In shipbuilding, state regulation cannot be waived.

In shipbuilding, state regulation cannot be waived.Recently, various experts have again raised the question of how justified is such active participation of the state in industry - in the defense industry in general and in shipbuilding in particular. Once again, we are being offered to take on faith the assertion that private capital will better cope with the task of serial construction of ships and civil courts. As an example, they cite information on the state of affairs in the field of military and civil shipbuilding in the leading foreign countries of the world. However, not everything is as simple as it may seem at first glance.


After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia inherited 42 from 50 shipyards of the former Ministry of Industry and Industry. In 1992, the process of privatization of state-owned enterprises of shipbuilding and other industries began, It was based on the slogan: "The market will solve all the problems and ensure the rapid further development of the national economy."

Initially, employees of the former state-owned enterprises and the state became shareholders, but then as a result of repeated resale, large blocks of shares were in the hands of various financial structures, including foreign ones, which sometimes had no relation to the domestic industry, including shipbuilding.

The result of all that happened was a state of crisis, in which the shipbuilding industry of Russia and many other industries were for a long time. The lack of orders, non-payment and the collapse of cooperation made it impossible to build ships of certain classes. The sharp decline in the skilled working class led to a sharp decline in the quality of the products produced and an increase in the period of their production. Instead of the promised growth of the people's welfare and the strengthening of the country's security, we got “everything promised”, but only with a minus sign. One involuntarily recalls the words of our prime minister, Viktor Chernomyrdin, who passed away: "We wanted the best, but it turned out as always." The aphorism is not bad, but the result of the government’s activity is zero.


In this regard, I recall a case from the events of the beginning of the 70s, of which I was a witness.

One day, when I reported another material to the Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Dmitry Fedorovich Ustinov, a phone call rang out. The General Secretary Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev called. Remaining on the instructions of Ustinov in the office, I witnessed the conversation between them.

Brezhnev instructed Ustinov to hold a meeting — negotiations with a delegation of Swedish industrialists — representatives of Siemens, Bofors, Vikkers and others. Ustinov expressed the opinion that it would not be advisable for him, who is in charge of the defense industry, to commission such a meeting. Drawing attention to the fact that Ustinov is familiar with the work issues of the country's industry, because before 1966, he was the chairman of the USSR Supreme Economic Council - First Deputy Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, Brezhnev advised to start talking with the guests about what they liked and what was not in the people's work. households of the country.

The conversation with the Swedish representatives after the exchange of greetings began in this spirit. What was our surprise when the first words of the Swedish guests were an expression of gratitude to the Soviet leaders and above all to our economists for the production management system developed and implemented in practice using the program method. They stressed that the development at the Swedish enterprises of the program-planned method of organizing the production of products developed in the Union allowed them several times not only to increase and speed up production, but, most importantly, to obtain an economic effect that is several times higher than the previous method used - “that the market it requires, we give, and we give when we have time to prepare and make the required products. ” There was one conclusion from what was said - our Soviet economics developed and introduced an economic model of production that exceeds the efficiency of the capitalist, for which the most important thing is to make profit as soon as possible.

The further course of the meeting continued in the consideration of options for using the program-planned method of management in different production conditions, in which Ustinov was one of the largest specialists, and was successfully completed to the mutual satisfaction of the parties involved in the conversation.

I dwelt on this example quite extensively to show that while the leading representatives of the capitalist world studied and used positive aspects from the experience of the Soviet economy, our homegrown market specialists did not see the main thing - this is a method of efficient production organization. Only the idea of ​​pure wealth, personal gain and profit moved our pseudo-reformers, and the sobering up of what happened in the country was too slow. It is hoped that the lesson learned will be well learned by the country's leadership and this situation will not be repeated in the future.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

