Vitaly Leibin: Betrayal of reforms

On April 15, 2004, the Polit.Ru portal published Vitaly Leybin's article "The Betrayal of the Reforms." The reason for the publication was Yegor Gaidar's speech in the Vedomosti newspaper on April 14 (in fact, this is only the first part of the article, the full text of which Ye. Gaidar promised to publish in the next issue of the Weekly Journal).

V. Leibin believes that such a turn of the controversy around M. Khodorkovsky's article: from ascertaining the crisis of liberalism in Russia to an analysis of the results of the reforms of the 1990s in Russia is very important and fruitful.

He believes that V. Putin's attempt to dissociate himself from the reforms of the 1990s is *"this is hypocrisy and populism", useful for achieving only momentary goals, "but in the long term it is a sign of abandoning real actions, from his mission, from goals, from sincerity, that is, the path to weakness and loss ...

The economic and social successes and failures of the 2000s are simply direct consequences of the successes and failures of the 90s."*, the author writes, recalling that social reforms, financial policy, tax changes - all this was discussed and developed precisely in the 90s. In this regard, too, Putin, his government and politics are literally inheriting the Yeltsin era.

The new threat that has arisen at the present time is * "this is stupid revanchism, a literal rejection of the entire legacy of the 90s, coupled with a new bureaucratization of business, the taking away of the population's income, the flourishing of territorial clans, which can very quickly lead to the loss of Russia or to fascism as a And this threat arose, among other things, because both the nomenklatura and the reformers did not give a damn about the population, the resources of society and all freedoms, except for economic ones, and even those in a strange form.

This is where the criticism of the 90s by those who claim to fulfill the liberal mission in Russia should begin. That is exactly how I understood Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and, unfortunately, Gaidar did not understand him that way. Unfortunately. Because only a frank conversation with society could lead to a win in the propaganda struggle against revenge. And not sticking out the "good" and hiding the "bad". Reformers are doomed if they do not criticize their own political position. That is, they will not answer the question why it turned out to be so easy to push them out of the political class.

V. Leibin actually joins the opinion expressed by the authors of "Expert" (not to be confused with the article by A. Privalov, with which the author argues - ed. ), believing that * "the weakness of both the reformers and the oligarchs is that they had a chance become politicians, but remain specialists hired by the bureaucracy and businessmen favored by the bureaucracy, and society's main account for them should, of course, not be that they shared little, but that they handed over the new Russia into the old hands without a fight and without meaning. there are those who cannot have historical goals, who consider the people to be cattle, have already once ruined a great country and are ready to do the same with Russia ...

Our bureaucracy has hired a new generation of economists. Because she herself could no longer cope with the complete collapse and disintegration, accompanied by the depreciation of the assets of the central apparatus. The reformers have served and now stand aloof, abandoning their political role. The same is true for the oligarchs: they could enter the political class of the new Russia, but now they are buying up royal eggs. It is in the light of these historical circumstances that Khodorkovsky's article is useful as a somewhat belated but correct claim for a political role and mission.

So, the greatest threat to the country, according to V. Leibin, is the threat of collapse under the banner of revanchism.

Sources

• Leibin Vitaly. Betrayal of reforms // Polit.Ru. 2003. 15 April.