Translated material
Andrey Levkin: Alfred Koch, mythoterminator
Andrey Levkin
On November 17, in the Great Hall of the Polytechnic Museum, the Yegor Gaidar Foundation held another lecture from the cycle "The reform of the 90s, as it was." Alfred Koch spoke, who was supposed to engage in revelations: "Some myths about the reforms of the 90s: what really happened." Polit.ru in this cycle acts as a partner of the fund, but A.Koch is not a stranger to us at all.
The whole meeting will be deciphered and posted after some time, quoting on pieces does not make sense. It is better to engage in the general nature of history and questions to Koch that readers and editors of Polit.ru arose. It is only necessary to understand that it was impossible to ask all the questions sent to him. Because the large hall of the Polytechnic not only was large, but also completely filled. And most of those present had a personal attitude to the topic, which is why they wrote numerous notes, to which Koch answered thoroughly and even unfolded.
When, two hours later, with a quarter, it came to an opportunity to ask our questions, then it is no longer a local interview, even for the publication-partner of the fund. Well, the organizers and I agreed on two issues. But the questions themselves - later, and this was a lyrical warning, the meaning of which consisted in, a) to outline the situation and the excitement demand for the truth of life and b) so that none of the options sent to be offended.
It is clear that Koch has a template for a performance before an unprepared audience (the full large hall is obviously not a meeting of experts). Moreover, it was in the 90s, since then everything could be learned by heart. But, it seems, this time several new versions appeared. Briefly like this:
- There was no topic of robbing the people through the intentional depreciation of their savings. By that time, they all depreciated in fact.
- Koch does not think at all that Gaidar's government was liberal. Not because its participants were not liberals. But because the government simply did what should be done at this time in this place. And no ideology was specially advanced here. Exactly just as Primakov and Maslyakov behaved in 1998. So their Cabinet, in the complete absence of the corresponding ideological inclinations, could be called the most liberal and almost the most successful liberal government.
- The USSR did not ruin Yeltsin. Ukraine ruined him in the person of Kravchuk (not Kuchma!) Which became the president exactly at the same time when Ukraine voted in a referendum for leaving the USSR. In Belovezhskaya, no one was going to ruin anything, but Kravchuk did not agree to anything, because he was limited by the results of the referendum. But what is the USSR without Ukraine? Well, von: Baltic, Transcaucasian republics.
- About the "sinister role" of the vouchers. There is a long story - both vouchers and about options. Koch himself never spoke for voucher, but he does not see any sinister in them. As for their buying up, exactly at exactly the same speed with which citizens cashed their voucher, they cashed out shares issued to employees of quite serious companies. Those same actions that are now a lot. And, in fact, what was the illegal did citizens who bought vouchers near the metro or shops?
- collateral auctions. The myth that the oligarchs arose precisely through this tool, and then on this basis the entire structure of the state and business was lined up is a myth. Even if we take the "Semibankershirsch", then not everyone had relations with them. And in the fresh lists of "Forbes" such people are generally very few. And then, after three or four-five iterations, the initial origin of the business becomes insignificant, it proceeds to really effective owners. Of course, in accordance with the fact that it is effective at this time in this place.
- On the topic that in the 90s the state was plundered, and that they did not plunder, they were killed. Why did the current property structure arise. Koch carefully explained that this is not entirely true. At least, a sufficient number of industries appeared that did not exist at all. Trade networks, development companies, IT business. As for the collapse of industry, here it is necessary to look, since the chemical is quite in order, while others could be simply uncompetitive. And even that, everyone would be competitive, so maybe nothing would have happened in 1991.
- To the topic that Gaidar did not prevent hunger at all, Koch reacted very seriously. He even gave a lecture for twenty minutes with a schedule and analysis of various types of hunger, which arose in Russia in the 20th century. And so, according to him, the refutations usually look like this: what hunger Gaidar prevented if there was no starvation. Answer: It was never exactly because it prevented. The evidence looked thoroughly, but about this in the printout.
Then the questions began , as usual (for such lectures) repeating what was already said by the lecturer himself. From the turnover, a story was curious about the judicial prospects of Berezovsky against Abramovich. Koch's sympathies on the side of Abramovich, and he approximately explained the situation with the involvement of mafia theme. Say, the “roof” can record on the video how the “roof” publicly calls them “partners”. Or he will even write the corresponding paper. Does this be from this that it is a real partnership? The point here is not even in the classification of the actions of a particular Berezovsky, but in the British court, which is precedent. That is, in the presence of the appropriate precedent, the Lord will continue to be able to demand a share on the basis of corresponding audio or written statements.
And Olga Romanova brought to the lecture of her journalists from the "Twes" and asked Koch to tell, in particular, about what was actually with NTV. Well, Koch, as he could, for about twenty minutes, retold what he had told more than once and what he had been writing about the book with Igor Pvinarenko about the book “The Box of Vodka. Volume 4” in a long time ago. The book is known, you can read about the NTV case there, starting from this place . Either future journalists are not trained, or they have not yet learned to read and they need to tell everything personally.
