In society

Sovereign in the city of Zero

December 18, 2009 Leonid Radzikhovsky

Egor Gaidar is a certain historical figure.

Of course, they will write about him in a completely different way, but all of Russia will be written-the scale of his affairs is qualitatively larger than that of Stolypin or Witte, not to mention Speransky. Unless Alexander II, and even then-the 1991 reform was more significant than 1861.

In fact, this reform had an “antilen” scale - it was tragically belated, 70 years later, asymmetric response to the October Revolution.

I do not compare the scale of personalities - from my point of view, Lenin is undoubtedly titanium, demiurge, the figure is exceptional in the history of Russia, and all of mankind, far superior to Mussolini or Stalin (“As for me, I am only a student of Lenin, and the purpose of my life is to be a worthy student”), comparable to the condenser of personal, prudent, except with Hitler.

In the same way, the scale of efforts, violence, destruction that was needed to carry out the 1917 revolution and the 1991 revolution is also not comparable. In the first case, for the implementation of Ulyanov’s ideas, it was necessary to destroy the country, cut millions of people, break the ridge hundreds of millions, “drive the nag” straight to the gulag. In the second case, to fulfill the “Gaidar Plan”, it was enough to “reset deposits in the savings bank”.

Well, this is absolutely clear. What is simpler: to turn the river against the current, to put the country (in the future - “The whole world of violence”) on the head and drive in this form ahead - or just let the river with the flow and help people stand from their heads to their feet?

In any case, Gaidar is a rare historical figure for any country and any era. Of those who pave the direction along which dozens (hundreds?) Years will flow the river. During the period of revolutions, such people inevitably appear. This does not mean that “everyone” can become such a person - a revolutionary time spends a quick, but ruthless selection. Popov, Sobchak, Afanasyev, Yavlinsky, etc. They quickly eliminated. With us truly historical figures, I would call, of course, Yeltsin, Gaidar, Chubais. I still would not put Gorbachev in this series-if only because M.S. Somehow, he didn’t know what he did (“more democracy, more socialism” is some kind of absurdity!), And Putin, with his partial “counter-reform”-especially (although the place in the textbooks, of course, is guaranteed).

Gaidar was well aware of his historical role. And this self -awareness is involuntarily - Gaidar was not at all stingy - it was transmitted to the interlocutor.

Gaidar’s involvement in the history of Russia is probably in genes.

Gaidara was often called (scolded) the “Bolshevik”, compared with the grandfather-arcadium.

In my opinion, a very accurate comparison.

Feeling of history. The desire not to stand on the shore, but to make a story. Readiness with life reply for your choice. All this obviously united his grandfather and grandson.

The differences are no less obvious.

Egor Gaidar was much more educated than Arkady. And the point is not only among the books read. The point is also in the internal installation.

Egor was a bifurcated figure: a person of action, and the actions of a sharp, merciless, dangerous - and a person of reflection, contemplation. We must also remember what kind of contemplation was, how scale.

One of his main books was called very successfully and accurately: "For a long time."

A large temporary prospect is the centuries of the development of the world economy and Russia in this context. From such an embodiment, "much is lost sight of, melt thunderstorm clouds, seem absurd resentment." Or, expressed by Shtil more solemn: “The genus passes and the clan comes, and the earth is forever. ... All rivers flow into the sea, but the sea is not overflowing: they return to the place where the rivers flow from where the rivers flow again. ... what happened, it will be; And what was done is done and there is nothing new under the sun. ” Here is a long time.

Imagine this intellectual life at the intersection of two temporary proportions - "eternity hostage at time in captivity."

Correct the refinancing rate of the Central Bank, the amount of gold and foreign exchange reserves, the percentage of income tax with the course of the history of Russia! Here are about such tasks I saw E.T.

