"Russia spoils karma for itself"

What is good and what is bad? In relation to the economy, like politics, the answer to this question may be more complicated than it seems at first glance. This fall, the Russian edition of the book was published in Moscow, which is trying to understand the relationship between economics and morality - from the time of ancient Babylon to the present day. The "economy of good and evil" of the Czech economist Tomas Sedlachek has long become an international bestseller - although the author himself says that he posed much more questions than he found answers. Many of them concern Russia.

"The Hive was a sorcerer's vice, but in general he was a paradise." So described in his “fable about bees” the state of the human, but not at all the bee society Bernard Mandeville -the now half-forgotten English-Council philosopher and economist, who is sometimes called "economic Machiavelli." "Pride and vanity built more hospitals than all the virtues taken together" - this was the main idea of Mandeville. In his opinion, the “economic person” is moved by greed, money -grubbing and egoism, but ultimately the wealth created by him leads to an improvement in the life of everyone. This faith still moves many supporters of the "invisible hand of the market." Their opponents, including Tomash Sedlachki, believe that the implementation of Mandeville’s teachings in practice led to the fact that the economy has lost the human dimension and therefore our world looks like this ... In general, it does not look the best.

Slums in the city of Jammu (India). This "hive" does not seem at all a paradise

About how and why is this measurement to restore, what is “humanumics”, why Donald Trump can hate it correctly, and Russian politics is not subject to export, Tomash Sedlachek told in an interview with Radio Liberty.

Curse "all the best"

- When reading your book, I could not get rid of the feeling that you are interesting and with many historical and scientific examples you set out an extremely simple thought. You argue that the economy as a science, as the field of knowledge has betrayed its own roots, what it was originally, and as the field of human being, it is increasingly reduced to the triumph of banal greed and immoderate consumption. Is that so?

- Well, this is one of the options for interpreting what I wanted to say. The fact is that the economy once began as a specific area of moral philosophy-the study of how better (for all) to conduct a common economy. Adam Smith wanted to help a large number of people by studying economic laws so that they cease to suffer and die from hunger and poverty and through welfare would become better. This was the essence of the economy. She also had a goal: the classics of economic science studied what society, one or another of its model could be, not during its development, but ultimately - what will be the ratio of the rich and the poor that it will bring to people. We refused this, the economy exists for the very process of its growth. But capitalism is not only growth mechanisms. For me, capitalism is primarily a set of values: freedom, individual responsibility. There is also the wrong side - excessive egoism and materialism, but this is not the main thing. Capitalism as a system of values can have its own goals and its human and moral dimension. It can be discussed, adjusted, etc. But growth capitalism, let's call it like that, is just a mechanism ...

This is a very ancient strategy: the more we work hard - the more we get and accumulate, the more we consumed, the more pleasant a feeling of satiety

- Can I say, accounting?

- Yes, accounting, statistics. Growth itself is such a rich society, which is the modern West, cannot make happy. It is clear where the growth cult itself comes from. This is a very ancient strategy: the more we work hard - the more we get and accumulate, the more aggressive we are in relation to the environment - the stronger we consumed, the more pleasant a feeling of satiety. For many centuries it worked. But now for the second or third generation in a row such a strategy is useless: wealth is already enough. Therefore, society is unable to determine the purpose of economic development, to answer the question: why do you need an economy at all? Suppose if such a goal was to create an economy that people could not care about at all ...

- Is it in principle possible?

- If the vast majority in this society can afford not to take care of their own survival, food - this means that the economy has fulfilled its function. Here you have a little frivolous example: if a family can afford to go to a movie or a theater twice a month twice a month, without fear that then they will not have enough for food, everything, in a certain sense, has been done, the economy works.

- Well, but people want more than just eat and go to the cinema with a child.

- The program "more and more" is impossible. By the way, therefore, congratulating someone, I never wish "all the best." This is impossible, because there is no better boundaries, it is moving away all the time. “All the best” is a curse in a sense. This is a desire for fiction, this is a curse of eternal dissatisfaction.

"Black Friday" is the annual day of large trade discounts after the day of thanks in the United States, the apotheosis of consumer fever

- Tantalov flour?

- Exactly. Tantalov flour.

- But one such project, the creators of which looked at the economy with an ideological bell tower, already existed. It was called communism, with a well -known slogan: "From each - according to his abilities, for each - according to needs." As we know, he completely failed. Why? Did people be too imperfect by their nature?