21 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    18 September 2016 06: 58
    No "private traders" in the defense sphere! Drive out of there with a nasty broom!
  2. +16
    18 September 2016 07: 46
    Many sober-minded people on the site have already grunted their language about this, only there is no sense. And when you start talking about the failure of the defense order in military shipbuilding, a flock of "hurray-patriots" flock and begin to stigmatize with the transition to personalities. Even the blind and deaf understand that the entire military-industrial complex should be nationalized and be under strict state management and control. To have a specific person from whom you can ask. And we are constantly being voiced by Mr. Rogozin's "wet mriya".
    1. +6
      18 September 2016 08: 00
      Quote: Neputin
      Even the blind and deaf already understand that the entire military-industrial complex should be nationalized and be under strict state management and control. To have a specific person from whom you can ask. And we are constantly being voiced by Mr. Rogozin's "wet mriya"
      I agree with you completely.
      But Rogozin should not be blamed on one. The entire economic bloc of the government is asleep and sees how to privatize successfully operating state-owned factories. And the article clearly explains why this should not be done. You can write a lot, but no sense. Because they do not listen to the opinion of qualified specialists, and "effective managers" think about how to quickly fill their pockets.
      1. +4
        18 September 2016 09: 20
        Well, the Russian Helicopters want to partially sell to foreigners, although this is a really profitable industry today. Why do not give them unprofitable enterprises? let them invest, and then what kind of logic - quickly cut the dough in an easy way ?!
        1. +1
          18 September 2016 12: 27
          And who is there in the "Helicopters" on the list .. Aaaa. Serdyukov .. They let the goat into the garden.
          1. 0
            19 September 2016 02: 46
            with sculpting from metal and everything will not work. need cooperation. dual-use enterprises in private hands bankrupt. only under the supervision of the state, also not the best. They’re not going to release a new one. participate in upgrades. cut, rollback, assimilation of money. state corporation. although you can vulgarize everything. hi
  3. +3
    18 September 2016 07: 49
    The author mixed together the production planning of the enterprise and the order for this very production. From the cabinet of the Central Committee it seemed that the method of efficient organization of production was production! The number of personnel and construction time per 1 ton of displacement, for example, at Götaverken was several times less than at any Soviet shipyard. So they "helped" the Swedes - they forgot themselves. To load shipyards (and, accordingly, the availability of qualified personnel and new equipment), demand is needed (cargo flows, passenger flows, military orders, etc.) and money (cheap and long loans). Of the huge number of extortions and bureaucracy created by our liberal customs officers, democrats, border guards, home-grown tax specialists, money-lovers of the government and deputies for domestic shipowners, it makes no sense to keep the Russian flag under the navy. State-owned Sovcomflot builds ships abroad and carries cargo abroad. Why? Yes, because there are much fewer bureaucrats and extortionists in uniform. Well, the USC is a vivid example of the fact that it is not private entrepreneurs that need to be driven out of the industry, but the state and its low-professional managers.
    1. +6
      18 September 2016 17: 20
      Dear, I recommend you to inquire about the situation with the Defense Order in the Russian Empire. The most successful ship and artillery systems were produced at state-owned enterprises (read Shirokorad a). And the War Ministry in the Empire, for your information, did not consist of Marxists.
      I only agree that "low-professional managers" should be driven away with a filthy broom!
      1. jjj
        18 September 2016 20: 35
        If you take a closer look at naval shipbuilding, you will find that very large segments of orders within purely state-owned enterprises are carried out by private firms owned by people close to the leaders - "real statesmen"
    2. 0
      19 September 2016 19: 33
      From the economy and industry, you need to drive lay people, thieves and crooks. But not state and planning.
  4. The comment was deleted.
    1. +2
      19 September 2016 06: 53
      Quote from rudolf
      In short, not everything is so simple. The state-owned enterprise of the 80's model and the current one are completely different concepts.

      The author wrote everything correctly, but on one condition - the state should be interested in the development of industry. Like in China. And with us it is not interested. And judging by the election results for another 5 years, nothing will change. It is necessary that at the very top change the vector of development. A conscious industrial policy is needed, and not just monetary-liberal. Tyazhprom and the defense industry should be subordinate to the new state plan as a whole, and let the watches, underpants and every little thing live according to market laws, as in China. All this can be done if there is a desire, but our medveput has no desire.
    2. MrK
      19 September 2016 13: 36
      I agree with rudolff. Well, you attacked private traders. Why keep silent about the other main idea of ​​the article - planning.
      "...STATE PLANNING does not at all mean a transition to socialism. This is just the development of the rules of the game and the definition of goals. This is the coordination of all the components of economic policy, which will replace the current order, when people who pursue only their own selfish interests, try to collect in the dark room something whole from disparate pieces ...
      We cannot make progress until we abandon the ridiculous idea that national planning is an attack on the capitalist system. Because of these fears, we were left the only developed country in the world without an industrial policy ... "
      These are the words of Lee Iacocca (real name Lido Anthony). A living legend, a successful manager of Ford, who then managed to draw the doomed Chrysler out of nonexistence, for us it is a very valuable witness. Practitioner-economist from the core of the capitalist world, who hates the myth of "free trade", on which the WTO was erected. And - a supporter of sound industrial policy.
  5. +4
    18 September 2016 09: 56
    This is all in particular - in shipbuilding, etc. In fact, in a country that needs a planned economy and a social state.
  6. +5
    18 September 2016 12: 18
    Before the adoption of the large shipbuilding program, it is necessary to revive the ministry, with the involvement of specialists with experience in the administrative and management system. For the branches of the defense complex, it is necessary to return to the planned system of the national economy, avoiding the participation of private capital. At the same time - to expand the scope of application of the article of the Criminal Code "treason to the Motherland" in terms of damaging the economic component of the country's defense capability.
    1. +2
      18 September 2016 16: 41
      Treason and theft should be punished by the death penalty - execution. No other punishments are necessary.
  7. +1
    18 September 2016 15: 09
    It would be better to rewrite the title as "Both in shipbuilding and in any production of ARMS ...."
  8. +1
    18 September 2016 15: 12
    I don’t believe it. Toli wake up, felts doze comes with ... joyful dreams ... or they decided to scratch their turnips without taking off their hats. No wonder the people say ... time will tell ... only situations are not long in coming. insolent in the snag and went to the scam.
  9. +3
    18 September 2016 23: 26
    There is a view of the author:
    active state participation in industry - in the defense industry in general and in shipbuilding in particular.