With some wild instinct, Yeltsin tried to correlate these tasks (in his heroic period)-but, it seems to me, unable to withstand, quickly broke down ... As for Chubais, it seems to me that for this “effective manager” the Gaidar has become a kind of “historical conscience”, “historical talisman for happiness”. That is, it is quite possible that one of the reasons for their rare in strength of friendship was that Chubais needed Gaidar as a “historical guide”. Gaidar just did for him (“for him”) this part of the work necessary for Chubais - converted his efforts into a historical meaning.

Another reader, having read all this, will say-who is with approval, who is with irritation: “So you, LR, justify Gaidara-Eltsin-Chubais in everything!” No, guys, I'm just not writing about this ... We are not a teacher to put them marks on history-I just want to understand ... However, if someone is interested, I am not a fan of Gaidar, Yeltsin or Chubais, like no politicians at all. But, thank God, I write not about self-lover, but about completely different things.

The unusual role that he played (that’s the thing that he never “played”!) Yegor was visible in everything.

Starting with his unusual appearance, the manner of speaking - either quietly, then exploding. Absolutely not playful, absolutely natural behavior of a person who has to solve - for himself - very difficult tasks.

Well, who was just not made of his “Winnie the Pooh-Poh”, over the famous “smacking”-who loving, some with malevolent anger ... probably more mocked only Sakharov.

Well, everything is fair.

Neither E.T., nor A.D. They were completely unlike normal politicians with their ordinary impenetrable-glamorous kharyas-brutal, sweet, peasant-carb, intelligent-lucid, official-correct ... In the political agricultural masks of any color, size, price and smell. The consumer has something to choose.

Feature of E.T. (like A.D.) in the fact that they did not wear masks. The faces were ruthlessly disfigured by the seal of intelligence - such a difficult, concentrated in oneself, swallowing words and links in a chain of reasoning, then children's or old people. The stubborn intelligence, which even with an error, is unshakable. And if it is not mistaken, then with the same unshakability. “Still, she revolves”-but I do not rule, I stand on my own ...

As far as I know, E.T. It was by no means a beggarly monk - a well -secured person. But there is no doubt that junk, money, etc., which makes up the only meaning and justification of the activities of almost all Russian (only Russian? ..) politicians, including many Kamikadze from the first government of Gaidar, for him there were never something “at the forefront”, but even in the list of priorities. Another thing is that as a real person (and politician!) He knew very well that the “other people” were not arranged, not busy with the “historical economy”, but personal accounting, not “long time”, but long accounts. And well, understanding that you can’t overdo it with a whip, made a correction for this and used in the work of “the writers that we have”.

The conversation about the activities of Gaidar is a very special topic. I just want to say that I am just amazed by some kind of childish stupidity (or is it an adult scammers?), With which they talk about the Chicago School or Harvard, Keynes or von Hayek, and further about the constructed Byak of “nomenclature capitalism” instead of a pleasant-in-and-in-law of “social capitalism”.

Gentlemen, you, this ... where did you come from?

I also partly understand American experts - they take their clean ruler, apply to the dirty Russian rut, measure it and write about it. They do the right thing. But our “appraisers” are a little more difficult to understand - if this is not just a reception in a political struggle ...

Keynes? Hayek? Friedman? Stieglitz? N-yes ...

In 1991, it was necessary to give people to eat. To do this, it was necessary that the foods were pulled out from under the counter, where they were hidden. To do this, it was necessary to remove the prices for false, cowardly, meaningless, Soviet - and give honest, real prices, i.e. speculative, free. Immediately the invisible hand of the market from where did not get the products. And accordingly, she destroyed “labor savings”. And accordingly, during the privatization, everything came to those who turned out to be money and forces-to the bandits-officials-directors-Komsomol businessmen.

What theory is this? Chicago? (Al Capone do not offer.) Or Harvard? Is this from Keynes's book? Or is von Mizes after all?

Gaidar blew up a jumper - opened the gateway. Long restrained water poured. The artificial drought ended, completely different problems began. This action has no great relation to the theories of hydrodynamics ...