- No. Here you need to be very careful, because such things cannot be dictated "from above." The word "enough" should come not from the outside, but from the inside - both person and society. You must pronounce it, not them - power. Like in the Bible: "It is not saturated with an eye, but the ear - listening." It should be an internal imperative. In the conditions of modern Western society, this would just mean to work less. Let's look at modern films - I interpret them as a mirror of the subconscious of society. Indeed, in every second of them the main characters do not have enough time - for children, for a family, for love or on himself. And from here the character has problems that he seeks to solve one way or another. In fact, these are different variations of the relationship of man and the modern economy that destroys a person. Life in the rhythm "Come on, come on." I don’t think that many people sincerely want to live like that - but they live.

Light at the end of the pit

- I understand that this criticism of modern society has the concept of “humanumics” - Humanomics that you promote. But what can an alternative to the modern economic "juicer" in practice look like?

- If very briefly - so that there is a person in the first place, and not the dynamics of GDP. In fact, I imagine about the same as many classics of economic thought- Joseph Schumpeter , Torstein Ebblen or, in a sense, Adam Smith and David Ricardo . This is such a development of the economy in which it naturally reaches a state when it will serve as a system of support for the life of society, and not the purpose of this life. Modern technologies are developing so violently that after some time-I do not speak in a couple of years, but why not in a couple of decades? - In developed countries, on average, it will be quite enough to work two hours a day. This is not fantasy: in the twentieth century, relatively recently, a 6-day working week was widespread, now it is 5-day, but there is a dedication of 4-day ... In my opinion, this may continue. Why not? The point is a goal -setting: what is more important - satisfaction of people with life or economic growth at all costs?

The point is a goal -setting: what is more important - satisfaction of people with life or economic growth at all costs?

-But our world is very colorful, hardly to the seamstresses, sewing T-shirts somewhere in Bangladesh, there are enough two hours of work per day-they sometimes lack ten hours to feed their families.

- Now I am talking only about Western societies, which are largely saturated with their well -being. Look, because we have not committed any miracles with this well -being, we didn’t help the world as a whole, we basically eat this well -being - and we even do this without appetite. We consume, for example, entertainment, a huge entertainment industry produces multimillion -dollar films about comics superheroes. To attract spectators to this, another colossal industry is used - an advertising. This is just an example. Many resources could be used just to overcome the non -military in the world that you talked about.

- It seems that we have already moved far from the economy. After all, you are now acting as a supporter of a moral, not an economic revolution. This is no longer about the economy, this is about brains and souls.

Office life: many inhabitants of “OPENSS” do not have enough time for themselves

​

- About souls, yes. But, oddly enough, about effectiveness: I would really like us to spend time allotted on Earth at least relatively meaningfully. It seems to me that it's time to reason more globally. I was often asked regarding the global economic crisis: is there light at the end of the tunnel? I answered: we are not in the tunnel, but in a hole, a pit, there can be no light in it. This is not a tunnel, because we are not moving anywhere. The modern Western economy has no goal except itself. The pit becomes a tunnel when the movement to the target begins. Say, humanitarian: how to make the children do not die on the planet hundred thousand thousand of diseases, the medicines from which have existed for a long time? How to eliminate mass hunger on the planet, where the food is actually stalled? Why are we still used to reason mainly on the scale of peoples and states, although the most serious problems are long global, supranational? As soon as the pit of meaninglessness turns into a tunnel, at its end there will certainly be light.

- Do you understand how a radical change in not only the image of thoughts, but also the state of very many things and institutions would be required for this? Do you believe that?

- I think, in 10-20 years what we are talking about now will be completely “mailstream”. About how to solve the problems of this planet. The division of people into peoples rarely brought good. If you estimate the balance of the good and the evil concept brought to mankind with the concept of the nation, then, I think, this balance will be negative.

As soon as the pit of meaninglessness turns into a tunnel, at its end there will certainly be light

- It is quite possible. But the vast majority of people got used to this and, let’s say, closed the soul: in their opinion, a person simply must be “attributed” to one or another people. Moreover, you are talking about global thinking now, when the most bold supranational project of modernity, the European Union, is in a deep crisis , and nationalism, on the contrary, is on the rise.