Now the questions are Polit.ru. The first is from readers . More precisely, he was already a little generalized, given that by this moment Koch had already said a lot from what they wanted to ask for two and a quarter of an hour. The question, in a word, is like that. Here, he (Kochu) all the time has to debunk different myths, which are all so unpleasant. Wash from other unskilled accusations of the deliberate injustice of what they made then. But why then. In the 90s, they themselves did not attempt to give a variant of a positive myth that would give citizens the opportunity to at least think that what is happening could be fair?
Koch reacted to the topic seriously. Thinking, he said that there are two answers. The first is simple and, in fact, incorrect. Because the second answer will be true. difficult.
The first answer was that Yeltsin categorically opposed this, that is, against such a campaign. He absolutely did not want to allow anything that seemed to him a variant of communist propaganda. Well. And since the topic of informing the promise still had, he threw it away by one and a half, who either simply did not understand what exactly had to be done, either specifically did not want to do anything without sharing the actions of the government. It was not possible to change this situation.
The second answer was that this would still be impossible. There would be no effect. Because the government acts in one frame, the rest - inevitably in another. Society in such cases takes time to adapt to what is happening. Moreover, given the inertia and habits of long previous years. Adaptation will also not work, because for different people it occurs at different speeds. That is, it is not clear even for whom to build such an auxiliary myth and, moreover, it is not clear how it might look. They themselves, moreover, is also incomprehensible.
Koch told two appropriate stories. One from Chubais, who somehow shared with him one fact of life. In St. Petersburg, one of the police officials complained to him. Say, what does this do with you?! Well, what did he do there? - As if Chubais became interested. And they show him a paper type of protocol, in which the fault of Namerek was recorded: "He created a joint -stock company in order to make a profit."
But at the same time, Chubais himself cursed with Koch (who was then involved in the Privatization in St. Petersburg), when he put up the Diet store in the very center of the city for privatization. According to Chubais's then, such institutions cannot be touched in principle - that they have a certain social function. In the very center of the city. So the intervention of logic was present among the reformers themselves.
And - from Koch - even on the topic, why they did not explain anything. Say, he is accused of why no one has reached that the MMM fund is bad? But how could they not explain when exactly what they explained. No, you explained poorly because I did not understand anything. Well, yes (this is the Kokhov resume), they still have not been explained if MMM has started again. But, nevertheless, a certain adaptation still occurs. After all, when he defined Russia 10 years ago by a raw materials appendage, everyone got on its hind legs. And now this thought does not cause any emotions. Due to its evidence.
The second question was no longer from the readers of Polit.ru, but from the editorial office. About the same, but as it is all today. Is it possible to say that the regime (in the broad sense-referring to power, business, citizens as such and the connection between all these elements) has already established and gave rise, in particular, some new understanding of justice? And, if so, what is the entire set of safety margins?
Koch believes that, in principle, we can assume that everything has already developed. Then he thought a little more and finally agreed that the system developed, and some, which it really happened, the idea of justice also arose. And as for the deadlines, he thinks that it is for 30-40 years, definitely.
And now Polit.ru will comment on this. Of course, 30-40 years look thoroughly, which is why it was even irresponsible. What can be assumed ahead for 30-40 years? But here, people are in the hall. There are many 50-60 year olds. Some of them reacts to Koha as if all this topic takes place exactly now, and not twenty years ago. That is, they are in fact back in the previous version - and already 20 years have passed. With shouts from the hall, with questions, in addition to any regulations and the rules of decency. And the lady, who was sitting for some time, was talking to the TV all the time. Not yet elderly, adequately dressed. But here, Koch says that in the end, everything goes to the effective owner, and she comments: "Of course raider seizures." Koch says that "Yordan is really not a Zionist, but a semi-Russian semi-German, like me, and he has American citizenship," and the lady adds to Koch: "Like mine." In that spirit. So what is 30 years old?
Well, on the other side, it’s not bad, so Koch will collect the audience for another twenty years. By the way, Putin all the time recalls the collapse of the USSR, even on Thursday he spoke about shuddering accompanying this: now he can clarify who exactly to address the claims. Kravchuk, yes. He is now a deputy in the Rada, albeit quiet, but with a fee and certainly with a sense of his historical role.
And in total: the theme of the 90s, or something, is changing. It, perhaps, becomes the theme of culture - this is exactly how all kinds of adaptations, changes in representations and all that other are happening. The main question on the 90s is no longer so much about how and what happened, could it be different, but - why was it perceived exactly as perceived? In such cases, there are always many options, all the more so - with concerns specifically you. But some kind of most interesting in terms of the experiences of the largest your address is selected. It is clear that it is consensus-mass, well, so the mass option is made up of private sensations. Which unequivocally reports the desire to feel abandoned, who was overwhelmed. Someone deceived and abandoned by him.
And this, unlike the actual part of the story, is directly related to what is happening constantly.