When the West openly imposed sanctions against Russia, many of our politicians declared that it was essentially a declaration of war to us, and a hybrid war at the same time economic, informational, diplomatic, political, threatened with a direct military "lightning-disarming strike", for which high-tech types were invented weapons - from space to climate and nanoelectronic. Military groups are created at our borders and maneuvers are held, the Americans dictate their own rules for sailing warships in the Black Sea, etc. Politicians, and not the last in terms of position and weight, from influential deputy Vyacheslav Nikonov to Secretary of the Security Council Nikolai Patrushev - stress that Russia faces war for destruction, the goal of the enemy is for our state to disappear from the world map. But does the Russian Federation look like a belligerent, defending country?
“The Great Depression made the monopolies of the West seize upon Soviet orders, and the contradictions between the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers became particularly acute”
In the USSR, before the war, a song was often broadcast on the radio, the chorus of which ended with the words: “We live merrily today, And tomorrow we will be merry!”. But along with this, there were some others: “If tomorrow is war ...”, “Be ready.” The state skillfully kept the balance between “Be ready” and “We live merrily ...” People were inspired with optimism, but there were always calls to be ready for any tests, embodied in the occupations of the active part of the population in the Voroshilovsky shooter and Anti-chemical defense circles, skydiving and gliding. There is nothing like this today (except for the very modest DOSAAF events).
What do the politicians offer that feel the threats to the country and try to stop them? Usually a set of standard recipes, in principle, correct, but not applicable to the current situation: industrialization, the transition to a mobilization economy, import substitution. The reader can add to this list. I will briefly discuss some of them.
It has long become commonplace: "Russia is deindustrialized." There was a powerful industry, and in 90 it was destroyed. From here follows: it is necessary to restore it. Probably, the enemies only dream of us taking this path. We have already been thrown up many times by false directions of development - from a comprehensive market to the PIO, and we pecked at the bait. And now we will spend our scarce resources, and when the restored industry comes into operation, it turns out, firstly, that it is outdated, and secondly, there is no one to work. Briefly about these possible outcomes.
What is industrialization
The first. Plants, of course, need to be built, but only with the latest technology. We have almost none of them, we invite foreign investors to come with them. But these calculations are unlikely to be justified. The investor may suggest a technology that is relevant at the time of the conclusion of the transaction, that is, implemented and tested, which has been used for several years. But usually he is already developing another, newest. As long as we master the one that was brought to us, the next one will be launched abroad, and our country will again be behind. In addition, the investor creates equipment with a precisely calculated service life, so that the consortium on Sakhalin, after pumping out oil and gas, will leave, leaving behind it a pile of metal trash and disfigured nature. Reliance on foreign investment and technology is the key to the permanent backlog of our country. It can reach such a stage, when even having received secret information about the latest foreign technology, we will not be able to figure it out. The savage, having received a Kalashnikov assault rifle and, separately, among other things, the cartridges for it, most likely will begin to use it as a metal club. So the Americans, having stolen some Soviet technologies in 90, could not understand them and asked the Russian authorities to send a group of competent specialists to them.
The second. Not every country can be industrialized, for this we need a people who can implement it. After all, the very word "industry" means activity. However, this word has other meanings, they are listed in the pre-revolutionary Latin-Russian dictionary: hard work, diligence, diligence, diligence ... When was the last time we saw a TV show about the need to educate these qualities among young people? They have 25 years of no favor. Therefore, there are five percent of highly skilled workers in Russia (mostly elderly people). In developed countries - half and more. Young people in the workplace is not, it is not prestigious. The modern school provides such a poor education that in higher education institutions the first two semesters, or even longer, have to teach students what they had to learn in order to receive a certificate. You can imagine the quality of today certified specialists, if the repetition of the school course takes so much time from classes in the future profile.
The prestige of our high school has fallen dramatically. But nobody cares, because real specialists are not demanded by our economy, it is managed by “effective managers”, who often do not understand anything in production, but are able to send cash flows, including budget funds, into the pockets of business owners (without forgetting themselves ). This is one of the main causes of high accidents in all areas. There are enterprises that prepare highly qualified personnel for themselves, pay for their studies in universities and business trips for practical work, but such cases can be counted on the fingers.
How did Stalin industrialize, relying on foreign investment and using personnel trained from illiterate peasants? It was a unique case in which the Great Depression forced the monopolies of the West to seize upon the chance for salvation for Soviet orders, and the contradictions between the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers became particularly acute. We were offered a truly new technology at that time. The USSR bought whole factories, the best designers of the West worked for it, on-site construction was supervised by American and European engineers, blue-collar workers from advanced countries acted as instructors of our workers. But the peasants, of whom it was necessary to train personnel, were ready for the “industry”, they did not have to take diligence and diligence. There is almost no such human material in the country today, and we need to fill at least 25 with millions of highly skilled jobs.
On the degree of destruction of our industry and the fact from which absolute zero you have to start a new industrialization, says this fact. Domestic machine tool industry (this is still the core of the industry) meets the needs of the economy by less than one percent. The rest (that is, almost all) machines we buy abroad.