- Times are changing. I drive around the city on a bicycle. But on a horse I could hardly come here, tie a horse and sit here to talk to you over a cup of tea. And about a hundred years ago, nothing more natural could have imagined anything more natural. Or a less primitive example: ecological movement, "green". About 30 years ago, they were considered some kind of clowns or fanatics: you think, they climb on the ropes on tankers and whaling ships, they save whales. Today it is a significant political force in many countries, the governments of Germany, the Netherlands, etc., to one degree or another, are implemented to one degree or another. No one is thinking of laughing at them. Thinking is changing: will it come to your mind today to wash your car in the river? About 20 years ago - all the time. It just never occurred to us to look at things from this angle. Therefore, I have hope.

The ability to hate correctly

- That is, you are a convinced progressive?

- Probably yes. Although rather - a convinced democrat. You cannot take away from people the opportunity to discuss and solve their problems in accordance with their own ideas. Although, of course, democracy is a risk. But pay attention: where it is, people rarely voluntarily chose some kind of evil. Yes, it happened a couple of times: here we have with the Communists, even earlier in Germany - with the Nazis, and even then in both cases with reservations. But for the most part, the choice of citizens looks quite reasonable.

Supporters of Donald Trump celebrate his victory in the presidential election

-That is, in your opinion, the people usually have, if not the mind, then at least the instinct of self-preservation? Well, in the United States, Donald Trump has just elected President ...

- Democrat cannot not believe in it. Trump and Brexit, two events of this year are very interesting examples. I did not sympathize with Trump. But, on the other hand, there is a feeling that people so wanted changes that they were ready to support Trump as their symbol. This is the first. There is a second point: it seems that a whole group of politicians appeared on the stage who use the energy of hatred for their own purposes. In our Czech Republic, President Milos Zeman belongs to them. He is quite popular, and everything says goodbye to him: rudeness, rudeness, inappropriate behavior. For a simple reason: he knows how to hate in the right way. So that this corresponds to the moods of many people. And political work with this hatred brings him legitimacy in the eyes of voters. Trump operates with something like this. And there is a feeling that now in so many countries the political scene is not traditionally divided into right and left, but according to other criteria - those who are tuned to dialogue, and those who are moving hostility or hatred. Politics in 2016 is no longer a debate about taxes or pension funds, as it was another 10 years ago. Suddenly, we see that the main political topics are moral topics: is it worth helping to one or another people, for example, migrants, is it worth fighting there and there, etc. All this revolves around Socrat’s well-known thought: "Let it better cause evil to me than me." This is about the appropriateness of evil and the essence of good is the current policy.

“Is she globalized too?”

The main political topics are moral topics

- Our life is generally globalized even stronger than it might seem. And this is only the beginning. Pretty soon an artificial mind will appear, which will greatly affect the state of the economy. Take, for example, unmanned vehicles whose prototypes already exist. Suppose some company will be the first to establish the mass production of such cars the first, after making them cheap-and thereby deprive a huge number of taxi drivers and drivers around the world. There will be a big social problem, and international. That is why global democracy is needed, which, among other things, could solve problems associated with the emergence of global monopolies on the basis of new technologies. We are on the verge of an era of artificial intelligence, and the question is inevitable: and who will be its owner? A monopolist, a group of persons - or will a more democratic model arise, with the widest possible participation? Up to all of mankind, when will one share of such an enterprise automatically be given to each child at birth? Inventors of the new technology, in this case, could own, say, half of the capital. All these are things that sound fantastic, but they are already close. Schumpeter, a very interesting economist, thought about something like this at one time, who said that the natural development of capitalism would lead either to the disaster or to strengthen the elements of solidarity in the scale of all mankind.

Model "Car without a driver" developed by Google

- That is, you, in fact, speak with the new version of the old theory of the “convergence of public systems” , which said that capitalism and socialism will gradually come closer and merge together?

- No. The then communist system was unacceptable and unpromising. But I would distinguish communism and communitarianism - in the sense of joint expenses and risks. There is nothing non -resident and non -capitalist in this, because within the framework of capitalism there is already such a system, and it is called insurance. Insurance is a kind of market communism: all the insured pay insurance premiums, and when the provided insured event occurs with someone (well, let's say I defeated my insured car), then in fact, all the rest are taking off my repairs through an insurance company. From each - according to opportunities, for each - according to needs. And all participants know that this system is beneficial for them, because everyone can get into an accident. So it is with new technologies: if we manage to create a format in which they can be used relatively fair, then they will be for humanity, semolina. Otherwise, they will become a curse and universal threat.

Russian policy and Czech wine

-You reason globally, but they often look at global problems in different countries very differently. The current Russia is a good example. Your book has just been published in Russia. What do you think of the Russian role in the processes that we talked about?

- One way to talk about global processes is optimistic is to see in them the transition to a multipolar world ...

