Igor Jadan. Darwin's Prodigal Grandson

Darwin's Prodigal Grandson
Igor Jadan

Publication date: February 17, 2004

The press conference of Sergei Glazyev at the Interfax press club took place, contrary to expectations, in a calm, relaxed atmosphere. Glazyev complained about “a group of athletes” who tried to seize power in his party. In addition, correspondents learned from the presidential candidate that the Party of Russian Regions “committed political suicide” and that some Rodina leaders joined the bloc only to “self-destruct.”

Such a “Putin suicide bomber” turned out to be Dmitry Rogozin, who “on instructions from the current president was sent to Rodina in order to politically blow himself up in the lair of the Kremlin administration’s rivals.” Glazyev said so: “Putin personally asked me to accept Rogozin into Rodina.” . - And he added: “ Now it becomes clear why exactly.” As far as one can judge, Glazyev sincerely believes that the “subversive idea” of renaming the Party of Russian Regions into the Rodina party is a consequence of “secret agreements with the president.”

Openly opposing himself to candidate Putin is a new element in Sergei Glazyev’s election campaign. Previously, only Ivan Rybkin and Irina Khakamada dared to “fight the president.” Nevertheless , when asked by RJ whether Glazyev would be ready to join the presidential team if it decides to use economic ideas close to him, corresponding member Glazyev did not answer negatively . However, from his assessment it follows that such a development of events is unlikely, since Glazyev is convinced that after the elections Kasyanov will remain prime minister, the composition of the government will practically not change, and with it the economic course.

It should be noted that Glazyev is not just “not a novice” in politics. Already in 1991 - Deputy Minister, and since 1992 - Minister of Foreign Economic Relations of the Russian Federation, he also dealt with issues of economic security in the Gaidar government. Regarding the sphere of “pure politics”, Sergei Yuryevich completely denies his role in the Khasavyurt agreements.

Professor, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Sergei Glazyev became a Doctor of Economics at the age of 29. Glazyev attributes his economic views to the school of so-called evolutionary economics. This scientific direction arose as a result of the need to explain the mechanism and role of new economic phenomena that traditional economic schools could not explain and most often simply did not notice.

Traditional economic models, as is known, have the property of being “conservative.” They do not assume the emergence of “new entities”, technological innovations and new economic relations. At the same time, innovation in technology and economic relations is an indisputable observable fact, which, nevertheless, began to be paid attention to relatively recently. Evolutionary economics attempts to explain their occurrence and to some extent predict behavior using Darwin's theory. She is actively trying to borrow formal models that were first used in modern branches of biology - population evolutionary science and evolutionary genetics.

In place of the population, which in some modern models of evolutionary theory is the “basic unit” of natural selection, evolutionary economics puts economic entities united by a common technology. Moreover, the technology itself corresponds to something like a “genome”.

It turns out that Glazyev is a modern “social Darwinist”? It turns out that “man is a wolf to man,” and not “take everything and divide it”? Amazing discovery! It is difficult to believe in such a sharp difference between Glazyev and his “shadow” created by the media.

The solution to the problem is hidden, as always, in the details. The theory of evolutionary economics, like any living scientific direction, is not finished and not closed. Its peculiarity (in comparison with the theory of evolution of biological species) is the impossibility of reducing the evolution of the economy to only one Darwinian type of evolution - through the random appearance of changes and their natural selection . In economics, the emergence of “new types” of innovation is not entirely accidental, but is largely due to the reflective activity of the mind. Therefore, the indisputable victory of the “Darwin line” in biological evolutionary science does not at all mean a guarantee of its victory in the field of economic evolutionary science. The evolution of an intelligent species may still differ from biological evolution.

From this it is easy to see that the traditional dispute between “liberal” economists and economists who support government regulation is not resolved with the advent of evolutionary economics. It continues within itself in the unexpected form of competition between the “Lamarckian line” and the “Darwinian line.” The school of traditional liberal economists can be identified to some extent with the “Darwinian line” in evolutionary economics, and the various economic schools advocating broad programs of public investment with the “Lamarckian line.”

The "Lamarckian approach" to evolutionary economics means that the selection of the most successful technological and economic solutions is not necessarily "natural". It is completely “Darwinian” only when competition between states is meant. In this case, there is no intelligent “referring body” placed “from above” to decide the question of expediency (unless, of course, it is God). That is why the question of the competitiveness of states is being resolved in a completely Darwinian way.

At the same time, within each country (or community of countries), economic success may well be due to state-directed selection from the point of view of expediency in the spirit of Lamarck’s theory.

Hence, within the theory of evolutionary economics there is enough logical space, relatively speaking, for both “Darwinists” and “Lamarckists”. The first believe that free natural selection is the only true engine of the economy. In their opinion, natural selection is “able to decide” what is better and what is worse for the economy, since any result of natural evolution is, in fact, the “right choice” . The latter say that in order to increase the competitiveness of the economy in the international arena, it is impossible to do without programs to actively encourage those areas of the economy that are recognized as the most promising in terms of their role in increasing competitiveness in the international arena .

Upon closer examination of Glazyev’s well-known idea that it is necessary to encourage high-tech industries at the expense of raw materials , it turns out that this is “economic Lamarckism” in its purest form. While “economic Darwinism” should in this case advocate the further emancipation of Russian economic “free flight” and place the main emphasis on free competition.

It turns out that Glazyev is not a social Darwinist, but rather a social Lamarckian? Even worse! It’s generally unclear how he’s going to explain this to voters. So far, he has only answered RJ’s question that his program is “a program of social justice and economic growth, based on an understanding of the laws of economic development.”

This statement, however, obviously contrasts with Glazyev's self-definition as a scientific economist, a supporter of the theory of evolutionary economics. After all, in the system of its postulates the postulate of “social justice” is completely absent. This is as obvious as the fact that God is absent from the apparatus of the theory of relativity. One can try to introduce the concept of social justice into evolutionary economics as a maximum as one of the factors, along with the volume of money supply, capital, etc., but not as a source of movement. Whether this factor is positive, accelerating development, or, conversely, negative, is far from obvious. From the point of view of evolutionary theory, it would be even more strange to define social justice as the “goal” of evolutionary development.

In traditional economic theory, the desire to maximize profit is accepted as the main driving force of economic movement. In evolutionary economics, the source of innovation activity is the “struggle of technological solutions for their existence.” If we take the desire for social justice as the basis of economic activity, it will be some kind of completely different economic theory. Perhaps - “Russian”, but only with great difficulty - “evolutionary”. And the eternal and unchanging “patterns of economic development” mentioned by Glazyev, upon closer examination, may also turn out to be an evolving “Proteus”, since we are talking about evolution.

All of the above leads to an unpleasant dilemma. Glazyev will have to decide whether to follow the path of a charismatic politician in his political race and at the same time profane his economic ideas to the level of “take and divide,” or try to implement them by joining the presidential team. By the way, a closer look reveals surprising parallels between evolutionary economics and presidential calls to “increase competitiveness at all levels of society.”

Considering the natural lack of exuberant charisma among truly intelligent people, the best option for him would be precisely the second path - the implementation of his economic ideas within the framework of an already established political structure. However, Glazyev may be hampered on this path, among other things, by personal incompatibility with people around Putin . Therefore, most likely, the matter will be limited to the fact that the ideas of his “Lamarckian economics” will simply be absorbed to one degree or another by Kremlin economists. After all, within the framework of domestic ideas, it is easier to change beliefs by adopting alien ideas than to lose a job.