[Without heading]

I went upstairs. The book was ready. I liked the layout. Nevertheless, it became completely clear that it cannot be released without one chapter. The one that was not going to write. When in the West they see a healthy and able -bodied, but poor person, they usually include the causes of poverty at his own expense. Or, they say, he did not work well enough, or he chose the wrong sphere of activity, or did not show proper prudence at all. Or something else.

Such a severe attitude towards the poor in the countries of the free market, of course, has an ideological basis. It is the threat of poverty that makes most, for example, of American society to actively work and postpone savings. The complete elimination of poverty would lead to the same consequences as the destruction of wolves for deer herds: they would soon forgot how to run ...

Our nature is completely different. And it’s not at all similar to the domestic situation from the western, when you look who exactly those people who need social protection. I do not take old people and disabled people. Their percentage is approximately the same everywhere. But where did such a large proportion of poor people in a rich country come from? And how, among the poor, was a healthy, qualified, non -minute person who until recently was a co -owner of the Russian “public property” and honestly fulfilled his obligations to the system?

No, we have nothing to blame for the majority of our "poor". These are they, their parents created national wealth. These are they, their parents protected him from numerous encroachments for more than half a century of Russian history. And most importantly, these people did not give consent to transfer their share of the nationwide treasure to the hands of an insignificant part of the population for the cost of two kilograms of sausage. Those who overtook them took advantage of the distribution levers of the former, Soviet system, and not at all the principles of free, honest competition.

And who will finally explain to our poor people, why the reforms have been going on for 10 years, and 90% of our citizens are in a position as worse than it was after the war? Even the number falls on the villages of Russia, despite the influx of other republics.

The authorities must literally worship the Russian people for patience. Moreover, in other times, all our people were remembered in other times for several months to relocate industry for the Urals, in two years to bring annual production of tanks to 30 thousand, and planes to forty. Just please do not tell me that today there are no people who are ready to work as selflessly. I know the situation: there are such people and even in a large number. It’s just that they are not “ordering music”.

When you ask the Americans how many people in the United States can be attributed to the category of those in need of social protection, they say: depending on how to count. But even if you take the maximum - no more than 20%. That is a clear minority. Nevertheless, according to political scientists, this minority represents a huge social

Alna, which manages to weaken only the scale of social programs.

In our country, about 90% of the population have up to four hundred thousand rubles per month (that is, about $ 80), while prices are on average equal to the world. And only 5% receive more than $ 1,000 per month. But it is this minority that violates the normal structure of demand in the market, because it makes a increase in prices more profitable than an increase in sales. It also dictates a dollar in relation to the ruble that is clearly unusual for most of the exchange rate.

Such a distribution of national wealth cannot exist for a long time. At least in a free country. For a long time it can be kept only by force.

The most offensive thing is that such a policy is pursued mainly for compliance with the conditions of foreign loans - that is, first of all, six billion from the IMF. But it turns out 3 dollars a month for a brother! They will still have to be given. And for the sake of this, we should do reforms not as Russians need, but how do the IMF be needed?

No, I’m just curious: which of the countries of the IMF founders is really interested in promoting Russia to turn into a strong, competitive state that plays a serious geopolitical role that can supply high -quality high -tech products to the world market? If such a country is even there, then this is probably some small country, dissatisfied with a monopoly of giants and interested in balance. But such countries never affect the decisions of the IMF. On the other hand, let's think about which of the Russians would not agree to make $ 3 a month if I saw that reforms are made in the interests of his children and grandchildren?

No, gentlemen, we are too cheap - we sell the future of our country. Defenders of the current government policy, judging by them, have the basic hopes for investments. I am afraid that with such a policy these ideas are no more realistic than the promise given at one time that "the current generation of Soviet people will live under communism."

So far, there will be sources of enrichment in the country not related to production, but giving 180% of profit for invested capital, Russian investments in production do not have to wait. Even if there are huge funds. What, excuse me, the fool will return the money to the country to change it to rubles, when a more favorable exchange rate can be obtained by importing low -quality foreign goods? And, judging by the level of taxes on the income of enterprises and citizens, the leadership does not feel special economic need for the return of the main part of capital to Russia. Only crumbs are needed to continue the life cycle or recharge of some super-profitable business.

