"Expert": "Bourgeois Reflections"

The 14th issue of the magazine "Expert" published another response to M. Khodorkovsky's letter about the crisis of liberalism in Russia - an article by T. Gurova, A. Mekhanik and A. Privalov "Bourgeois Reflections".

The authors of the article, referring to numerous studies, argue that capital, which has passed the era of primitive accumulation, becomes the most important factor in the development of the country. And the conviction of this makes the capitalist fight for influence on public policy. And this is natural for business and beneficial for the state.

Meanwhile, no one in Russia today is convinced of this - neither the capitalists themselves, nor the people who call themselves liberals: “They no longer talk about free capital as a factor in economic development. In our opinion, this ideological weakness jeopardizes the possibility of the long-term and strong economic growth so expected by all. And not only that. The threat is more universal. Neglect - if not contempt - for free capital deprives the country of the chance to experience a period of real emancipation of forces, a period of creative excitement, and then the joy of victory in global competition" .

An analysis of the controversy around M. Khodorkovsky's letter shows that it boils down to a formula of three components: "democratic rights of citizens plus social responsibility plus patriotism. There are no complaints about any of these components, but the potential inherent in their enumeration is very weak: we , they say, for everything good against everything bad. With such colorful banners, one does not win in political fights " .

The authors argue that neither Russian liberals, nor the owners of big capital in Russia themselves have a respectful attitude towards this very big capital: "They all shyly avoid the issue of property, not daring to say that property is not only a means of profit, but with some fairly soon-coming moment and not so much a means of profit, but an opportunity to realize his idea, to change the material world in some part of it... This is what the capitalist does, this is what he serves society - and not at all by buying Faberge eggs and not sponsoring sports clubs. And vice versa, if the people, the intelligentsia and the state want the capitalist to take care of national culture and national sports, then they should see him as a representative of the ruling class, and not lower him to the level of an estate, the only justification for the existence of which is good taxes regularly deducted to the state " .

In the West, the authors write, there are parties that defend the interests of capital. There are no such parties in Russia. Moreover, liberals, "without openly opposing arguments about the illegitimacy, illegality of privatization and property (and even directly agreeing with the opinion about the illegitimacy of property) ... are very actively cutting the branch on which they sit. Because both democracy and liberalism stand on economic and the spiritual foundation of capitalism, aggressive, cynical - and creative" .

Historical experience shows that reaching a certain level of prosperity, "an entrepreneur, he is a capitalist, he is a bourgeois, does not make money, but creates, changes reality to the best of his ability, guided by an irrational desire to develop more and more his business" .

Liberals (with the exception of E. Yasin and E. Gaidar) actively contribute to the strengthening of the myth that the only result of the reforms of the 90s. was the impoverishment of the people, seeking to attract the sympathy of this very people. Meanwhile, most of them understand that the real results of the reforms are not only and not so much in this. However, the authors appeal to the liberals: “If today you don’t fight the myth that the only results of the liberation of the Russian people are its impoverishment and social stratification, then no one will ever appreciate other results, because they will no longer exist. The rest of the results will quickly be devoured paternalistic (supposedly to please the aspirations of the people) bureaucratic state".

Meanwhile, there are results, they are beneficial both for the state as a whole and for the population. Moreover, they were achieved precisely thanks to the activities of the "capitalists": "both the disappearance of queues and shortages, and high rates of economic growth, and our very strong positions in the energy raw materials market, and the victorious expansion of our metallurgical companies into the global property market - all these are the results of the activities of private entrepreneurs and not the state" (in order to be convinced of this, it is enough to compare the economic indicators of private and public campaigns).

Real successes are not only not noticed, but are also denied because " "the national bourgeoisie, born in a decade, did not enter or was not introduced into the ruling elite of the country. This is what liberals and oligarchs really should blame themselves for .

This situation is explained by the peculiarities of the formation of Russian capitalism - when, in the absence of a legislative framework and an effective judicial system, "business had to look for a place for itself within a framework that was not designed for the existence of free capital. And entrepreneurs with great zeal began to fit into the world of officialdom - buying some officials, “laying down” under other officials, lobbying (that is, again buying) the adoption of laws under which it will be more convenient for them to deal with officials . Of course, in any situation, one would have to fight to enter the political, power elite of the country, but in the conditions in which business put itself in this case, all chances for business to enter politics were reduced to zero. Meanwhile, for the successful implementation of the economic tasks facing the state, the country's ruling elite must be renewed, and primarily at the expense of business representatives. Due to the fact that the capitalist "always works with reality, strictly on the basis of it determines his capabilities and evaluates the results, which distinguishes him from representatives of the intellectual elite" and "cannot imagine life without development, expansion", "lack of representation in the ruling class of the bourgeoisie limits the possibilities country to long-term development: either all the juices of creative energy are squeezed out of it in a short period, or it does not develop at all. The bourgeoisie brings to the ruling elite the ability to look for new opportunities for the development of the country, which is surprisingly combined with true realism" . That is why, in the opinion of the authors of the article, "the legalization of the freedom of capital, the entry of representatives of capital into the ruling elite is very important for Russia today . "

Gurova Tatiana, Mechanic Alexander, Privalov Alexander. Bourgeois reflections: In order for Russia to develop adequately to the forces available to it, the domestic bourgeoisie must take its place in the ruling class // Expert. 2004. No. 14. April 12-18. pp. 21-26.