- Vladimir Putin just likes to talk about this.

История с Крымом и Украиной России страшно повредила

- Yes? Я не очень внимательно за его выступлениями слежу. Тем не менее мы видим, что нынче Китай стремится быть заметнее на мировой арене, Россия стремится, а кто-то еще, скажем, Индия или страны Африки, – не стремятся или не могут. То есть "многополярность" по-прежнему несколько неуравновешенная, далекая от того состояния, когда мы перестанем бить друг друга по башке, условно говоря, из-за того, что одним нравится синее, а другим – зеленое.

– Или из-за того, чей Крым?

– Принадлежность Крыма – частный случай проблем, вызываемых концепцией национального государства. Я думаю, история с Крымом и Украиной России страшно повредила. До этого у России были разные трения, но не было почти ни с кем действительно серьезных проблем. Крым всё изменил, Россия этим, если можно так выразиться, испортила себе карму. Позиция Европы понятна: мы хотим с вами торговать, но не на таких условиях, когда вы позволяете себе слабо объяснимую агрессию. Такими методами многополярный мир не строится – хотя в самом стремлении к нему я ничего плохого не вижу. Тут еще многое упирается в примат политики. Мы часто видим в политике вершину общественной деятельности. А это не так, функционально политика – не более чем операционная система, как Windows в компьютере. Она должна помогать, служить своего рода рамкой, а не создавать проблемы.

Акция протеста против аннексии Крыма, март 2014 года

– Видимо, ваш идеал – Швейцария, в которой, как говорят, граждане не знают, кто у них нынче президент, потому что это неважно?

- Exactly. Еще учтем, что большую часть существенных для них вопросов граждане там решают на референдумах. Степень непосредственного участия народа в политике очень высокая. Поэтому им все равно, кто там президент, ведь он – всего лишь чиновник, обслуга, который не пользуется какими-то особыми привилегиями и почестями.

– Вот тут мы и упираемся в разницу культур. В России, скажем, традиция сакрализации власти очень глубокая. "Батюшка-царь", как бы он ни назывался – действительно царем, генеральным секретарем или президентом, – одна из непременных фигур русской истории. Что тут поделаешь?

– Нет ничего неизменного. 400 лет назад вот прямо здесь у нас вовсю сжигали ведьм . Я потому и пишу книжки, что хочу попробовать заставить людей задуматься – и верю в то, что мышление способно меняться. Вот пример: Евросоюз и Греция, пару лет назад – очень горячая тема. Представим себе, что такая маленькая страна, как Греция, залезла бы в такие колоссальные долги лет сто или двести назад. Что бы с ней стало? Да скорее всего ее бы самой не стало: страны-кредиторы бы ее так или иначе оккупировали. What is happening now? Реструктуризация долга, программы помощи (хоть и на жестких довольно условиях), Европа следит, как там у греческой экономики дела, и первые признаки оживления встречает бурной радостью. Да, Греции тяжело, но это уже не тот мир хищников, в котором "умри ты сегодня, а я завтра".

Это уже не тот мир хищников, в котором "умри ты сегодня, а я завтра"

Если вернуться к России – ну да, она показала, что может применить, если захочет, военную силу для завоевания какой-то территории. Остается вопрос: какие долгосрочные выгоды это приносит? Это действительно хорошая стратегия? При этом Россия – страна, у которой много чему можно поучиться, например, в области культуры и науки. But not politics! Чехи, скажем, делают неважное вино, но отличное пиво – поэтому мы должны предлагать миру свое пиво, но не вино. Пиво – у чехов, еда – у французов, технологии – у японцев и американцев, политика – у тех же швейцарцев и других давних демократий. Ну а если человечество всё, как обычно, перепутает, то политика будет в русском стиле, а вино будем пить чешское.

СПРАВКА: Томаш Седлачек (р. 1977) – чешский экономист, выпускник, затем преподаватель факультета социальных наук Карлова университета (Прага), стипендиат Йельского университета (США). В 2006 году этот университет включил его в пятерку наиболее перспективных молодых экономистов мира (Young Guns: Top 5 Hot Minds in Economics). В 2001–2003 годах входил в число советников президента Чехии Вацлава Гавела. С 2009 года – член Национального экономического совета Чехии, главный советник правления Чешско-словацкого торгового банка (ČSOB). Книга "Экономика добра и зла" вышла в свет в 2009 году, два года спустя была переиздана. С тех пор переведена на 15 языков.