The market has done its job, the market can go
To solve the problem of import substitution, deep changes are needed in all major areas of society - we must decide to change the ideological course and personnel policy, to go to a large-scale nationalization of strategic resources and infrastructure, in particular the retail trade system.
The problem of import substitution in our country recently has received much attention in almost all sectors of society. This is understandable, because the implementation of this installation means nothing more than a serious change in the entire economic policy of the country. This is not just a rejection of a significant part of foreign supplies. Import substitution implies a lot more - a change in economic policy in general. The statement of the task of liberating the country's economy from import dependence by the Russian president in the context of the aggravation of relations with the West and its allies that had begun was objectively necessary - maintaining the dependence of our economy on foreign supplies actually preserves the state of limitation of our economic sovereignty. And when Western countries try, by using this dependence, to dictate their will to us, imposing the line of behavior of Russia in the foreign policy and domestic policy that is advantageous to them, this already entails a partial loss of sovereignty in the political sphere.
Such a non-market forum
At the same time, as acknowledged by many leading experts in the field of economics, businessmen and managers working in the field of high-tech production, agriculture and other sectors of domestic production (with the exception of the oil and gas industry), import substitution processes are hampered by a very wide range factors. There was a situation when, on the one hand, import substitution is vital for restoring and maintaining the sovereignty of the country, and on the other hand, to solve this task, large-scale changes are needed in the very foundations of social construction - in the economy and in other spheres of the country's life. In such a situation, the problem posed becomes the subject of discussion not only for economists and production workers, but also for a wide range of specialists and experts from other fields, including politicians, experts in the field of security and military construction, ideology, culture and other areas of the spiritual sphere. Discussion of this problem occurs in various formats - from closed scientific discussions to various public forums and individual expert speeches in the media. The most interesting, of course, are such events, where a wide range of opinions of specialists from different spheres of society’s activities appears. One of these is the regularly held Moscow Economic Forum (IEF). September of this year 24 in the building of the Chamber of Commerce worked a section of this forum - “Import substitution in Russia: how to avoid distortions and realize the potential?”. The section was attended by a variety of experts and experts - from geopolitics and macroeconomists, representatives of the largest political parties in Russia to the leaders of specific enterprises and unions of producers of various products. Among them are Academician Ruslan Greenberg, Director of the Institute of Economics RAS Konstantin Babkin, President of the Industrial Union “New Commonwealth” Oksana Dmitriev, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Budget and Taxes Mikhail Delyagin, Director of the Institute for Globalization Problems Michael Remizov, Chairman of the Presidium of the Expert Council of the Military Industrial Commission under the Russian government Vladimir Zhirinovsky, presidential adviser Sergei Glazyev and a number of other reputable experts, lead specialists, including the author of this article, who had the honor to speak at this forum as president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems.
“Our government finances other states, and most of all the United States, which is the main initiator of sanctions against Russia”
The speakers, despite the strict regulations (only five to eight minutes to speak), revealed almost all aspects of this multifaceted problem, showing its multiplicity and proposing a set of measures to solve it. Among the most striking are the speeches of the economist and publicist, well-known politician Yury Boldyrev “Import Substitution in the Political and State System”, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Economic Policy, Innovative Development and Entrepreneurship Nikolai Arefyev “The resignation of the government is the key to the implementation of the policy of import substitution in Russia” and Mikhail Delyagin, who in his bright speech showed the need for radical changes in the Russian economy and domestic policy, while including staffing. Of course, the speech of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who justified the need for the revival of a monarchy in Russia or a similar authoritarian regime as a condition for the technological breakthrough, did not go unnoticed.
Analyzing the diversity of positions and opinions expressed by the participants in this section, we can single out several key problems, without which the solution to the task of import substitution would be very difficult or even impossible. To a greater or lesser extent these questions touched on many speakers.
Say no to instant benefit
The inadmissibility of the country's growing dependence on imports, especially from competing countries that may become potential adversaries, was discussed by specialists a long time ago, literally from the very beginning of the “democratic transformations” and even before they began. These “transformations” took place under the banner of “entering the world economy”, which in practice meant the destruction of our own industry in order to free the Russian market for foreign producers. In this regard, the performance of Academician Ruslan Greenberg, who said that the concept of transition to market relations was developed at the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and suggested the gradual and carefully weighted introduction of these relations into the country's economic system for a long time — more than five years — was very indicative. However, the destruction of the USSR and the subsequent seizure of power by radical marketers who proclaimed a course for the immediate opening of their market to foreign producers (allegedly with the aim of quickly entering the world economic system) led to disastrous results for the domestic economy. The consequences of a “jump into the market” have to be eliminated today, including solving the problem of import substitution. However, ideologically, this trend has not been disavowed until now, conversations and debates continue on the topic, but do we really need it today. Therefore, the most important condition for the successful solution of the task of restoring economic sovereignty is the recognition of this concept as untenable, and the technology for its implementation in our country is criminal.
