If the process cannot be stopped, you need to lead it.

If the process cannot be stopped, you need to lead it.Ten years ago, the American elite finally abandoned the dialogue with society and set out to save their income at any cost.

September 11 is approaching - the tenth anniversary of the famous terrorist attacks in the United States. Maybe I shouldn't have joined the crowd wanting to comment on this, but the fact is that 10 September 2001, I wrote that these attacks are very, very likely. What put yourself in a situation in which you need to constantly explain what I still had in mind. I didn’t seem to be seen in relations with Al-Qaeda (otherwise I could claim the post of head of the new Libya under the protectorate of the United States and NATO), I’m not a secret agent. Where does such accuracy of forecasts come from? The coincidence in terms can be explained by chance, but by content ... This should be explained in detail.

When, in 1997, I came to work in the administration of President Yeltsin of the Russian Federation, I was instructed to describe what medium-term consequences the policy of "young reformers" would lead to. Quickly enough, we became convinced that the combination of the GKO market and the “currency” corridor inevitably leads to default (of course, the bank default was meant, to arrange sovereign for debts in national currency in that situation only such characters as “young reformers” could). But in the process of work, it became clear that many of the crisis mechanisms we studied operate in the United States. And when in the spring of 1998 of the year Economic Management was actually dispersed, we switched to understanding the situation with the global economy.

In the summer of 2001, the theory of the structural economic crisis was already rough, and I followed the development of the American situation in the most attentive way. Actually, it was at this time that we explored the inter-sectoral balance of the United States, and already there was a feeling that it was impossible to avoid a crisis. And in the summer of 2001, it became clear that it was almost impossible to keep the stock market from falling. By the end of the month, many statistics would be known, October in the USA is always a difficult month for the stock market, and at that moment I began to suspect that the US authorities would most likely decide that if the process cannot be avoided, it should be headed. An additional factor was the internal squabbles in the administration of the new US President George W. Bush, Jr., which only warmed up tensions. And I was in the process of a rather free discussion at one of the forums of the Expert magazine (worldcrisis.ru was not there yet) very briefly tried to clarify that a major terrorist attack would be very beneficial to all participants in the process. One - because it allowed us to drastically strengthen our positions, including passing the necessary legislation, to others - because I gave an explanation for the crisis that had occurred, not related to their personal activities (we recall that it was not too late for Bush to blame the previous administration for all sins). In general, a very convenient way out.

At the same time, I absolutely do not want to say that everything was done by the hands of the US authorities. White thread throughout stories it was in bulk, the first official version was no good, those journalists who dared to disagree with her, were expelled from the profession with an iron hand (you know, freedom of speech, and does anyone doubt this, after Libya, doubt?), which also leads suspicions ... In general, an ideal event for conspiracy interpretations. And, most importantly, not for the first time: the beginning of the war with Spain in 1899 (the death of the battleship "Maine" in the raid of Havana), and Pearl Harbor, and the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin - the analogy suggests itself. Nevertheless, we leave all these hypotheses out of the brackets, I repeat, those who want to discuss them have always been in bulk. The main thing here is different. The more or less natural development of the situation led to the fact that the traditional and rational ways of influencing the situation were ineffective, we had to radically change the “rules of the game”, which naturally required a vivid demonstration of the need and, I would even say, the inevitability of such changes.

I will try to repeat this thought once again, a little bit in another version. When the economic model of development acts long enough, it formats the social and political system for itself. In particular, quite stable methods of stabilization of society are being formed, which guarantee the elite a stable and comfortable state. However, in the event of the growth of certain crisis processes (the crisis is meant here not even in a negative context, but simply as a significant change), these methods gradually lose their effectiveness. The society, which is essentially conservative in its essence, ignores these changes for quite a long time, both in the elite and in the ordinary part. But then ... And when the changes accumulate on a large enough scale, the ruling part of the elite faces a serious question.

Either you need to recognize fundamental changes and look for a way out with the whole society, or you need to hide them from society and, using a more or less convenient reason (or having constructed such a reason), change the management methods (“rules of the game”) so as to compensate for negative changes. in part of their influence on the elite. The first method is dangerous because it involves the broad masses in discussing issues that the elite had previously decided in its circle, which usually means that it will have to share a part, sometimes significant, privilege. But on the other hand, this method is universal - even in case of failure, you cannot lay the blame on the elite; the issue was resolved by broad consensus. In other words, this method allows the elite to demonstrate that it is an integral part of society, excluding social and political cataclysms dangerous for it. The second method allows the elite to preserve their privileges and opportunities, but at the same time intensifies a potential social conflict. If the changes that have necessitated action continue, then you have to invent new and new reasons for restricting the rights of society in favor of the elite, and sooner or later an open socio-political conflict begins. And it is already impossible to return to the first situation, because trust has been lost, and in this case, a significant change in the composition of the elite is possible.