As for foreign investments creating highly paid jobs, they obviously do not have to wait for them in this situation. Of course, foreign money will be invested in the development of environmentally dubious production in our territory. Undoubtedly, there will be investments in the sales network of foreign goods, for example, tobacco products. Investments that use almost free land and nature management in Russia are possible - so that, say, to privatize the plant for nothing, and then suspend its functioning as a possible competitor. Some investments are real, using the imperfection of “transitional” laws and an enduring mismanagement (example, “McDonald's”). It is profitable to invest in the opportunity to hire a Russian for $ 100 a month. And yet - since the independence and power of the country to a large extent depend on the state of means of communication and computer science, you can probably wait for investment in their development. (What is threatening, it can be seen in the Crimea. Remember what the first thing was made by the Ukrainian government with President Meshkov? True, the connection turned off.) Do they really not see the government and know these obvious things? I know for sure that they understand everything perfectly. Therefore, the only explanation must be sought in the fact that some figures of Milanets Niko Pirosmanashvili. The millionaire is a childless, poor with the children of the government, freely or involuntarily serving a certain “social order”, consisting in maintaining the current position as long as possible, that redistribution of the national property that is imposed for reforms.

The substantiations of such a policy are not accompanied by demagogy, but some ideological finds that even party leaders of the seventies could envy. I mean the theses of privatization for the sake of pure principle and all talk about the undeniable advantages of private property, regardless of public benefit. The more you listen to such explanations, the more oddities it falls into the frame. They multiply, evade from understanding, are not given reason. Some publicists are generally urging that the becoming system does not correspond to the logic of rational thinking, that our second Russian revolution has released some unknown social forces and we are now drawn into their devilish game ...

I do not like to think in such categories. I am a management specialist, not a master of demonology. I’m used to believing in the diet, in simple explanations of obvious things. And therefore I will try to express as much as possible what I see.

It seems to me that under the lulling conversations about the inevitability of the initial accumulation and obsolete of theses about social justice, we released a “genie” from the bottle, which will not calm down until it seizes all power in the country, will not destroy 30% of the population and make 85% of the remaining poor.

We are talking about parasitic capital.

This is not the same capital - classic, productive, working according to the well -known scheme “Money - goods Money”, on which the well -being of all developed countries is built. People have long learned how to manage them so that, along with its growth, an increase in public well -being took place. Productive capital in a reasonable tax-legal environment cannot exist without a middle class, without the production of goods and services, without competition. This is the secret of the stability and prosperity of countries such as the USA, Germany, Japan, Sweden, etc.

But there is another type of wild, thieves' capital, which cannot exist, without assigning someone else's, why I call it parasitic, putting it into this word not emotional, but purely biological meaning.

Unlike the productive, he works according to the formula “money - raw materials”, and here you can understand anything by “raw materials”. That is, not only oil, gas, forest, nickel, non -ferrous metals, but in general everything that lies badly and that can be appropriated directly or indirectly selling. Better abroad. And since there is no benefit from parasitic capital in a poor country (where there are no conditions for the productive use of labor), the export of such capital abroad is simply inevitable. Parasitical capital is growing due to the division of national wealth, and productive by multiplication. As long as we share, and not multiply, take away, and not add, we will not stop the fall of the economy. That is why I am so giving up against parasitic capital.

A large -scale, as a special phenomenon, parasitic capital arose precisely in our country, because nowhere else there was such a situation that a tremendous wealth - the former “nation -wide property” turned out to be suddenly completely unreasonable.

Hence all the consequences.

If a significant part of the income from the difference in domestic and world prices for raw materials does not go to the owner - the people of the Russian Federation, but to parasitic capital, then this is bad not only because of injustice. This is torpedoing all the incentives for creative activities. Productive work in our country has depreciated precisely because any activity was unprofitable except parasitic or criminal.

If a person has become rich in the course of the creation of productive capital, his wealth is justified in the eyes of society. Anyone who wants to become richer has in your hands a “simple” tool: it is enough to produce goods or services cheaper and better than a competitor. There is no particular need for criminal actions at the same time, but stability and law listening are vital.

The situation is completely different if a person has become rich on the basis of parasitic capital. He has no other reason except strength. To eliminate such a person means to make the capital “free” again. So, bloody “showdowns” will not end for a long time - either at the level of mafia clans, or at the level of national -territorial formations. In any case, there will be no stability until the whole country is seized by one criminal clan, it will turn it into a police state with all the sad consequences that I spoke about (30% of the dead, 85% of the remaining - beggars). But then on the agenda there will already be interstate wars for the "living space".

