise in what was previously accepted as normal. yes, that there is a robotic system. this race must work for the entire white state, then someone either by force or by treaty changed this situation. we have arrived at a new compromise. now there are other situations, other challenges, it seems that we should again look for social compromises. yes, now it turns out, generally private property. this is not even the right of the strong, but the right of the cunning. good anton viktorovich and katya and i have a philosophical question for you. and we have a philosophical one, which is a very applied question, applied philosophy. yes , ethics and aesthetics are traditionally applied philosophy. we have a friend paul on and so on happened that he took. eh, well buddy. for

overexposure of the rabbit, and the rabbit lives with the rabbit. so, as if the contract was for one rabbit of the contract, offspring, and this is what kind of property, personal private common share. and what to do with it? how do you know how to divide, how it is according to the statement that you received one cow, will you hand over one? well, here's an honest property, as it was. i think everyone agrees with that. it's an institution, uh, that's regulated by, uh, laws and other regulations. yes, in such a situation. uh, a person who is an adept private property believes that there is such an institution , he just looks like this, how such a situation should be regulated if there are

no regulatory principles. in this case, there is a court where all this can be decided. that is, if the question is about property, and they are about ethics, then in this case, property is a question of ethics - it turns out to be a completely different matter. this is a different matter if we are talking about such an applied situation, but this is not a different matter, as it has already begun to emerge. this is a great line. eh, against this platonic and shooting, yes, plato believed that personal property and e, contrary to the interests of the state and the interest of society, in contrast to this, aristotle believed that, on the contrary, when a person has his own property, he has a reason to love something, and something to have something and therefore to work, but in general this line of confrontation between private property and common interests is good. it is in its reflection, contrary to what constantine said that property in the 19th century begins to

speak and first of all. the age of enlightenment is the work of french philosophers, and here is the question of private property. it is directly related to ethics with what we owe in relation to society. should we serve his interests or society exists in order to serve the interests of the individual and in this case there is a split in relation to how to understand private property, and how to understand its value, this is an ethical discussion philosophical, and with rabbits this is what should already be decided by regulations documents documents were not all on the basis of a personal court. they are still brand new to us inflicting rabbits. but uh look uh, if you want, uh, chaos, uh, war and something else. because you have no

desire to endure, then, of course, in such a case there will be a constant, when in case of uncertainty arise. let there be a permanent felling agreement contrary to what alexander said. this is not just a compromise agreement on property regulation of property - it is the protection of their interests. that is, when i share some privileges. i am i do it to protect myself and therefore other interests, it turns out. actually always generates chaos and war. it gives rise to chaos, war, if it is property, such barbaric property, if it is private property, it is not property, barbara is private property and the property of a citizen, which means a legal entity. first of all, well, faces are not in vain. so, it’s still right, if private property is the property of a citizen, then private property, perhaps only in that state the citizen of which i am. undoubtedly, but, uh,

this does not mean, contrary to what constantine said, that the source of private property is the state, and this is just happening, in your favorite 19th century, just when and when, in addition to the political source of property, an additional source of property appears, on which valeria pointed out that economic activity is a source of property independent of the state and politics, and this is very well seen, for example, in the uk and company activities. let's take a moment. let's break. still, rabbits will have to be returned advertising on ntv, for sure everyone has seen the pictures with the unfortunate turtles dying from the classic and with the great garbage island in the pacific ocean. is the world ocean dying from plastic, and our planet is dying under an avalanche of waste, either garbage us, or we sort it garbage. you can see how dirty it is,

this ordinary unsorted one. garbage is testing biodegradable bags, and everything is clear to find out. can modern technology turn heaps of rubbish mountains of money out of waste paper against man a film from a new documentary series by sergei malozemov tomorrow at 11:00 on ntv on the air is a science program and a program about how science will change our lives, the next 10 years in 10 years science will abolish private property. well, our expert professor kapustin does not believe in this , here is what the great lao tzu said in the third century, in the third century bc, honest people are not rich rich people are not honest, private property is absolute

evil is its only goal in the development of property to increase it, but private property develops itself not in order to provide people and our country with its products solely for profit, and the larger private property, the more profit can be extracted from it. that is why every small average owner is constantly striving to increase the size of his enterprise. local property, so whether we like it or not, evil will always exist and be named private property, in general, the more. you own something, the more problems. ah, mr. mikhailovich well, look today there are already a huge number of all sorts of services for renting everything and everything i can rent a scooter. i can rent a car . it seems to me that soon the wives or there will all be renting phones, turns out to be a number.

