The new Russia (a highly controversial definition for a country with a centuries-old history) had an objective historical choice - to transform the country according to the type of true scientific socialism (according to V.I. Lenin) or to gradually reform into modern regulated capitalism. However, they preferred the transition to "wild" capitalism of the pre-Marx type, which was called the "period of primitive accumulation."
At present, Russia is going through a period of its development, which is difficult even to define: the remnants of the former economic structure (where super profits are not expected), "wild" capitalism, financial nouveau richism under the political control of the former and new nomenklatura. Export-oriented industries are successfully developing: the extraction of oil, gas, coal, ore, round timber, metal production, etc. Industries oriented to domestic consumption are artificially restrained or frankly destroyed in favor of imports. Thanks to export superprofits, the restoration and further development of the military-industrial complex, which so far works mainly for export, began. What cannot be sold and is difficult to profitably use - science, education, culture, medicine - is kept on a starvation ration. The main characteristic features of modern Russia (the Russian Federation) - the contradiction between liberalism in government and atavism in the economy against the backdrop of remnants of feudalism in public administration and restrictions on the rights of citizens - keep the country in a state of economic and political stupor.
Judging by the state of the economy and social organization, Russia is still at a crossroads, undecided where to direct its development. This is a society in which the nomenklatura reigns supreme, relying on the laws adopted by it. The number of officials in Russia has increased by about 10 times compared to Soviet times and continues to grow, a new, huge round of growth of bureaucracy is coming, associated with the creation of "local self-government bodies."
Now that the redistribution of property in Russia has basically taken place, the country's leadership will have to determine in which direction to lead the country - along the American or Swedish path, since there are no objective prerequisites for the transition to other types of economy. If the nomenklatura and its highest representatives in power are really concerned about the state of the people, as they say about it, the answer is obvious - the Swedish way of development. This does not require anything special and extraordinary - it is only necessary to bring the production of consumer goods out of the stupor, for which purpose create preferential legislative and economic conditions for the development of industrial cooperation, small and medium-sized businesses.
This will create a huge number of jobs, open the way for the initiative and self-employment of workers, their children and the elderly, and create real prerequisites for improving their well-being. Another way, "bringing the reforms to the end" will further worsen the situation of the population of Russia. Understanding the inevitability of the proposed path will not come by itself, it will have to be fought for by creating parties, unions and other organizations that defend the interests of workers and their families, increasing popular representation in all government and administration. In the end, it's time to understand that "only a rich population can make their country rich."

Russia, due to historical and geographical factors, is located at the crossroads of the West and the East, experiencing the influence of Western and Eastern civilizations. The influence of the West is Christianity and the culture based on it (writing, painting, architecture, etc.), rationalism, individualism, respect for the individual. The influence of the East - the Asian mode of production (in the past), mysticism and Eastern religions, the subordination of the individual to the clan, community. In Russia, one can find both Western and Eastern roots, but they are often divided, which is the reason for conflicting opinions about the role of Russia in the world civilizational process (“Westerners” and “Slavophiles”, “liberals” and “soilers”). But everyone agrees that Russia is called upon to promote the West-East dialogue and, on this basis, develop its own values, combining the ideas of humanism, respect for nature, a free, just and safe world, practicality, and high spirituality. The concept of social dynamics focuses on the direction of social processes, on their "trajectories". In this regard, we can distinguish cyclic, linear and spiral types of social dynamics. Cyclic changes can occur both within the framework of one qualitative state of society (alternating ups and downs, the “pendulum” movement of the social system), and in the historical genesis of the social system (emergence, flourishing and decay). For the further successful development and strengthening of our country, in order to choose the right path for its development, it is necessary to pay close attention to and follow the principles and values ​​that are close and inherent to the people of Russia. That is, in order to resolve the social, economic, legal contradictions that take place in today's Russia, it is necessary to take into account the traditions, moral and value orientations of Russians, because “No self-respecting state can live without this, especially a country like Russia with its historically conditioned role and with the responsibility that our country bears to the world community.

The place of the Russian Federation in the modern world community. Name the geopolitical nature of the challenges that Russia faced at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. What achievements and miscalculations of Russia in the field of foreign policy could you note

With its entry into the international arena as an independent state, Russia faced the need to determine its place in the modern world. It is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and bears the responsibility associated with it. Russia has one of the world's largest nuclear potential, which also affects its place and role in the world community.