Of course, in historical terms, parasitic capital itself is its burial ground. But the whole trouble is that he can go to his death for more than seventy years, and before that, both the country and the globe, and himself by the sea of ​​blood will flood.

So, here they are, direct answers to the “damned” questions posed above.

Where did our former national property go? Why are the reforms in the country for 10 years, and most of our citizens are in distress?

And where do rich people come from when production falls? Our former “nationwide treasure” has not disappeared anywhere, but almost entirely passed into the hands of parasitic capital, which cannot use it effectively differently than exporting it most (directly or indirectly) abroad. Hence our rich.

And our beggars appeared because, along with a nation -wide property, those income, “Renta”, which was consumed earlier consumed earlier by all citizens, also passed into the hands of parasitic capital, that, in a hidden form. Not always on equal terms, but more or less all. Let the stubborn democrats forgive me, but with “developed socialism”, the people relatively successfully made ends meet just due to the hidden consumption of national “rent”. Now he not only lost most of it. He also begins to pay it to parasitic capital. I say “starts”, because so far there is a single type of rent, which has not yet befell a similar fate. This is land rent. The people of the Russian Federation not only does not pay it to parasitic capital, but even partially uses. However, this last support of social stability can soon collapse.

Now the reader has the right to ask about possible measures arising from our analysis. In my opinion, they are more or less obvious. We wrote about them more than once. They are supported by both scientists and practices. They are torpedoed only by parasitic capital, which has acquired a huge political influence, or rather. If we want to radically change the trend, we need to suppress the development of parasitic capital in Russia and create favorable conditions for the development of productive capital. Just? No, difficult! Very! For parasitic capital is burying more and more political lobbying. But Russia has no other choice.

Reading all this, someone might think that such a program is closed with the intentions of the Communists: after all, they are open

hut to the redistribution of the assigned. Even less would like our program to be confused with the ideas of fascists, threatening to take away the loot even from the mafia if she does not cooperate with them. All these are very terrible prospects.

In a civilized, well -fed society, the changes, even the most decisive ones, usually occur within the framework of common sense, turn out to be minimal losses and, in any case, do not lead to bloodshed. We are hungry, non -cycling politically and economically, everything is collapsing with us, giving rise to chaos and anarchy everywhere. What can happen in such circumstances is written in history. It is enough to recall the two couples - the communist of the 1917 and fascist in the early thirties in Germany. What they brought to these countries, the world, is well known.

A simple and quick solution to pressing problems is tempting only for lumpen of all segments of the population, for the unhappy with anger, blinded by anger. As the difficulties increased, of course, there will be more and more, but we should not succumb to primitive instincts. Fans of quick decisions are beneficial only to the unprincipled Fuhrer, capable of playing all this. Moreover, ours will open the last door to him and, I emphasize especially, foreign politicians, if they still weave in the tail of events. From ours and, I repeat, foreign politicians depends whether gloomy forces will gain power, close with reactionary nationalism, chauvinism, religious fanaticism. The collapsed communist idol leaves the void behind, and in Russia, as some say, they cannot live without icons.

No, I not only do not urge, but just conjure not to succumb to the idea of ​​"robbing the loot." Russia will simply not survive another bloody mass redistribution.

Meanwhile, with developed legislation, it is not so important who is exactly the original owner of the capital, it is important under what conditions his ownership is exercised.

The tax system that has established in developed countries makes the possession of ineffectively used property simply ruin. This provides an automatically bloodless transition to its productive capital. In order to start such a process, you only need to clearly identify the sources that feed parasitic capital, and destroy these suction cups. The rest will make the "natural order of things." If we transfer property into the sphere of normal market relations, then the pragmatic approach will itself build the right accents.

That is, first of all, it is necessary to adopt a simple strategy for a steady reduction in taxes from the income of citizens and enterprises and the equally steady strengthening of large property taxation, resource and nature management. Such an increase so that the amount finally goes into a new quality.

The current figure of revenues from excise taxes and resource consumption - about 12 trillion rubles - ridiculously small. This is less than 2% of the gross domestic product.