Does this mean that the new industrialization of Russia is impossible? Not at all. Only need to keep in mind two circumstances. Firstly, industrialization must be carried out, ensuring the coordinated work of thousands of enterprises. This means that it cannot be carried out by a private trader, and the state needs a system for planning this process and controlling the use of finances and the execution of tasks. Secondly, the Russian worker can work, seized by a patriotic idea, selflessly, but only when he feels involved in the cause of state-building, will he work for a private owner only because of a piece of bread for the sake of.
Such an understanding of the problem of industrialization begins to make its way, but it has not yet become the mainstream of state and social thought. The crisis will make these realities aware. Just not too late.
What is a mobilization economy
This question is also a simple policy, although in different ways. For example, to declare that, due to the exacerbation of the international situation, a transition to a ten-hour working day and a six-day working week is being carried out, a barracks situation is introduced for employees of certain important enterprises, being late for work by more than 20 minutes, and even less for going out or dismissing without serious respect reasons considered a criminal offense (for example, laws adopted in the USSR on the eve of World War II). And of course, the mobilization of all resources (in the Soviet Union, when the need for mercury was revealed for the atomic project, thermometers disappeared from pharmacies), rationing of food and industrial goods consumption, etc. Such measures (sometimes even ritual) were practiced in the West. During the war years, even in the White House, tea was drunk not with sugar, but with saccharin, but in London, Princess Elizabeth (the future queen) personally cultivated a garden in the park at the royal palace, so as not to get more food than other citizens. But in modern Russia such measures are impossible.
Most of the production belongs to private owners, including foreign ones, to whom our law is not written at all. Yes, and almost all large enterprises outside the public sector, listed as Russian owners, are in a foreign jurisdiction. Calls for their beneficiaries to return home, promises of amnesty of capital and forgiveness of other sins have not yet found a positive response.
If we take the workers, there are few of them in our state sector, and those employed in private enterprises are subject to the internal regulations drawn up by the owners. But there are more private security guards in the country than military personnel, a lot of “office plankton”, as well as nowhere working, living in savings or unearned income. This is their right, as well as the inviolability of private property, guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Try to mobilize an army of brokers, dealers or merchandisers. There will be a lot of protests, but zero sense, because they are eaters, not workers.
In its present state, Russia's economy is not ready for mobilization. But in principle?
Of course, the Russian people and in much more difficult circumstances could mobilize all the resources to win. But this requires at least three conditions. First, if it is not yet possible to nationalize private ownership of the means of production, it is nevertheless necessary that it also serve the interests of society (such a provision is recorded, in particular, in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany). Secondly, if the worker must be “chained to the machine tool,” then the boss must also go to his workplace. Thirdly, it is necessary to eliminate the blatant social stratification, which currently exists in the Russian Federation, when top managers earn millions of rubles a day, and the “lower classes” do not have enough money to buy bread. Grocery cards and free meals for the poor are a bourgeois way of softening social stratification, it looks like a mockery of the Russian understanding of justice. The implementation of these conditions would mean a revolution - preferably “from above”.
The Arabs conquered Spain and Portugal from the 7th century - gradually, province by province, kingdom by kingdom. Reconquista - the process of recapturing these lands - was completed only at the turn of the XV – XVI centuries.
Russia in the field of economics in 90, passed not only foreign markets to foreign capital, but also almost completely domestic, and this process continued (even gaining momentum) in 2000.
Just go to any store to see how ineffective our counter-sanctions. Yes, European farmers are losing our market, but transnational corporations are essentially unaffected by Russian countermeasures. Almost all consumer goods are produced by ten TNCs. Each produces products and trades in more than 100 countries. Goods prohibited for import from one or more countries will be replaced with exactly the same, formally produced in another.
The loss of our domestic market means the strangulation of domestic production. If the prevailing part of the tractors and combines needed by Russia (80% of their fleet was sent by liberal reformers as scrap metal abroad) is imported, then, naturally, we do not have our own engineering industry - neither common nor agricultural. And so in everything. And how to ensure the independence of the country, not having basic industries, and advanced level?
On the other hand, the loss of the domestic market leads to a decrease in the standard of living of our people and pumping out of Russia the capital necessary for its development. Strangulation of domestic producers means the bankruptcy of enterprises, unemployment, the impoverishment of the population. As for profit, it (with the exception of crumbs in the form of taxes) goes to the country of the investor. In Russia, do not stay funds for development. So, our people to a large extent work not for themselves, but for someone else’s uncle. The overall picture in the economy is masked by the use of the GDP indicator (gross domestic product, which takes into account everything that is produced by native and foreign enterprises), and not GNP (gross national product, which includes only domestic production).
Now in Russia should begin Reconquista. The goal is to win back our domestic market from the West and the East. Partly to this country pushed anti-Russian sanctions. But the main emphasis placed by the authorities on import substitution. From all over the country there are reports of his successes. Somewhere, new cattle-breeding complexes are being built, somewhere they are expanding the areas of gardens and vineyards. However, the real picture is more complicated than it is drawn in reports from the field.
We could fully provide ourselves with potatoes. However, both the seed and the cultivation technology are obtained by import. Poultry farmers are increasing production of chicken, but we also buy eggs to get broilers in the West, not to mention the fact that the equipment of poultry farms (and the food industry in general) is mainly imported, there is nothing to quickly replace it. The selection work has been started, here our lag is measured in dozens of years, but the necessary personnel to overcome it are missing.
The key problems of the development of the national economy are solvable only with the directing participation of the state, which so far has allowed the matter to run its course.