it seems that humanity itself is renouncing private personal property. it 's like, well, i wouldn't say humanity. i would say separate representatives of humanity. brief the answer is infantilism. that is, the fear of taking responsibility for something, in fact, now on this is an extra responsibility. that is, it’s still infantile, it’s a responsibility, in fact, and now the age limit of childhood in the west has already gone very high in the states already over 30 people consider themselves children and society treats them like that in western europe over 25. yes, then there is an absence. here people want to relieve themselves of responsibility. well, at the same time, what people don’t understand , they don’t want to understand precisely infantism, which property is not going anywhere, someone has to be the owner. that is, that's all the talk of capitalism, socialism, private

property, personal property. it's all based on the marxist model, which has very little to do with reality. yes, in one of the previous programs. we've said that this model doesn't really match the historical data. there was no feudal-ownership capitalism in ancient rome in the roman empire of slaves. it was less than ten percent less than in some states of america in the 18th century. most of the relationships were, iodal, were individual capitalist, so to speak, in the thirteenth century in italy there were banks and insurance companies. simply , they were not called banks insurance companies, but there was a banking insurance path, that is, the development of mankind. the history of mankind is much more homogeneous. than us. it seems that socialism is just state capitalism, it is capitalism in which the state belongs. 100% ownership of the means of production more or to a lesser extent all countries today are

socialist, the state owns from there 20 to 80% of the means of production. that is, this is an artificial marxist division. it does not correspond to the reality of property. all the same, someone owns all this talk about private privacy. there. this is still in favor of an incomprehensible one person who will own it anyway. yes, there must be an owner, because the owner is the one who is responsible for the results of using the property . communism is a religion. nothing close communism never in the history of mankind is not present, the whole history of mankind, it is quite homogeneous and the way of managing was actually the same for thousands of years. so trying to get away from it is trying. here, close like an ostrich, they say head in the sand, that is, well, firstly, after all, despite the fact that it is very attractive

to say so, communism in no sense is not a religion, because there is no concept of posthumous existence. this is a very important attribute of any religion. this is just a historical incident, which forced, for example, bukharin to say that this was happening. how is it possible for our vladimir ilyich to be buried in such a non-linguistic fish. you will remember how, in fact, not only bukhara on everyone else, but they wrote works about how a person lying down, not just food, but about how he resurrects, let’s say it doesn’t become here in the daytime consent arises a story, not with a concept the concept of communism is not religious, it is take into account what people have in practice people have confusion in their heads, this is communism is not for people, but about infantilism and sharing services with konstantin, my opinion about it differs according to what discretion? it seems to me

that the term capitalism, it has at least a heuristic value, it is useful, and one of the foundations of capitalism is to increase the problem of consumption. uh, in that a limited amount of resources for consumption, the capitalist device involves the involvement of more and more consumers in order to increase consumption figures and, uh, sharing services. they arise because of the spirit and logic of capitalist development, that we cannot make it so that everyone can have everything they want, but we can have everyone participate in increasing their consumption through shiring. in fact , this is the service of the capitalist logic of development, associated with the involvement of more and more masses of the structure of consumption from the other side. this is the idea that possession is necessarily connected with one person. it

doesn't seem right to me, that is. here, take some bezos and a mask. well, you will see in ratings. they have some billions of dollars. but it's true. no, it's not. this is not the case at all, and uh, that is, a conditional cannot come there, for example, in moscow. and can i take off my 40 billion, everyone understands that this is very property. now it becomes, as it were, a virtual concept, if earlier, if we were feudal mercantilists, we thought to own things. this is property. now the property itself is changing. and therefore, when you look at some sharing services and think, oh, i have less of some material things in my possession. i have to forget that eh, the notion of owning material things is something that is already receding into the background. and you know, i would like to defend myself a little to continue the discussion, here one word service was not enough in this discussion. items bikes cars