And what arose.

More precisely, something that could not arise arose.

Gaidar did not write the book “Natural History” on paper - he did it in life. And he could not do anything else.

I think that his constant reflection fought about this: how to correlate his will, desires - and the natural irresistible power of things, the earthly attraction of Russia. In politics, economics, history. “Give me the will to change what I can. Patience to accept that I cannot change. The mind is distinguished by the first from the second. ” This also made up the subject of difficult thoughts-senses of Yegor Timurovich. There was another aspect here - how to evaluate all this in the historical perspective?

"Russia in the collapse." Solzhenitsyn said very accurately. One of the pebbles introduced into this collapse and he - well, the classic forgot about this ...

The collapse is geopolitical, economic, intellectual.

20 years of reforms go in this mode: to Gaidar, under Gaidar, after Gaidar. Then the same collapse successfully continues in the zero - “stabilization of the collapse”.

There was no alternative to the collapse - the USSR could no longer move forward. The USSR developed in half and collapsed. The task was not to reanimate it, but that the nation did not cover with debris. Gaidar fulfilled this task - ensured the bloodless fall.

But then what is the question.

The invisible market hand pulled out products on the counter in 1992. The same hand gave bribes (and when necessary - and to the trigger of the sting), divided the oil and gas complex, organized trade ...

But the invisible hand - contrary to the hopes of many, including, probably, Gaidar - did not raise the country. The collapse continued-simply not in catastrophic-headed, but in a sleeping-rack mode.

The collapse and continues.

For Gaidar - a Russian patriot and statesman - it was, as it seems to me, a disaster.

Maybe the same as for Lenin - you can recall him again - when he saw that it was no “socialism” and “world revolution” and did not smell, but only the bureaucratic apparatus + gulag remained and grow.

After the capitalist revolution, only the bureaucratic apparatus + Gosmonopoli is growing.

The historical problem again has no solution in our city Zero.

This could not but be a personal drama for Gaidar.

Dropping ballast - that was all the reforms, all efforts. Reset - unnecessary "Union Republics" ("Central Asian underbuilding"), heavy social sphere, mediocre "Soviet industry", unbearable science and culture - the heritage of the empire ... The result? The reduction of the whole country to the oil and gas ridge - and its administrative projection, vertical.

Now it seems that everything that they could have dropped - but the ball does not rise ... There is no new one. Apart from the new boutiques with Chinese skin.

Gaidar understood all this much better than others. Better, because it was more honest - he had nothing to chase. Historical role, historical responsibility is also imposed by blessing. He did not bustle, did not grab the voter's pants, interrupting his copper of the “voices” - he thought.

Judging by his last actions - he did not see the way out. Therefore, he left politics - and not only because he did not digest her and at all.

Sovereign. Russian patriot. Modernizer.

What should he do?

Gaidar did not know.

With an irreconcilable opposition, he was not on the way: hysteria, a circus with horses, “the worse, the better”, “the main thing is to get into a fight, and there it will be seen” he was not inspired. As well as the malicious kitchen-internal frontal.

With the power is not along the way: stagnation, theft, pathos chatter inspired no more.

He tried to give reasonable advice, mainly a financial nature. Kudrin, Ulyukaev, others listened, his role was successful.

But “repairs of failure - so that it does not fall too much” - this is not a solution to a historical problem. The collapse continued, Russia continues to live the rental and raw niche-a warm and comfortable grave for the country.

Kutuzov retreated, handed over Moscow - and won.

Document should Russia retreat in order to start moving forward?

Is there a boundary of this historical retreat? Where is the last, not compressed, not handed over the support point? And is there any internal forces for movement - not the emptyness of Petushin, not the overcoming of the loot, not a circus with horses and goats, but a real movement? In the logic of the world movement.

Few people think about this in Russia.

And now one person has become less.

Photo by RIA Novosti