A few words about the future of liberal Russia
Making forecasts is a thankless task, but nevertheless necessary. Understanding what needs to be done today in order for tomorrow to be better is the need of a sane person. The existence of both a person and society as a whole is made meaningful only by the ideas and goals that they are trying to achieve and realize.
Let me remind you, according to Hegel,
Before proceeding with the presentation of the essence of the question posed, it should be clarified that any forecast is the result of an analysis of a set of facts and circumstances according to the laws that determine the direction of development of events.
For example, if you left point A to point B, the distance between which is 60 km, then moving at a speed of 60 km / h, you can say with a high degree of probability (according to a well-known law) that in one hour, you will reach point B. And for this period of time, your future will be predictable. Provided that "accident" does not interfere with your trip - an unforeseen circumstance. The ability to take such accidents into account improves the quality of the forecast.
A chance, as such, is not a completely unpredictable event. According to Woland from the novel The Master and Margarita,
The basic law that we will apply in predicting the future of liberal Russia is called the law on causation. Its essence is expressed as follows: the results of today are a natural consequence of everything that was done yesterday. Tomorrow will be the result of everything we do today. The conditional straight line connecting two points "yesterday" - "today" has a name - a trend or direction of development of events.
Guided by this law, knowing the current state of affairs, both in the country and abroad, as well as the general trends in the development of events, we can build a fairly objective forecast for tomorrow.
About future
About the present day, we can say that a socialized or left-liberal project is being implemented in Russia. It makes no sense to talk about the values of the liberal idea as a whole, which gave birth to capitalism, since it has exhausted itself. The socio-economic model of society created within the framework of this idea, based on the exploitation of man by man, is unjust and immoral.
The immorality of the liberal idea should be discussed separately. Economics (as a science) within the framework of the liberal idea does not operate with moral categories. There are no concepts in it: good, bad, good, evil. In these conditions, economics and morality exist in two separate realities. And liberal theorists have taught us this idea. But it doesn't have to be that way.
As you know, every phenomenon, event, fact has a form and content. With regard to a person: form is the body, and the essence is the soul (thoughts, feelings, experiences, etc.). Relations arising in connection with the acquisition, change or termination of rights regarding material and intangible benefits (civil relations), as a phenomenon, have form and content. The form is determined by civil law, the content - by the economic interests of the participants in legal relations.
In other words, law is a form of essentially economic relations. Legal norms must be provided (supported) by moral norms, otherwise they turn into what is called arbitrariness. In other words, there is a paradox: relations arising in connection with the acquisition, change or termination of rights with respect to material and intangible benefits (from the standpoint of good – bad, fair – unfair) should be governed by the form, not the content of the phenomenon itself.
The form and content of the phenomenon are inseparable. However, it is the content, not the form, that determines the phenomenon itself. Example: a person is made a person by his soul, not his body.
Thus, economics and morality should not exist in two separate realities.
The above, from the point of view of theorists of liberalism, is nonsense. However, for example, the sale of the Soviet legacy for a pittance,
according to Chubais, it is economically justified and necessary for building a bright liberal future. But in relation to the state itself, which suddenly lost its economy, and to those who created it - the peoples of Russia, who turned into beggars and unhappy, - it is immoral and criminal.
And the law, as a regulator of social relations, designed to assert justice, the main criterion of which is morality, did not fulfill its function under these conditions. This is the answer to the question - should economics and morality exist in two separate realities?
As the economy improves (with the transition to the so-called “smart, digital economy” and to artificial intelligence), the law will inevitably lose its function.
In particular, at the moment, behavior on the Internet is determined not by law, but by the rules established by the owners of the networks "Facebook", "Twitter", "YouTube", etc., which must be accepted and followed by each user. This is a kind of pass to the virtual world, which to a large extent determines the worldview of everyone and public consciousness in general. If you do not follow these rules, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube will tell you goodbye.
And this is scary, because censorship (in comparison with the established rules on the Internet) is sometimes simply violent. As a consequence, this can lead human society to slavery in its new form - “digital slavery” based on the rules of corporations. And this, unfortunately, is one of the negative scenarios for the development of further events, including in Russia.
Forecast
So, to the forecast.
The state of affairs in Russia will be influenced by both internal and external factors, which we will consider separately.
The main internal factor that will determine the future of Russia for at least the next decade is the further development of the Russian state on the ideas of liberalism with a certain social orientation.
The elite in Russian society has become pragmatic and effective owners - the so-called managers like Chubais, Kudrin, Gref, etc., whose main and only goal is good indicators of income, profit, consumption, capital, etc. For a society built on liberal ideas, this is natural. But is it good?