Russia is the largest country in terms of territory and the seventh most populous country in the world. Being at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, it occupies a favorable geopolitical position. Russia has large reserves of natural resources and a high scientific and technical potential. All this objectively determines its influential position in the modern world.

Post-Soviet geopolitical space- a special zone in the system of international relations, which is characterized by mobility, incompleteness of processes due to a complex combination of national and regional factors. The institutionalization of this new geopolitical space was not easy, sometimes taking on a contradictory character.

Initially, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was viewed by many politicians as a temporary entity, and not as a basis for new integration. Each state of the CIS sought to independently enter the world community, seeking Western loans and attracting foreign investment in the national economy. At the same time, contradictions and conflicts related to the division of property and debts, the withdrawal of troops, clarification of state borders, ownership of territories, etc., multiplied throughout the post-Soviet space.

After the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, the Russian leadership proclaimed a policy of establishing partnership and allied relations with the West and, above all, with the United States. However, it soon became clear that the interests of Russia and Western countries do not coincide in everything. Russia's security was affected by the expansion of the NATO military-political bloc to the East, its access directly to the borders of the CIS.

On this path, Russia has managed to achieve certain results. Since June 1997, she has been regularly participating in the annual meetings of the "Big Seven" (now the "G8") - the leading world powers coordinating their policies. Russia also became a member of the Council of Europe, a consultative political organization coordinating the activities of European states on issues of human rights, economics, disarmament, education, nature conservation, tourism, etc.

According to analysts and experts, much will now depend on whether Russia will be able to solve its internal problems, primarily economic ones. It is the country's economy that today is becoming a key factor in the national survival strategy, the main indicator of the effectiveness of one or another course in world politics.

Setting the task of weakening the USSR as enemy No. 1, the United States at the same time feared chaos in a huge country, moreover, stuffed with nuclear weapons. pressure from the West was one of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR, but far from the main and not decisive. We admit that only a weak state can be destroyed from the outside. After all, when citizens are satisfied with their lives, no matter what foreign special services do, they will not be able to destabilize the situation in the country. The collapse of the USSR was caused by internal contradictions, not external pressure.

The global military-political confrontation between the two blocs during the Cold War period determined the entire development of the world after 1945. After a short propaganda controversy, the “cold war” quickly acquired the character of a tough military-political confrontation between the USSR and the USA and marked the beginning of an unprecedented scale in world history. arms race and the creation of two military-political blocs. The arms race began with different "starting opportunities" of the USSR and the USA.

The economic and social consequences that the Cold War caused in the USSR and the USA differed significantly. A more or less realistic idea, in our opinion, of the true size of the Soviet military spending during the Cold War can be given by the calculations of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, which estimated the Soviet military spending in the late 1980s. in the amount of 17.6% of the gross national product.

The hypertrophied development of the Soviet military-industrial complex contributed to the strengthening by the end of the 70s. the general economic backwardness of the USSR, which led to a qualitative deterioration in the Soviet military-technical potential, which in turn led to a weakening of the international positions of the USSR. The economic backwardness had a negative effect on the internal socio-economic development of the USSR and its allies.

In the course of perestroika, the leadership of the USSR, having tried to apply its traditional methods of increasing the efficiency of the economy (“acceleration strategy”), came to the conclusion that its access to the world technical and economic level is impossible without its integration into the world economy, which required, in its turn, not only a radical change in the forms of management, but also changes in the entire state-political system of the USSR. Perestroika was impossible without the demilitarization of the economy and social and political life, without relieving the country of the burden of gigantic military spending to maintain the global confrontation with the United States and its allies. The policy of new thinking, which the Soviet leadership proclaimed and tried to implement in 1987-1991, was an attempt to preserve the USSR as a great world power, taking into account the new political realities. This was possible only with a global restructuring of the entire system of international relations, in which all states had to be provided with security and free economic and political development. The restructuring of the entire system of international relations on the basis of new thinking did not take place. One of the main reasons for this was the collapse of the USSR. The economy of the USSR was closed because the West did not allow the goods of the USSR to hit the shelves, the USSR was blocked. This is the role of the West in the collapse of the USSR. Supporting the United States, Europe wanted to get rid of communism. The USSR collapsed and there was no longer a bipolar world, it became multipolar.