carsharing you now yes, i’m talking about it, and not into what have turned from a property item into a service. that's what the conversation is about. that is , it turns out that the new achievements of digital revolution. they once again turned the object into a service , and now i have a service, and not an object on the one hand. this has reduced now, that is, property, but on the other hand, it has created the conditions for the realization of my ever-growing ambitions, which must be satisfied with meager, despite meager resources. that's what happened the world can not create a product of the world. now creates some visibility of the product. well, the service was the same appearance that property is the ability to act in the social hierarchy. it is not simple possession of items and now your ability is the

ability of action. yes. well, yes, if we go back to the stone age there, this is true, but our society is, in general, quite actively developing, and now, in order to destroy something there, to do something, it is not necessary to use the same ones. the tools used by e primates who had just learned to walk upright, well, a car-sharing car. i, too, can break and then the service will turn into an object. well, what to do, it will benefit people, the abolition of private property or harm. yes, it will benefit, but let's just. here i want to ask a question. tell me, besides the e-keg, well, there are several tens of square meters that you have. you leave the apartment. what else? you need to lie somewhere in this world, somewhere in our country. you know, i now want to go to the blackboard. and no, you know.

well, now i'm doing it. well, i wanted to start a little with one thing, for example, let's take the russian economy, private property for up to 91 years. we were the second country in the world in the development of science technology and so on. now now we actually have. what place do we occupy? ten, probably, but it's not scary. look, until 1991, the soviet union, uh, invested 5% in the development of science, the dump would be the domestic product 5% now we invest less than one percent, south korea 5% invests china 2.5% usa 3%, e. well, and why did it happen so? but where does the state get the money from? if everything has become their own, and the owners do not want to invest, they want to trade, because how good it is to sell profit money to leave there to buy palaces, yachts and so on. after all, we repeated after the whole world we were told that this is a wonderful wonderful model.

well, you know. it's wonderful and a wonderful model. and all this is paid very well in the media by the same people who do not want to lose their property. and although it is to increase it for us at our expense. understand our work. and now i want to go to the board. and show how capitalism, uh, i see you and i have a program to destroy capitalism and transfers to us that technical progress? no, i don't mind. by the way, i'm generally not very good at private property. still, i really think infantilely that yes, we, of course, draw units of such an ideal society. these are the lising of society. i'm even wondering what it looks like. no, we will start practicing it, we have a worker. who for his shift, well, for a shift a month produces, and five sofas, well, since

there is a capitalist sofas, he will be so plump. that's all joyful. and working worked. but he received a salary for one evangeline who released everything that he created within a month. this is the surplus value of the surplus product that belongs to the one who owns the means of production, the owner of the means of production has decided that competition must be earned. uh, spend more less introduced new technology new technology. new technologies and now the same worker produces, for example. no longer five, well, eight sofas, but again he receives a salary for only one sofa.

all this is it. it belongs to our periodist capitalists, but the main thing is that in the first case the worker received a salary. he would like to buy two sofas, but he only got money for one sofa, and he bought one sofa, which was sold by the capitalist. i have a lot of them, he can buy all the sofas, but he still doesn’t need more than one. he went to the store and bought another gospel, too, three left in stock. well, yes, that's how such a general idea is ideal, in the second case the same thing happens, the workers understand that it turns out that he has already accumulated money, yet, maybe he sold one sofa to buy. the capitalists also believe that they probably need another sofa. but what happened that this whole mass became unrealized, and thanks to what did they increase? these are still sofas for scientific and technological progress and

new technologies, that is, new technologies to create conditions for overproduction. everything. here, it is not implemented. a crisis. a global crisis is brewing. what is the first way for a capitalist to reduce a worker? a interesting either cut scientific progress they would cut scientific progress that is, private property. here the capitalist, of course, can not refuse overproduction, because it ’s like he can’t refuse it for free and he can’t refuse it, ruin his scientific and technological progress or people, that how many produced goods are destroyed in order to remove this situation with overproduction . but what else can capitalism do, for example, make an agreement with other capitalists to raise prices destroy it. you can say? wait, but scientific and technological progress creates