    There is a look from my friend Rudolph:
    CVDs not included in the structure of USC, private. Zelenodolsky Shipyard named after Gorky, Shipyard Pella. Lovely, expensive! All orders on time, quickly and efficiently.

    And certainly one cannot disagree with his conclusion:
    The state-owned enterprise of the 80's model and the current one are completely different concepts.

    And where is the true womb? Where is the rational grain that will help upgrade the fleet?
    It seems to me that an example of a successful defense enterprise is UralVagonZavod, which produces "Armata"! This is a * full cycle * enterprise, through the gate of which a metal blank enters, and a 22 century tank emerges from it!
    It is reasonable to argue that the tank is not a ship! I agree. But the Urals are not dependent on Ukrainian turbines. They do not persuade Kolomna or Yaroslavl to deliver diesel to them ...
    You need to create your own closed production cycle that does not depend on the whim of a "private trader" who wants to snatch more..Need to restore the cooperation of state corporations of the defense complex! Recover lost production! To "buy a minimum" of components for the final product. And those should not be critical! There should be a structure for training your professional staff!
    Then we will have new ships on time.
    1. 0
      19 September 2016 10: 35
      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      And where is the true womb?

      The truth is that when all the plants are private - it all depends: 1. from the will and desire of the owners. 2. from the literacy of managers. Most factories fell into the market in the 90 years without any adaptation. Directors - former engineers of their factories worked all their lives in a planned system. Where did they get market experience? He is not there. And no one set the task of purposefully preparing them, training them on new conditions, and giving an adaptation period. Where directors have a desire to work - but no experience. And where there is no desire - we are sitting on the cash flow from the state, for a tick we are doing something, but we don’t want to tear the claws, it makes no sense - the money is slowly dripping.

      And the second is the owners. Many enterprises fell into the hands of owners who need all this shipbuilding, they need profit now, immediately. And then there is some obscure fuss with design, logistics, etc. It is easier to rent out shops for rent to warehouses and offices - a ready-made stable profit. So my native factory was ruined, having leased. From the powerful production complex, the design bureau and the service department of the released products remained, and all the workers, 90% of the team went into the woods. Production moved to China. Only one question - do not we need skilled jobs? We do not need independence from external factors (PRC)? And at least something - the state does not react in any way that they dispersed the whole plant, everything is fine, this is a private affair of the plant owners.
      Zelenodoltsy - a ray of light in the dark kingdom. Obviously there the plant remained in the hands of people rooting for their job, who not only want to cut loot, but cut it from their favorite business. There are two such businessmen among our businessmen - and no.
      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      It seems to me that an example of a successful defense enterprise is UralVagonZavod, which produces "Armata"! This is a * full cycle * enterprise

      There are also enough problems. And this is not a full cycle enterprise - the same 2A46 gun goes there from Perm, from the Motovilikhinsky plants. Optics are not theirs either. But UVZ was lucky with contractors, the same Motovilikha was not ditched to zero, import orders are being pulled, and therefore the guns are still alive. But things are mediocre there. Swamp. They are doing something, but they are still far from prosperity.
  10. 0
    19 September 2016 19: 31
    Return the planned economy, revive GOSPLAN on new technologies, nationalize the stolen, return social justice.
    Launch social and material elevators based on the real positive contribution of the individual. And to shorten the official pack.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"