Даже бюджет США, например, чуть ли не на 15% в совокупности финансируется за счет природопользования. И это в стране, где валовой внутренний продукт формируется в основном за счет высокотехнологичных, наукоемких производств. Что же касается таких мест, как Аляска, то ее жители получают ежегодно по 600 долл. на душу за счет аляскинской нефти.

У нас, думаю, налоговые поступления за счет природопользования должны составлять не менее 20%. Разумеется, при адекватном уменьшении налогов с доходов. Тогда можно будет безболезненно отменить всякое лицензирование экспорта сырья и энергоносителей и рост цен на эти товары из зла превратится в благо. Ведь сырье (в широком смысле) является собственностью народа России. Увеличение цены на него не должно ухудшать материального положения тех граждан, потребление сырья которыми находится на среднем уровне. Те же, кто потребляет ниже среднего, должны даже выгадать, получив свою долю от тех, кто потребляет больше.

Если встать на этот путь, то можно отнять у паразитического капитала примерно 100 триллионов рублей доходов в год. Но не надо делать эту сумму чистой прибавкой к бюджету. Нет, надо передать значительную часть ее непосредственно в руки граждан (за счет того же снижения налогов с доходов), чтобы она лишь потом попала в бюджет в качестве платы за услуги.

Об этом последнем тезисе нужно, кстати, сказать подробнее. Мы будто не замечаем, что приватизация у нас коснулась только передела государственного имущества, но не создала среднего класса. Она не ликвидировала тотальной зависимости большинства граждан от государства, от того, насколько хорошо или насколько плохо работают чиновники и госучреждения. И это - вторая коренная причина бедственного положения людей.

До тех пор, пока граждане будут получать на руки лишь 20% стоимости труда, а остальное будет сначала отниматься у них с помощью налогов, а потом возвращаться в виде дотаций на социальные и коммунальные услуги, до тех пор реформы будут топтаться на месте. Говоря упрощенно, вместо того чтобы платить человеку 165 долларов в месяц и дотировать 300, нужно дать возможность заработать 500 долларов, но отказаться от дотирования.

Хотелось бы подчеркнуть, что аналогичные нормы взаимоотношений граждан и государства утвердились во всех без исключения преуспевающих странах. Независимо от начальной ориентации того или иного государства - либо на крайний либерализм, либо на конструктивный социализм последовательное применение прагматического подхода приводит примерно к одинаковой социально-сбалансированной схеме. Централизация валового внутреннего продукта лежит в пределах от одной трети (США) до половины (Швеция), причем отчетливо прослеживается тенденция к уменьшению разброса.

Да, в здоровом обществе всегда будет порядка 10% бедных и примерно столько же богатых. Но существует и основная обеспеченная масса средний класс основа стабильности, производительная сила общества. Такое общество работает очень интенсивно. Бедные для среднего класса действуют как стимул к интенсификации усилий, богатые как показатель возможностей. Главное что общественная структура в целом строится на священном принципе, который охраняется всей системой правовых и политических установлений: богатство не может возникать и умножаться вне производства товаров и услуг.

Фактически, утверждая все это, мы здесь не занимаем ни либеральной, ни социалистической позиции. Наш подход можно было бы назвать «социал-прагматическим», если бы была такая партия. В рамках социал-прагматизма все решения, в том числе и по распределению функций между общественным и частным секторами, следует принимать не из того или иного идеологического принципа, а из общественной выгоды.

Иначе говоря, хватит уже «приватизировать ради абстрактного принципа». Давайте наконец приватизировать ради общественной пользы. Все прочее - от лукавого. Любые разговоры о «принципиальных преимуществах частной собственности» в наших условиях оборачиваются демагогией, ибо служат лишь прикрытием для перехода общенародной собственности паразитическому капиталу.

Если у меня есть надежда, что высказанные простые идеи не провалятся в пустоту, а найдут наконец энергию и решимость социального действия, то лишь потому, что я верю в коллективный инстинкт выживаемости. Тот самый, что заставляет при угрожающих социальных разборках перестать наконец грызть друг друга, а встать в общей молитве, на каком бы языке она ни произносилась, прося у Бога явить свет в конце тоннеля и послать энергию для его прохождения.

Может, кому и странно слышать такие слова от человека, только что объявившего себя социальным прагматиком. Но в том-то и дело, что иного фундамента помимо веры и решимости — у социального прагматизма попросту нет.