If we consider the situation in the United States from the point of view of this scheme, then the events of 11 September (regardless of whether they were specially organized by the US authorities, provoked by them, or were the result of errors of special services) were used as a reason for a fundamental change in the "rules of the game" - the side of a sharp increase in state control over society and the start of mass propaganda of state efforts to combat terrorism and crisis. With the aim, of course, to justify the decline in the living standards of the broad social masses with the constant growth of this level among the elite.

It is not excluded that if the crisis processes in the economy ended there, then we would gradually be able to go back to the beautiful era of Clinton (today we, armed with the theory of crisis, which was not yet finished in 2001, we understand that it was then “Point of no return” in the direction of the worst crisis of capitalism in history), but the crisis continued. And a very sharp conflict began in American society.

It was connected with a large number of local causes, which we will not analyze today, for this there are experts in the USA. But the main, basic reason was one - this is a fundamental contradiction between the description of current events that the American elite offered (and continues to offer), and the actual developments that lead to a steady decline in the standard of living of the population. At the same time, the latter is increasingly beginning to understand that all the changes that have occurred over the past ten years are directed towards one goal - to preserve the income that the elite managed to get for 80 - 90 of the last century. At the expense of the rest of society.

In this sense, by the way, the claims that are made to Bush seem wild to me. Not he, but the entire American elite chose the second of the scenarios described above, and then Bush and his administration actively, energetically, creatively and generally successfully implemented it. It was not his fault that the crisis continued to intensify, but it was already impossible to go back. By the way, Obama continued to move in the same channel - in the same way, he refused to open conversation with society. But his results are less bright than those of Bush. However, crisis processes are aggravated ...

It makes sense here to say a few words about what the American elite is keeping today, at least in some aspects. Well, for example, the share of the financial sector of the American economy in redistributing the overall profit of the economy in its favor, which did not exceed 10% before the Second World War, and 70% before the 20s, is now 70%. The gap between rich and poor in the United States reached record levels, real household incomes have been falling since the beginning of the 70s, and today they have reached the level of the beginning of the 60s. And continue to fall. At the same time, since the common “pie” began to decline, in order to preserve the income of the elite, its share in its redistribution should only increase.

Obama is doing something to solve real issues. He tried to extend the health insurance system to the poor and actively compensated for falling household incomes with increasing budgetary payments. The trouble is that it is for this that the American elite actively pursues it, which fundamentally refuses to deviate from the principles that determined its position from September 2001 of the year.

In general, the following can be noted. First, the events of 11 of September of 2001 of the year were a turning point, after which it became clear that the American elite had finally abandoned the dialogue with society and set out to save their income at any price.

Secondly, this position of her has not changed yet. And that Bush, that Obama are both hostages of this elite consensus, because they have to move along the road chosen without them, whether they like it or not. However, the choice of direction itself makes it virtually impossible to create and develop, within the framework of state mechanisms, groups and institutions that discuss alternative development opportunities.

Thirdly, such a lack of institutions for the United States looks at least strange - they have always tried to maintain maximum pluralism of opinions in their midst. However, today there was a problem that no one thought about at all. 30 years of more or less successful existence led to the fact that the entire education system in the United States, primarily economic, has developed a “language” in which it is impossible to describe the real causes of the crisis at all! And the refusal to speak it in the American elite today is perceived as a sign of hostility, because it is firmly included in the definition of “one’s own — someone’s” that exists in any society, but it is particularly developed in the United States.

Fourthly, the inability to formulate real problems and attempts to preserve the status quo for the elite leads to the fact that there is no choice in the rotation of the political elite. Speaking cynically, the elite have enough maids for all high-ranking political officials in the US, but they still have no one to change, and most importantly, what complaints are there to them? They were taken to the track and said: “Go,” but the change of the road is not part of their authority. And the US elite has not yet recognized its mistake.

Fifth, as the crisis continues and will only intensify, a serious question arises before the American elite. “Sweet gingerbread is not enough for everyone again,” which means that the growth of the elite of the last 30 years should be replaced by its reduction. This means the beginning of large-scale elite wars, since it is a question of withdrawing from the elite not 5 — 10%, which you can get rid of quite painlessly, but at least 70 — 80%. Explain to young and ambitious people, whose fathers 20 — 25 years ago earned their first millions on “Reaganomics”, that they must return to poverty ... It will be stronger than Goethe's Faust!

Sixthly, since the path has already been chosen and, apparently, it is no longer possible to turn off, the question will arise that the inevitable repetition of the events of September 11, but not for the whole world or the people of the United States, but only for its elite. That is, events will occur that will show parts of the elite that the loss of its status and income is a matter of objective and inevitable that “no one is to blame,” but simply an “accident” occurred. One example of such explosions is the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in the fall of 2008.

But it seems to me that such events will be repeated more often and their victims, including among the rich, will be more and more.

And, of course, the political situation in the world will become a serious problem, since the incitement of regional conflicts and the manipulation of world prices have always been a reason to write off objectionable ones. So 11 of September 2001 of the year has become a symbol of entering a completely new, terribly uncomfortable world in which we now live and will live for a long time.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in