This book is not just another apocalyptic warning. It presents the concept of the crisis state of modern civilization from the standpoint of ecologists. Mankind is a systemic element of the biosphere, and the only way to avert a threatening catastrophe is to ease the anthropogenic pressure from which all life on Earth suffers. Based on the theory of biotic regulation of the environment developed by Russian scientists, the authors debunk the technogenic concept of the noosphere. No human technology can replace wildlife - this, according to the authors, is the strategic nerve of what is commonly called sustainable development.

We bring to your attention some materials.

Environmental Equivalents
modern man

In order to get a more visual quantitative idea of ​​what the life support of the average inhabitant of the planet costs nature, let us turn to the concept ecological equivalents of modern man which operates today's science.

On average, about 50 tons of raw material is extracted and moved per capita in the world today. For its extraction and processing, 800 tons of water are consumed annually (like the technologies of life itself, most modern technologies can be called “wet”) and 3.6 kW of energy power is constantly consumed. This produces 48 tons of waste and 2 tons of end products, which are, in fact, deferred waste.

Is it a lot or a little? To better imagine such scales, let's try at least mentally to draw a diagram of three concentric circles, inside the smallest of which is placed a human figure.

This little man is a city dweller, and the smallest of the circles represents that small area that corresponds to his living space - dwelling, streets and squares, his workplace, trade and public catering enterprises, administrative and cultural institutions, etc. This 0.1-hectare site is, as it were, the epicenter of environmental disturbance, where natural ecosystems have been completely destroyed.

The next circle is larger, it displays the area needed to provide our citizen with food, natural fibers and wood. Its value varies depending on the region. For a resident of the Baltic basin, for example, it ranges from 0.55 hectares (Scandinavia, Denmark, former West Germany) to 0.69 hectares (the countries of the former socialist camp).

And finally, the largest circle corresponds to a territory that is not occupied by anything and does not produce anything for our city dweller, but is experiencing anthropogenic pressure due to the removal of human waste and the release of nutrients, including CO 2 . The area of ​​this territory ranges from 4 to 10 ha, and its ratio to the area of ​​the disturbance source (the urban area proper and agricultural land) ranges from 7:1 to 15:1, respectively.

This last territory of 4-10 hectares should be considered true ecological space necessary for the life support of one modern city dweller.

And now let's make a small arithmetic calculation: let's multiply the minimum area required to ensure the life of our average city dweller, that is, the mentioned 4 hectares, by the number of all urban residents of the planet, which today reaches half of its total population. The territory that we get as a result is equal to 170 million km 2, which is more than the entire land surface!

But we did not take into account another 3 billion rural residents, we also did not take into account the disturbances caused by the industry aimed at improving the comfort of life, and much more.

Of course, in different countries and regions, human environmental equivalents differ significantly among themselves, which is associated with the level of their economic development and, in particular, with the level of consumption.

In developed countries, these values ​​are approximately 5 times higher than the world average (250 tons of raw materials are mined per person per year and 16 kW of energy is constantly consumed). In developing countries, they are 5 times lower than the world average (10 tons of raw materials and 0.64 kW of energy per person), and in the poorest - 10 times lower. That is, a resident of Ethiopia, for example, is 500 times (!) inferior in its ecological equivalent to a Frenchman or an American. And this screaming inequality in the consumption of vital goods is, in essence, the basis of the foundations of the socio-political destabilization of the modern world, which he has to pay for the current well-being of economically successful countries.

"National colors" of sustainable development

Within 10 years after the Rio conference, more than a hundred states published, following the model of the Agenda for the 21st Century adopted there, their own agendas and programs, which reflected their vision of sustainable development, as well as the specific steps they planned along this path.

The key to American sustainable development is the same growth and economic prosperity, and it is they who are called upon to pay for environmental pollution and waste disposal. But how, one might ask, is this development different from the existing one and from the environmental economy that has been operating in developed countries for more than two decades, but resulted only in the deterioration of the global environmental situation (only the US contribution to increasing the concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere amounted to 4.4% of its total annual growth in 1990-1994).

The US Sustainable Development Goals are little different from what the leaders of this country have been guided by in previous years and what they have promised during their election campaigns. So if the term “sustainable development” is removed from this text, it will be difficult to discern anything fundamentally new in it. And the intention to “take a leading role in the development and implementation of global sustainable development policies, standards of conduct, trade and foreign policy” speaks of the continued desire for leadership in a unipolar world and in the future.