Some speakers singled out the postulate that a private owner is much more effective than a state leader as a very dangerous for the further development of the country. They indicated that under this slogan we had a massive privatization of industrial facilities. Most of the enterprises in the high-tech industry associated with basic technologies, that is, with the production of primary, basic products — various materials, microelectronics, and others — have fallen into private hands. Many of the new large owners turned out to be poor organizers and managers of the acquired production, which led to dire consequences. The destruction of key industries of our industry went under the talk of "unprofitability of production." In particular, Russia has practically lost the ability to manufacture microcircuits, especially complex ones, such as computer chips, we have big problems with the production of high-alloy steels (therefore, cars made from domestic steel quickly rust and there are problems with the production of high-durability gun guns), lost production capacity for high-temperature materials based on carbon. In conditions when the restoration of these industries is vital, it is planned to allocate big money from the budget for these purposes. It should be remembered that private owners of previously powerful and efficient state-owned enterprises have already crushed them once, turning them into various secondary facilities such as warehouses and office centers. And one of the main reasons for this is that such owners, having acquired the enterprises, could not dispose of them simply because they did not have the appropriate training for this. It was easier for them to shut down production and use the vacated areas for more understandable tasks for them, in particular for the storage of imported products. Additional financial investments to the same people will not give anything - they simply will not be able to organize the revival of such complex industries. Therefore, public investment in such a private sector is obviously ineffective. They will lead not only to an inefficient expenditure of budgetary funds, but also to an increase in social tension, which is extremely dangerous in the face of increasing external pressure on Russia. In this regard, it was noted the need for an extremely cautious approach to the further privatization of state property, especially facilities and systems of national importance. However, it was emphasized that those entrepreneurs who independently created and developed production, those who managed to preserve and develop the production capacities they got in the privatization process, should be supported.
An important conclusion can be made: to solve the problem of import substitution, a sharp turn in the ideological sphere is needed - from the domination of market approaches to a radical strengthening of the state’s role in the country's economy, right up to the transition to a mobilization type of economy. And although some, sometimes very reputable economists, oppose such a reversal, the experience of the USSR and other countries unequivocally indicates that such large-scale breakthroughs and in such short terms as we have been storyare not committed.
The economy has spoiled staffing issue
The key problem of import substitution in Russia is personnel. It was noted that the principle of recruitment, based on personal loyalty or generic ties, to restore complex industries in Russia is absolutely unacceptable. The so-called effective managers cause great damage to the development of high-tech industries due to their incompetence. The leaders of the Russian industry should have personal experience in a particular field, starting with the primary positions directly involved in the process. Only such people are able to competently organize their own production. But the ability to manipulate financial flows gives little in this regard.
As one of the most important personnel conditions for successfully solving the problem of import substitution, many speakers called the liberation of the country's power structures, especially their economic blocs, from those who favored a liberal approach to the economy. The key task is to eliminate market radicals from the Russian government. The authoritative economist Mikhail Delyagin especially emphasized the need for this step, and Nikolay Arefyev spoke directly about his report - “The resignation of the government is the key to the implementation of the policy of import substitution in Russia”. Justifying their position, supporters of such a move indicated that supporters of economic management based on the “invisible hand of the market” are not able to manage the economy in new conditions, with a sharp increase in the regulatory role of the state. As an example of the viciousness of the existing practice of the economic block of the government, the fact was cited that this year Russia's investments in foreign financial structures, in particular in the purchase of foreign securities, mainly in the US, increased by 18 percent. That is, under the conditions of growing crisis in our economy, the Russian government finances other states. And most of all the United States, which is the main initiator of sanctions against Russia.
Thus, for the implementation of the program of import substitution, radical changes in the personnel policy of our country are necessary, suggesting a transition to a qualitatively different principle of selection of personnel for nomination. In essence, this means a transition to a smooth replacement of most of the current management elite, including its top echelons.
Factories - workers, not managers
Undoubtedly, the revival of complex high-tech industries will require the coordination of efforts of all sectors of the Russian economy, above all strategic ones. This is necessary to build technological chains that include a large number of related enterprises covering a large part of the country's regions. Without centralization of management of this process, its implementation will require an unacceptable amount of time or even become impossible. At the same time, often commercial interests of maximizing profits in the shortest possible time come into conflict with the need to invest large amounts of money in the development of industries with long payback periods. At the same time, as a rule, large owners export capital abroad. There was no objection to the recognition of the fact that oligarchs are one of the main sources of instability in the country, supporting the liberal opposition. Having invested huge funds in foreign banks and foreign assets, they turned out to be highly dependent on these states, primarily on the US and the EU. Now, many of them, under the threat of losing foreign property, are forced to pursue economic policy in Russia to the detriment of its objective interests, but beneficial to other states. Accordingly, many of them are implicit, and some openly support destructive forces in the country, the notorious “fifth column” of Western liberals. Therefore, it is fair to say that the most important condition for successful import substitution in Russia is the universal nationalization of strategic industries.
Nikolay Arefyev pointed out that today our retail network is more than 90 percent owned or controlled by foreign capital. Therefore, in fact, our manufacturer, especially agricultural products, does not have access to retail chains, where domestic goods are replaced with imported, often more expensive and less quality ones. In this regard, he called nationalization of retail chains another important condition for the implementation of the import substitution program.
The listed areas, of course, do not cover all the necessary tools to solve a multifaceted problem. We can not neglect other mechanisms of economic regulation, including radical changes in financial policy. That is, for the solution of the task of import substitution, the measures taken today, mainly economic ones, without affecting the foundations of the existing socio-economic system, are not enough. Large-scale, complex, systemic changes in most spheres of social life are needed. In fact, it is necessary to decide on a transition to a more perfect, rather than a market, system of economic relations in the country.
Information