Work on mistakes

Russia is slowly, but getting used to the crisis, acting on the principle: if nothing can be done, then you should relax and ... no, do not have fun (what is the pleasure here?), But in order to minimize the consequences from the blow. So that there is less broken bones. For the intelligentsia, the "crisis" habitually becomes discourse. Look: that was how it was in the eighties, it was in the early nineties, it was in 1998, and so now. By the way, here are the socialists of Professor Buzgalin promptly gather in April in Moscow at the international conference "World crises of the 21st century: reasons, nature, alternatives to overcoming." It will be curious to find out: whose crisis is deeper and whose faster will lead to socialist Renaissance.

In passing, I do not agree with my colleague Travin , who pleased us with a review. After each crisis, he falls in the peak of the stamp: “When the erroneality of such a course became fully clear ...” Interestingly, and intent, in his opinion, is this a mistake?

In 1998, the interest on GKO payments exceeded the state budget, and the fact that sooner or later it will be so, everyone saw. They brought articles on this subject to the editorial office. Large sheets. And the question was therefore not how it happened that I had to declare a default, but: what was they counting on? Moreover, that, as it turns out, there was no modern branched economy of commodity production then, so there is no it. As there is no developed economy of services. The population, almost according to Platonov, can only talk to the pit, and without a task, for the most part, is not able to survive.

I was always interested in what, according to managers, was a favorable version of such a civilization? This must be understood not in order to understand the option, but to understand their psychology. Moreover, not so long ago Anatoly Chubais, in the most favorable tones commenting on the “reformist” titanism of the administrators of that era, expressed: “A little more, and we would slip through ...” Where? In fact, it’s not at all interesting what they were “mistaken”, more interesting, where they were sent? From the administrative-socialist myth there was a futuristic “strict young man” Room-Oleshi-Komsomol members in the currents of slave-owning Rome. The monument of administrative capitalism, apparently, will be a new reading of the “inhabited island” - an empire with constant wars on the outskirts.

Theory. It is known that the currency earned for ten years went into an inviolable stock for ten years, which is why the state corporations recruited cheap loans in the West. Allegedly on investments. But America threw them, in turn, spending a mortgage. The idea is that this, they say, manifested the influence of the global crisis in this. Globalistic, so to speak, connected peace.

And let it be so! Well, it's time to conduct an inventory of unfinished investment projects. It may not be possible to realize them one hundred percent, but where is it unreliable? From the American mortgage crisis, empty houses remained. They say the debtors returned the bank to the bank by mail. There is nothing left of Russian “prosperity”, with the exception of villas near Moscow and Spain, which no one is going to return, the Chelsea football team, the Baturina Palace somewhere near London. Where is the started but not finished operating system? Where is at least a zero cycle of a domestic flint valley? Where are the new bridges and roads that regularly urge to build, following the example of Roosevelt, to create a locomotive pulling out the economy? Realistic insurance medicine - at least in a project that only lacks funding?

In fact, the problem of the Russian government is not that it does something wrong every time, but that it is initially imprisoned on another.

Meanwhile, this time does not leave the feeling of exhaustion of the genre. One well -known publicist, from statesmen with whom he does not always pull to agree, nevertheless noted: the current crisis will be a test of the political system for strength and correctness that exercises the choice of the political elite path. If the country will resist, therefore, more favorable times will resist, which someday come, and sovereign democracy will be for a long time, like the Tatar-Mongol yoke. However, the universal change in modality and the emergence of a treacherous “if” even with a regular patriot did not go unnoticed. The fact that options are possible is perhaps the close revolution of perception.

But I agree with another famous publicist from the camp who wrote to the tragic completion of the press conference on January 19 (the absolute novelty for Moscow press conferences has not yet been shot) that the roots of the current troubles were in the “dashing nineties”. That is, if you think of the life of a tree, the roots of the present are always somewhere in the past, and in the present we are fighting with circumstances that are stronger than us. But passing through the "dashing nineties", are these roots in the "dashing nine hundredths", where, in fact, the last terrible cycle of Russian modernization began?

For everything that was done later was either a confirmation (70 years of Soviet power with a break on the Khrushchev thaw), or by denial (August 1991), or a partial renaissance (after 2000) of a specific model of Russian administration, which did not add sufficient vitality to the Russian hostel. We tried communism, Soviet socialism, liberalism, democracy, freedom of speech and lies as a form of social communication. I don’t even know what is ultimately more pessimistic-to think Russia as a country of eternal crisis (crises still end and overcome), or as a country of eternal project (the image of eternal inaction and expectation up to immersion in the abyss).

If the feeling that this cycle comes an end, the following reality will arise from a completely new game of the forces of history. “This is my last (and most likely useless) attempt to explain with our“ leaders ”... - as Piontkovsky’s subtly sensing moment puts the point . Yes, and I myself never claimed that what would come would be good ...