But the world expects something completely different from the United States. And developing countries are also claiming the return of their environmental debt, rightly believing that this is one of the central points in achieving international agreement. And how can we talk about economic or social justice if one inhabitant of industrialized countries consumes as many resources today as 20 people from the developing world. And one American's energy consumption is equivalent to that of 14 Chinese, or 36 Indians, or 280 Nepalese, or 531 Ethiopians.

Accordingly, the damage caused to the environment here per capita is 7 times higher than in the countries of the "third world". And while 1.5 billion people on Earth live on one or less than one dollar a day, the United States spends $20 per person annually to combat the effects of overeating.

However, ignoring these sad statistics, the US “Sustainability Strategy” continues to focus on economic growth at the expense of the rest of the world. In essence, this is still the same nature-wasting mechanism, only supplemented by measures to intensify production, save resources and combat pollution.

However, sustainable development in a single country is completely hopeless, and the authors of the report seem to understand this. Because in the section "Global Changes Affecting All" you can also read such a casually thrown phrase: "Planetary environmental changes are having an ever-increasing impact on the lives of Americans." Logically, this should mean that national tasks should also be derived from global ones, or at least coordinate the former with the latter.

But between the lines of the "Strategy ...", something completely different shines through: yes, the world needs to spare no effort to take energetic measures to protect and restore the environment, but do it under the leadership of the United States in the interests of their prosperity and sustainability. As for sustainability in other regions of the planet, it is, of course, also desirable, but with prosperity and social justice - that's how it will turn out.

If the United States is a typical representative of the “golden billion” and the world leader in resource consumption and waste production (24% of global energy consumption and 30% of raw materials consumption), then China is a “third world” superpower, whose contribution to global processes is expected , will increase with time. Therefore, it is especially interesting to trace, using his example, what specific expectations are associated with sustainable development in the countries of the opposite pole.

China has also developed a sustainable development program called "China Agenda 21 - White Paper on Population, Environment and China's Development in the 21st Century". This document, although continuing the traditions of the socialist five-year plans, was drawn up for a more distant future. In some cases, prospects up to 2020 and beyond are considered.

The choice of the Chinese strategy is obvious: it is intensive economic growth, but taking into account environmental protection and population regulation. "China is a country with a large population and weak infrastructure," the document says. "Only by maintaining relatively rapid economic growth can poverty be eradicated, living standards raised and lasting peace and stability achieved."

Indeed, who better than China to know what the problem of overpopulation is. There is only 0.11 hectares of arable land per person, and over the past 10 years, its area has decreased by 360 thousand hectares, and the harvest is less than 400 kg per capita. In this regard, the program provided for the further dissemination of family planning methods, which began back in the 1980s, control of the population and its composition. And its annual growth was planned to be reduced to 1.25%.

Like other centralized economies, environmental issues have been neglected in China, and now, for the first time in many years, the country is turning to face them. It was decided, in particular, to take environmental pollution under control and achieve a partial improvement in the ecological situation in large cities. Special sections of the program are devoted to the protection and economical use of natural resources, the conservation of biodiversity, the fight against desertification (a particularly painful problem for China), as well as the disposal of solid waste and the protection of the atmosphere.

But all this, so to speak, is the immediate specifics, the tasks of today or tomorrow. Do the authors of the White Paper have any more general strategic guidelines of a global nature?

Yes, there is, and the United States serves as such a guideline for them, whose version of sustainable development, once it is implemented, they would like to extend to the entire developing world. “The United States,” the document says, “should first develop an effective domestic policy to achieve sustainable development in order to demonstrate that there is another, smarter path to progress.”

And since the advantage of their accumulated experience “flows from the wealth of the country, its power, technical capabilities and history itself,” the “damned” question immediately arises: how can those countries that have neither American wealth and economic power, no technical capabilities to that? Having previously repeated the historical path of the United States in terms of unprecedented consumption and depletion of natural resources? But this is the surest road to a global environmental catastrophe.

Thus, China chooses, in principle, the same strategy as the United States, although taking into account local features, but with even higher economic growth rates.

It is with growth that they hope to find funds for protecting the environment, which in this gigantic country is only taking its first timid steps. But, alas: even the growth of its economy at 9% per year will still not bring China one step closer to the United States. After all, the American 3% per year is much “heavier” than the Chinese 9%, and with simultaneous economic growth, the absolute gap between them will only increase. And in a decade, another 30% will be added to the financial and economic power of the United States.

