In the economy

Behind Rubikon

January 30, 2006 Maxim Blot

Last week, the Kommersant newspaper in the Opinion and Comments section published an article by the former presidential adviser Andrei Illarionov “Another Country” . A good article, and there is nothing to argue with it. Therefore, I want to write about what is not in this article.

“Today's Russia is not the country that it was six years ago. The country was unsettled, bustling, impoverished. But she was free. Today Russia has become different. Richer. And not free, ”writes Illarionov. The author does not say anything about the sources of wealth and non -freedom, only states: “... which is undoubted and undoubtedly - we are no longer at the intersection of historical choice. The intersection has been passed. The choice is made. "

The source in front of the growing welfare seems to have been obvious-world exchanges experienced only three decades ago, comparable to the current price take-off-in the 70s. And, nevertheless, the statement “became richer, but not free” is read precisely as a kind of reverse dependence between welfare and freedom. By the way, the misconception, which is widespread in the present time, many “analysts” go further and with different variations insert the word “but” between non -freedom and wealth, and others are completely “because”: they say, they are not free and rich, and the freedom -loving let their freedom to bread are smeared instead of oil. It is clear that the reproach to Illarionov does not apply in any way. He had just criticized the government for the absence of liberal economic reforms with enviable regularity and proved that successes in the current situation could be achieved much more tangible, heading for economic freedom.

The “crossroads”, about which Illarionov writes, the country also passed, however, in the opposite direction. Moreover, more recently, it seemed that it was finally and irrevocably, and a return to it was impossible. Here Yegor Timurovich Gaidar even said once: “We did our job-the system is so destroyed that its restoration is no longer possible.” It turns out - perhaps. Moreover, restoration work is in full swing. And the “corporate ideology”, which Illarions defines as “his own nashism”, completely fits into the not completely forgotten concept of “party-economic nomenclature”. Moreover, if you look with what enthusiasm the officials and legislators of all ranks and stripes join the “party in power”, the analogy becomes completely frightening.

History lessons, unfortunately, are forgotten too quickly. Moreover, even eyewitnesses of events. Take at least the president. Only three or four years ago, supporters of the liberal economic model believed that Vladimir Putin, being reasonable, would continue to build and improve this very liberal model, since humanity has not invented any more effective model today. In fact, it turned out that, as soon as the treasury ceased to experience a chronic lack of money, nostalgia for the imperial past turned out to be stronger than the arguments of the mind. And state monopolism, the highest manifestation of which was the Soviet economy, began to return lost positions.

Most likely, the former presidential adviser is right, claiming that the change of power will sooner or later happen, no matter how someone would like to avoid it. It is only a pity that the “crossroads”, which seemed to be a rubon, turned out to be so easy to go in the opposite direction.
Maxim Blanc

---

All rights to materials located on the EJ.ru website are protected in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, including copyright and related rights. With any use of the site and satellite projects, hyperlink (Hyperlink) on EJ.ru is required.