This circumstance requires clarification.
According to Socrates, people combine two constantly conflicting opposites: soul and body.
According to I.A. Ilyin (one of the founders of the theory of state and law), in an integral personality, both opposites (principles) must be balanced. If this does not happen, one of the principles prevails.
The preponderance of the spiritual principle over the physiological (or bodily, according to Socrates) in such highly spiritualized personalities as L.N. Tolstoy, John of Kronstadt, Nicholas Svyatosha, Belize Pascal, and others, manifested itself in a complete rejection of material wealth, selfless service to his people and his faith.
Let me remind you that L.N. Tolstoy gave up all copyright to make his works publicly available. In our days, G. Perelman did the same, refusing a prize of $ 1 million for the proof of Poincaré's theorem. Many assessed their rejection of material goods as eccentricity, but absolutely everyone recognized and recognize their spiritual superiority. And in the memory of people, both of them will remain indisputable authorities.
It is quite obvious that such individuals (note, deeply religious) were given to understand, to know something that the overwhelming majority of ordinary people are both incomprehensible and inaccessible.
Unfortunately, this is much more inaccessible and incomprehensible to our ruling liberal elite. And they certainly will not remain in the memory of the people as positive heroes who selflessly serve their Fatherland.
The preponderance of the physiological principle over the spiritual (as an extreme manifestation) leads to the emergence of thieves and robbers. The shortest path to satisfying physiological needs is crime. The list of the latter is orders of magnitude longer.
Thus, according to I.A. Ilyin, which of the principles (spiritual or physiological) dictated a person's action is an absolute criterion of good and evil. It is this criterion in assessing good and evil that is laid down in all world religions without exception.
Let me remind you, according to Socrates,
In connection with the above, it would be appropriate to recall the monologue of the hero of the novel "The Era of Mercy" (The meeting place cannot be changed) Mikhail Mikhailovich, who in a conversation with Zheglov and Sharapov said the following:
Unfortunately, what has been said is definitely not about today's liberal Russia. That Russia, which at all times (both in the Tsarist and in the era of the USSR) offered its people and the world a positive civilizational idea, which always determined its success in the most difficult historical time. At the moment, today's Russia (represented by its ruling elite) cannot offer such a positive idea to the world or its people.
The world economy (like the Russian one) is and will be in a deep crisis. And this trend has not changed. And no brilliant Russian leader can lead a country that is part of the liberal world out of this crisis.
The country's economy will not accelerate by order, the well-being of citizens will not improve, justice will not be established in society. Presidential decrees on accelerated development, breakthrough technologies, the need to enter the top five world economies, even if there are serious successes in the development of Russia's natural resources, in certain sectors of the economy, the growth of defense potential, etc. the situation as a whole will not change.
To realize all the perniciousness of liberalism for Russia, let us recall that in the 28 years after the Great Patriotic War, the completely destroyed USSR turned into a self-sufficient superpower. And over the 28 years of liberal Russia’s existence, the assets it inherited from the superpower were mainly transferred to the ownership of international corporations, the economy as a whole has actually turned into nothing, and no change for the better is visible.
To determine the development trends of liberal Russia, it is absolutely possible to draw parallels between today's Russia and the United States in the 20-30s of the last century. Except for just one circumstance: in the United States, the Founding Fathers immediately announced the national idea in the form of the "American Dream", expressing the meaning and essence of the liberal idea, which was progressive at that time. And this idea was and remains attractive not only for US citizens.
In Russia, under conditions of liberalism, such an idea as the "Russian dream" did not arise. Moreover, according to the statements of many top officials, the Russian national idea does not exist at all. We must assume, in their opinion, that the Russian people and Russian society have nothing to dream about?
In 2016, the President of Russia announced a new national idea - patriotism. But feeling cannot become a "national idea". I believe that the author himself understands this. In this case, in fact, the following is realized, citizens - only mythical "patriotism" and pension reform, and elite-like and international corporations - all the national wealth of Russia.
Positive and negative trends in the development of Russia, adjusted for a higher level of digital technologies, will be similar to those in the United States of that time. The growth of crime, corruption, a more radical split of society into the poor and the rich, and in general moral degradation - will erase all possible positives.
A state without a national idea in the long term is doomed to decay and dying, which has repeatedly taken place in world history. The overwhelming majority of citizens will be stably poor, even in comparison with the citizens of the Baltic countries, where, as you know, there are no natural resources.
The national program to combat poverty is obviously impracticable, since it is not provided with the possibilities of the Russian economy, and because of the unfair distribution of material benefits from the sale of natural resources.