This is, in general terms, the position of the two flagships of the modern world system. The first embodies the typical features of the economically developed, the second - the developing world.

The 1989 Economic Declaration of the G7 states: "...To achieve sustainable development, we must ensure that economic growth and development are compatible with environmental protection."

But it is economic growth that has brought the developed countries into their current conflict with nature. And with all the successes of an intensive economy, at least 50% of the world's energy and up to 80% of raw materials are consumed there even now. Accordingly, these countries account for 2/3 of the world's waste and more than 50% of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere (almost half of them are due to the United States).

Germany in this group is one of the most advanced countries in terms of environmental protection, even including the principle of sustainable development in its Basic Law. And among its most important goals is, in particular, the preservation of the ecological balance.

But is this possible in a country where 54% of the land is occupied by agriculture, 29% by buildings and infrastructure, and the remaining 17% is cultivated and secondary forests? Is this possible where the population density is 228 people per 1 km 2 (that is, 0.45 hectares of land per person) and where, against the background of a decrease in the consumption of materials and fuel per unit of production (409 kg of fuel in 1995 against 833 kg in 1960) the trend of absolute growth in consumption of both remains. And isn't this a complete separation of ideas from reality?

Sustainable development is understood as the same familiar strategy of the last decades. True, taking into account environmental problems (primarily waste and pollution), but without serious restrictions on economic growth, without a strict environmental framework for the production sector, and most importantly, without recognizing the fact of a global collision of mankind with the natural environment.

Translated into a common language, this means: to do better, to act more efficiently, perhaps more prudently, but, in principle, just like usual. That is, within the framework of the same paradigm of economic growth, which ultimately led to the current global crisis.

But if in the strategies of industrialized states one can still trace a certain bias towards environmental protection (the principle of paying for pollution, attention to preserved natural ecosystems, investing in environmental technologies), then the national programs of the poor countries of the "third world" are, as a rule, devoid of this, and unsubstantiated declarations on environmental protection are, after all, nothing more than declarations. And making, without further ado, betting on economic growth, they hope to achieve their goals in the same way that their economically more successful partners took in their time. But this is the path to the destruction of nature.

The conclusions, unfortunately, are not encouraging.

First of all, the program of global changes has not yet been adequately reflected in national plans for sustainable development and, moreover, is not being implemented in practice. Both developed and developing countries continue to live by inertia, planning their future to a large extent as a spontaneous continuation of the present. Separate measures (combating pollution, introducing environmental technologies, saving resources) actually completely fit into the framework of what has already been tested by the developed world since the late 1960s, but did not at all alleviate the threatening environmental situation. And this, misleading others and themselves, they are trying to pass off as sustainable development!

WHICH STRUCTURE IS RUSSIA GOING TO?

(Medvedev R.A. Capitalism in Russia?)

Alexander Rybalka

"Capitalism in Russia?" is the name of Roy Medvedev's new book. Many have written and are writing about what is happening with Russia, what kind of society we lived in in the USSR, what kind of society we are moving towards. Brightly, from a Marxist position, these issues were, in our opinion, A.V. Soloviev in the works: "The social system of Russia - yesterday, today, tomorrow." Kostroma, 1994 and "Etudes on Russia's capitalism of the XX century", Kostroma , 1995. Most recently, a book by L.B. Butovskaya and G.A. Klimentov "From Lenin to Yeltsin. Economic transformations in Russia 1918-1998" St. Petersburg, 1998 was published on the same topic. These questions were discussed by S. M. Menshikov in the work "The Russian Economy: Practical and Theoretical Issues of Transition to a Market" (Moscow, 1996). and A.D. Nekipelov in the book "Essays on the Economics of Post-Communism" (Moscow, 1996). The discussion on a number of topics raised was also in periodicals. It is striking, however, that most often and most of all the authors discuss the current situation of Russia, its prospects and its place in the world, that is, where we are now and where let's go. But much less frequently where let's go and why . Meanwhile, without answering these questions, it is impossible to correctly determine either the current situation or prospects. In this context, the main specific feature of the work of R.A. Medvedev is that it puts forward and elaborately argues the sharp thesis that capitalism in the 90s. The twentieth century is impossible in Russia, because "no society and no civilization can be built if this society or civilization has not already been born in the bowels of a previous civilization", and therefore "it would be strange to think about returning to the path of capitalist development in Russia in the 90s, if this path has been destroyed and even faint traces of it have long been lost" (p. 11). We find the first statement of the author to be true, but we find it difficult to agree with the second. R.A. Medvedev himself writes (p. 215) that the complex world of illegal business, the shadow economy and the black market has existed in our country for decades and gained considerable scope "during the years of stagnation", and the first legal businessmen and large private fortunes began to emerge in the USSR in 1987-88. Let us add that not only