robotics robotics. well, then they would buy sofas from the box, after all. the capitalist stands in the way of the development of new technologies. yes, he is interested in them, but until a certain couple of times. well , it is unprofitable for him to engage in development and investing money on the one hand. yes, on the other hand, no, but it seems to me, well, this is a very simple example, yes, it is rotated. well, in general, to show, let's be lucky to count the sofas of ntv advertising soon called, the long-awaited continuation of your favorite series, what happened? on a call, it's hard . there's no corner that isn't connected to ryan on the

air. on the air is a science program and a program about how science will change our lives in the next 10 years, in 10 years science will abolish private property, dear optimists and skeptics. with what probability, in your opinion? this will happen in 10 years. who is ready? i think it's unbelievable, because what we discussed today is that we just

discussed the capitalists. well, the second capitalist will come, who will come up with the best sofas and will force these workers to choose not their own products, but another, but another person will come who will offer a new product, but a new form, and i want to remind you that there are oil pyramids, which, in principle, i really like, that with some physiological needs , which we will naturally close and buy ourselves a refrigerator food. fill it up, and then think about security. and so long as there is no area around us of this security of that very private property of our niche in which we exist, our family of children. the offspring is our gene pool, it is unlikely that we will continue to develop the progress of human rights, and not later, that is, it is very important for a person as a social being, as a creature with cunning , to always do something new in order to protect and increase their private property. so i give one percent, still cancel one percent. thank you so much.

cancel. i believe 100% for the reason that , firstly, like the law of gravity, private property. she's not bad, though. it's not her problem, but fair property - it is a very specific institution. and this is still some kind of ideal, like any ideal, and it never existed, and now we see some processes, related global processes, not specifically the historical moment of the process of global processes, which so far indicate that private property, as a kind ownership will not take place after all. this ideal will not materialize. therefore, in 10 years we will see what we see, now there are big problems with the privacy of information that generate. of course, of course not. it

sure is, yes, yes, yes, and so apparently problems with privacy problems with the fact that a subject as an autonomous being is deprived of this autonomy not because there is some kind of dictator, but because our society is structured in such a way, our technology of relations, that there are fewer and fewer corners left and this affects the nature of ownership 100% yes, thank you very much. take away private property and what is the incentive for a person to do something if he is not responsible, in general, for the results of his work, if he does not receive any benefit from this or receives in some way very mediated. what will be the incentive for entrepreneurs to do something new? call them whatever you like, entrepreneurs are capitalists of a businessman, but they are doing something new, give the appearance of

ownership, maybe, yes, but the main thing is that this goes against the grain of those global processes that are now taking place, the global processes that are now going on, they are not abolition of private property. they are in front. none of these services are owned by anyone. everything is for rent, who owns the owners of the largest transnational corporations, that is, now it is going on and if you look at the official data, there is a redistribution of property, the middle class is being destroyed, the middle class is getting poorer, the super-rich are getting richer, there is a redistribution of property from the middle to the ends in the interests of the super-rich people, that is, there are no prospects for the abolition of private property. now it does not arise with the exception of the one exception of china, which really promises to abolish private property, that is, to make completely state property, starting from

2035, that is, in the period from 2035 to 2050. i don't think they will succeed, but i'm ready to give china 20%. well, in general, 20%. thank you so much. i would like to say and reassure these viewers that no one encroaches on their personal property, that is, an apartment, but a car, well, they definitely won’t be taken away. here is the most basic. and, as for hmm again property in the form of building structures land resources. one hundred percent ownership will be public 100%. maybe not in 10 years, but capitalism and private property did not appear immediately, there was a certain stage when capitalism and the institution of private property had to arise. so the time will come when he will have to die - these are the laws

of life. unfortunately, everything appears when necessary and dies when it is no longer necessary. therefore, there will be no 100% property in particular, but at the same time i would also like to note that personal property is dying much faster than private property. no. this is where it all comes back. but just what can be convert an item into a service. without pain for you and me, the townsfolk will die much faster, like property. in general, your optimistic forecast is 100%. uh-huh that 100%, thank you very much. this is an interesting program with a probability of 55 25 science still abolished private property.