In shipbuilding, state regulation cannot be waived.
ZERO INSTEAD RESULT
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.
HELPED TO CAPITALISTS
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.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.