____________________

Rybalka Aleksandr Nikolaevich – post-graduate student of the Kostroma State Technological University, Kostroma.

and not so much these factors as self-supporting The (in fact, private-group) position of enterprises within state ownership contributed to the maturation of the "market" within the "plan" and the transformation of the directors of "socialist" enterprises into capitalists. According to R.A. Medvedev, the capitalist revolution that began in Russia in 1991 is doomed to failure as a result of the influence of a number of counteracting factors. However, in our opinion, “the ten obstacles on the path of capitalist development, detailed by the author (pp. 12-70) are capable of stopping the capitalist revolution, preventing the revolutionary transition from socialism to capitalism, but only hindering the reformation transition from one type of capitalism to another. It is assumed that today we are dealing not with the beginning, but with the final stage of the transition from Stalin's coercive and premature state capitalism - through the gradual strengthening of private-monopoly capitalist relations in the 1960-80s. - to the Gorbachev-Yeltsin monopoly capitalism, which, before our eyes, is evolving into an already economically, rather than administratively growing, state-monopoly capitalism (won't it be "approved" by the government of E.M.Primakov?). Let's consider the "author's" reasons in more detail. The author named the first four as follows: "resistance of the material"; the legacy of the Cold War and the role of the military-industrial complex; geography, nature and economy of Russia; "the spirit of entrepreneurship" and the soul of Russia. In fact, this is a characteristic of the productive forces of Russia, inherited from the Soviet Union. The first obstacle is seen as the monopolization of production and distribution, a very high concentration of production in large and giant enterprises, the maximum self-sufficiency of the economy in a not too friendly environment, a deformed price structure for goods and services (mass consumption - lower than the cost, not mass - higher), low population mobility. How big is this obstacle? Monopolization and concentration of production are inherent in modern capitalism. Russia's natural monopolies have been preserved. The liberalization of foreign trade has led to a restructuring of the Russian economy based on comparative advantages. The continuation, albeit to a lesser extent, of housing construction with a declining population and the possibility of buying and selling housing increase the mobility of the labor force. So the first obstacle is not only surmountable in principle, but has already been largely overcome.