Of course, there will be handouts for the elections in the form of higher wages and pensions, which inflation will immediately eat up. And after that, the Russian elite will once again show scanty concern for its people: so that citizens have enough money for sugar and sunflower oil.
Nevertheless, Russia's vast undeveloped space and natural resources could provide a relatively prosperous period for the development of the Russian economy for a decade to come. Natural resources (in the context of their acute shortage in the world) and remnants of state property subject to privatization will be sufficient to meet the needs of both the Russian elite and society as a whole. And, in the case of rational use by the state of all the resources at its disposal to achieve the announced social goals, one could look into the near future with some optimism.
But at the same time, there is one circumstance, which is difficult to foresee and which should be seriously thought about. The "leading and guiding force" of society today is the United Russia party, the charter of which states:
There is no normative act that would define the very concept of "strategic course of the President", and even more its content. There are, of course, presidential decrees on national goals for a specific period, annual messages to the Federal Assembly, but this has nothing to do with the "strategic course." A strategic course without a national idea is just a phrase without content, an empty phrase.
The future of the country depends to a great extent on the will of one (endowed with virtually unlimited powers) person, whose political power has a constitutional majority in parliament. The amazing consistency in the implementation of liberal ideas in the country makes everything quite obvious.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), factors other than internal, generally favorable for the country, will determine the future of Russia. Since Russia is at the beginning of its liberal development path, which other countries (USA, Europe, Japan, etc.) have long passed, this circumstance determined its position in the liberal world - the place of an outsider.
A key feature of a liberal economy is that it can successfully exist and develop only if there is a free, untapped market for the consumption of goods, works, and services. Once the markets are saturated, the liberal economy enters a period of crisis. Free movement of finances, goods, works, services, fair competition cease to exist, which, in fact, we see in today's world.
The USA, Europe, Japan have divided the world into zones of their economic interests and will not tolerate any kind of competition from an outsider. For example, even the very possibility of manufacturing the MC-21 aircraft in Russia (for domestic consumption) in the United States is perceived as a threat to their interests, since it narrows the consumption market for American Boeing. The redistribution of markets (even the internal Russian one) is a war in which Russia is in fact already involved.
After the catastrophe of the USSR, the fate of the colony of the USA and Western Europe was prepared for Russia. Russia was supposed to turn into that free economic space that would provide with its resources a crisis-free and comfortable existence for the United States and Europe for decades to come.
But unexpectedly for everyone, Russia (in the person of its president) refused the fate prepared for it. As a result, an offer was made to the president, from which, in theory, he could not and should not have refused. And when he finally refused, the prospect of the Hague Tribunal for the downed MH-17 and the massive use of chemical weapons (Skripali, Navalny, Syria).
In response to this proposal and threats, the president said:
And for the sake of persuasiveness, the created "Poseidons", "Vanguards" were demonstrated, which can be applied only in one case - after the termination of the existence of Russia. For the guaranteed cessation of the existence of those who made this proposal, together with all human civilization.
Let's remember the words:
But most importantly, he pulled Russian assets out of US debts worth more than $ 100 billion, effectively refusing to finance the American economy at Russian expense, which is completely unacceptable for the United States. And the United States declared Russia a threat to the world, an outcast, and they started a war with us.
As a result, Russia in Europe was sued in all courts against Ukraine, Poland and the owners of Yukos. Initially, I believe, in the hope of settling the issue, Russia paid both Poland and Ukraine. (By the way, why does Europe need to support Ukraine when it can be done at the expense of Russia and Russian transit?)
But for Yukos, the amount is no longer a joke $ 57 billion (with penalties), which exceeds the annual budget of the Russian Defense Ministry. Up to this point, liberal Russia has paid off all debts. And it will probably pay off this debt as well. In the presence of this debt, the path to the global liberal space will be closed. And the adopted amendments to the Russian Constitution on the supremacy of Russian legislation over international law will not help. This circumstance will have an extremely negative impact on the country's budget in the future.
And the next MH-17 case is on its way with a predictable result.
It is known from open sources that the US debt has reached $ 22 trillion. The United States eats up significantly more than it earns. As one of the heroes of the Weiner brothers' novel said,
External debt is insignificant by American standards, the amount - 6,2 trillion dollars. About $ 16 trillion in domestic debt. The main creditor is a private structure - the FRS. And the owners of the FRS will not write off their debts and will not forgive them.
In addition, the wealth of all the richest people in the world (in fact, like the Russian oligarchy), which is very important for understanding what is happening, is stored in dollars and US securities. And at the moment there is no alternative to the dollar as a universal means of settlement and preservation of capital.