The situation is similar with the second one. According to R.A. Medvedev himself, 20% of military-industrial complex enterprises have already adapted to the current situation and to the market, 25% have begun to “rise” (p. 32). Structural transformation in the military-industrial complex, its adaptation to the market, when those who manage to produce the products needed by the market survive, are not at all an obstacle to the establishment of capitalist relations at the enterprises of the military-industrial complex. The third obstacle is the expanses and relatively cold climate of Russia, which increase production costs. But wealth in natural resources is already partially reducing these costs. The author writes that "the economic use of those advantages that give Russia its territory and its natural resources is impossible only on the terms and rules of a free market economy" (p. 38). It's right. But Russia now has a highly monopolized market economy with elements of state regulation. On the other hand, let us recall that the author is talking about obstacles in the way of the "capitalist revolution" (p. 11). It turns out that in this case, the author understands capitalism only as a free pre-monopoly market economy - then there is almost no capitalism in the world at all. The fourth obstacle - the subjective factor, in our opinion, remained not sufficiently disclosed. On the one hand, R.I. Medvedev says that Western capitalism is associated with Protestant ethics, but we did not have it and do not have it. On the other hand, he rightly writes, referring to the experience of Japan and China, that by no means Protestant ethics alone can underlie capitalist development (pp. 40-41). We add that the experience of Italy and France showed this even earlier, why shouldn't the “spirit of entrepreneurship” take root in Russia as well? For those who doubt, we will refer to fresh research: A.A. Galagan. The history of Russian entrepreneurship. From a merchant to a banker (M.: Os-89, 1997); V.A. Sushchenko. History of Russian Entrepreneurship (Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1997). But the question can be legitimately put in another way: what is meant by this spirit? Traditionally, it is interpreted as frugality, prudence, diligence, in other words, investing maximum energy and funds in development your business . Yes, without this, it was difficult for a small businessman of the 17th-19th centuries to survive, especially to grow into a medium and large one. But after all, entrepreneurship was also formed from among the feudal lords - aristocrats who were not distinguished by personal thrift. In turn, having reached a certain level of wealth, people from the lower classes sought to lead a lifestyle corresponding to the higher circle. Projecting history onto our time, it can be argued that the luxury of the "new Russians" is not at all an obligatory sign that they do not have an "entrepreneurial spirit". On the other hand, modern capitalism requires a relatively smaller percentage of entrepreneurs from the total population than capitalism of the 18th or 19th century. Therefore, it can be argued that there are enough people in Russia with an entrepreneurial spirit and abilities. The rapid growth in the number of small shops, stalls, markets, shuttle trade is proof of this. Their concentration and centralization is a market selection of the most capable entrepreneurs. The rest of the obstacles mentioned by the author are distinguished by the same qualities: being really existing, they are not insurmountable for the capitalist revolution. An exception, perhaps, can only be the competition of Western countries. The author believes that the path that Russia is now taking in economic relations with other countries is the path of increasing economic dependence on the West, turning Russia into a raw material colony, into a waste dump. But here a number of questions of a special nature arise, which cannot be omitted for the sake of clarity. It is known that in relative terms, the export of fuel and raw materials in the structure of Russia's exports as a result of the reforms of 1991-98. increased, but in absolute terms it decreased or remained unchanged, and their production was much reduced. With this approach, the exploitation of these resources will continue for a longer period than under the USSR. Under the USSR, these resources were exported mainly to the CMEA countries and friendly countries, and we could not go to our friends with monopoly prices. As a result, our country supplied more than half of its exported resources at prices below world prices. Now Russia is being forced to do this too, but where is the comparison - more or less effectively does Russia use the extracted and exported resources than the Soviet Union? As long as this is not the case, it would be more correct to say that Russia continues what it started in the 1970s. USSR way to fuel and raw material specialization in world trade. There is no qualitative novelty here. But why, in fact, does this path necessarily turn Russia into a colony? If oil has a monopoly high price on the world market (and this is the case even after the fall in prices for it in 1998), then its export is beneficial for Russia, it allows it to accumulate the necessary capital at the expense of monopoly profits for the modernization of others, including the most advanced, industries. Another thing is that the state needs to learn how to extract and redistribute this monopoly profit with the help of taxes and industrial policy. And there is only one way out - control from below, by the working people themselves, both over the administrative and economic magnates and over production as a whole. By the way, no one calls Iraq's economy colonial, although oil is its main export. Norway also has a large share of its exports of oil. Closely related to this problem is the issue of Russia's financial dependence on the West. She is growing, of course. But, most of the debt is made by the USSR. So, again, we need to talk about continuing to move along the path begun by the USSR. Let us recall how often we were cited as an example of the South Korean “economic miracle”, no one said that this country is moving along the colonial path, however, having an external debt of over $ 100 billion, it is even more financially dependent on the West (more correctly, in In this case, it would be talking about the G7 countries). As for the thesis about the possible dominance of Western monopolies in Russia, I expressed my opinion on this back in 1993. Now it's 1998. They don't manage it yet. On the contrary, the government and the president call them, they are looking for investors, but they do not come. The volume of foreign direct investment is scanty. There are separate examples of the subordination of Russian enterprises to foreigners; this practice has long been typical of developed countries. In the USA, Japanese and European enterprises are being created (including through the purchase of American enterprises), and American and Japanese enterprises in Europe.

Finally, the thesis about the interest of the Russian elite in the colonial subjugation of Russia to the West. It is obvious that the basis of the Russian elite is the business elite. They are the real masters of the country. And what does colonial development mean from the point of view of relations between ours and their elites. Only that our elite must give the lion's share of their profits to the West. Well, who will go for it voluntarily?

Exactly 20 years ago, land reform began to be implemented in the region. The lands of collective farms and the state became shares. What did the village get as a result of such turbulent changes?About this conversation withmember of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Volgograd publicist and expert on land management Alexander VOROBYOV.

Better than nothing

- Alexander Vasilyevich, many villagers still fondly remember collective farm life. Why are they afraid of private property?

It is not private property or the absence of it that is terrible. It is terrible when millions of hectares of arable land, pastures, hayfields are abandoned, overgrown with weeds, not cultivated. This almost happened to us in the 1990s, when the old forms of management could no longer work effectively, and new ones were just being created.