In this regard, all the arguments that take place that the US dollar is about to collapse is a deliberate lie. The United States, as a debtor, will repay debts as needed. The only question is how and at whose expense?
The choice is not great - Russia, China, the European Union. Partially successful actions of Trump to receive money from Europe (for security and defense against "Russian aggression", for liquefied gas) indicate that in the future it will not be Europe.
China, as an economic superpower, was mainly formed as a result of the flow of capital from the United States, where American corporations continue to receive significant income. In addition, China made certain concessions in the form of trade duties, obligations to purchase American products and, we emphasize, did not sell American debts. Thus, China will not be the primary target either.
What remains is Russia, whose property is largely owned by international corporations, but Russia does not pay taxes either. But this is obviously not enough. And Russia, as always in history, will have to rely again on the patriotism of the people and on its Armed Forces.
Under the circumstances, S. Lavrov's words that Europe should be guided by its own national interests in relations with Russia are touching. Europe is precisely guided by its own national interests. They do not negotiate with the colonies, they are robbed. And if not by invasion, then by court decision or other machinations. There is every reason to believe that the decision on Yukos is a conspiracy, in which the governments of Western Europe are also interested.
The situation for Russia is aggravated by the fact that, as already mentioned above, the liberal elite cannot offer their people and the world a positive, attractive, fair civilizational idea.
The European Union is much more attractive in this respect than Russia. This is due to the fact that the European Union implements a kind of principle of justice, the essence of which is that the incomes of the richest countries of the European Union are partially redistributed in favor of the poor.
And with regard to the Baltic countries, EU assistance is, in general, a decent price to pay for the elimination of a competitor in the form of their own economy. The logic is simple: we pay you, you buy our goods, works, services. And it should be noted that the welfare of the citizens of the Baltic countries is higher than that of the Russian ones. And there are also more opportunities for citizens to realize themselves, moving around Europe in search of better work and place of residence.
In connection with the above, the drift of the former Soviet republics towards the West is a natural process, and no diplomatic measures can influence this circumstance. Liberal Russia has nothing to offer its neighbors; it does not have the moral superiority that it has always had. The idea of membership in the European Union and NATO is in all respects more attractive than a pragmatic friendship with Russia. For the sake of achieving this goal, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, the Baltic States, Poland (let's leave Belarus behind for now) are ready to deploy US and NATO bases on their territory, without looking at Iskander and other deadly weapons, and are even ready to fight with Russia. They have no doubt that Russia will not withstand, and that our liberal elite will again commit another betrayal at a critical moment.
Russia surprisingly managed to avoid the war in Karabakh. In fact, both participants in the war have long ceased to be Russia's allies. But the war in Donbass and Transnistria is unlikely to be avoided. Ukraine managed to create powerful and sufficiently motivated armed forces that are capable of crushing the LPNR in the shortest possible time.
Superiority over the forces of the LDNR by 4-7 times or more in various respects. And all that Ukraine needs to resolve the issue with Donbass is to receive guarantees from the United States and NATO that Russia will not interfere in this war. So far, these guarantees have not been received, but this is only for now. And, I must say, regardless of the results of a future war, Russia will have to pay: either for the restoration of the newly annexed territories (in case of victory), or (as the losing side) - for the damage caused. Nobody canceled the courts in Europe.
Conclusions
As a result, we have the following.
The meaning of the existence of Russian society, Russian civilization is not defined.
The state of Russia in the liberal paradigm can be described in one word - suffering.
Does the Russian elite understand this? Certainly.
Will it take steps to abandon the construction of a socio-economic model of society in Russia on liberal ideas? Expanding the public sector of the economy? To the establishment of the principle of justice in society? To carry out the same de-dollarization? It seems unlikely. As they say,
I would like, of course, to believe in the best. The fact that there is something positive behind the president's silence regarding his "strategic course", for the announcement and implementation of which the time has not yet come. Indeed, in the past he was one of those who should have had
The recreated power of the armed forces, their ability to solve almost any problem, inspires hope for success. It would only be the will of the Russian elite.
China
In conclusion, a few words should be said about China.
In 10-15 years, China will be the absolute leader in the economy, and nothing can influence this circumstance. The goals pursued by China are clearly spelled out in the Charter of the Chinese Communist Party.
China has everything to implement its national idea - building a socially just society (communism): economy, science, finance, will, experience (including the USSR), an understanding of where to move. Chinese capitalism, when the need arises, will end in the same way as the NEP in the USSR did.
There is no alternative to the planned economy in the future. And as soon as China becomes the absolute world leader in all matters, liberalism (as a civilizationally unfair idea) will irrevocably become a thing of the past.
And in this case, liberal Russia may find itself on the sidelines of history.
Information