At one time I studied the history of land relations in various countries of the world. Collective farms with exclusive state ownership of land were only in the Soviet Union and Mongolia. Therefore, the assertion that there is nothing better than collective farms in the world is nonsense. Today in the Russian countryside there are all the signs of a multiculturalism, competitiveness of different forms of management, their forced "hybridization". Life itself suggests how to work on the earth efficiently and sustainably. The main thing is to create clear legislative and normative frameworks. And not to apply such barbaric experiments to the village, as it was, consider, the entire 20th century.

- At the time of perestroika, the first farmers appeared. Has anything stopped them from working? Alexander Vorobyov was born in 1949 in the North Ossetian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. Professor of the department "Land Management and Land Cadastre" of VSAU, PhD in Economics, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. For 17 years he headed the land management service of the region, headed the committee on land resources and land management. Author of more than 40 research papers, 10 books and reference manuals. Honored Land Surveyor of the Russian Federation.

Under Yeltsin, every peasant was given the right to leave the collective farm to organize their own farms, to take land from the redistribution fund. There were a lot of curiosities! It took years for the legal literacy of the majority of participants in land relations to move from zero, and for the authorities themselves to begin offering the peasants well-developed legal mechanisms for managing the land.

In general, there were many gross mistakes at the origins of the land reform. The adopted laws were declarative in nature, so they were constantly amended - some canceled others. Farmers had to endure a lot! But the main thing was achieved - the land was not concentrated in one hand. She did not go to the "shadow agrobarons", as was the case in a number of regions of Russia.

- They say that the farmer or small-scale type of management is an outgoing nature. What will come to replace? And when?

Individual peasant farms, even where the owner is a knowledgeable and talented person, do not always prove their effectiveness. More often, those producers who unite in primary associations, agricultural cooperatives, etc., achieve success, expanding their allotments to 1,000 or more hectares. There is no point in managing 50-80 hectares: the costs will not pay off. We need various forms of cooperation between farmers, the creation of joint “inter-farm” complexes, partnerships for technology, logistics, and marketing.

Over the past 50 years (since the beginning of the Khrushchev consolidation of collective farms and state farms, the liquidation of "unpromising" settlements), more than a thousand farms have been erased from the map of the region. But the land, the conditions remained! On the basis of such farms, it is necessary to create enlarged compact arrays of farms, form land funds from abandoned arable land, reanimate infrastructure, and revive settlements. Moreover, there is such experience in the country. In the central regions of Russia, "family farms" of a new type have appeared, where the entire infrastructure has been created literally from scratch. Farmers themselves choose the place where they build a family farm in order to optimally cultivate the surrounding land. In the neighboring Voronezh region, there is a program to support and develop small settlements. Need to study!

- In such areas as Ilovlinsky, Kalachevsky, Chernyshkovsky, etc., there are huge tracts of abandoned land. They dropped out of circulation due to extreme desertion. How to lure new residents there?

The lands you are talking about have become the centers of nature reserve parks. Here, with the support of the state, it is necessary to develop agro-tourism, sport hunting and fishing, pasture animal husbandry. That is, to return these lands to economic use in a different capacity. Where it makes no sense to engage in crop production - the region of semi-deserts beyond the Volga, the steep slopes of the Don - it is worth developing types of management alternative to crop production.

Today, many are beginning to understand that talk about the continuation of land reform is not just talk. Moreover, the main dream of Pyotr Stolypin has not yet been realized. More than a century ago, he wrote: "Our agricultural production is not intensive and cannot seriously compete with the world's production centers." The last years of reforming land relations inspire a certain optimism. And above all, because our peasant is unusually talented and tenacious, he is in no way inferior to either the American, or the Dutch, or any other farmer.

In Khrushchev's time, Dmitry Polyansky, a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, visited our region. The state farm "Volgo-Don" near Kalach was then famous for its success. It was decided to show it to the distinguished guest. The road went through summer cottages of Volgograd residents. Polyansky looked, and then asked: "What is this?" “Dachi,” they answered him. "Whose?" - the question followed. Local escorts suggested: "Workers of chemical and other enterprises." The honored guest, returning to Volgograd, staged a real rout and accused the local authorities of "indulging bourgeois manners." He demanded that the dachas be razed to the ground with bulldozers. True, neither Nikita Khrushchev himself, nor the leadership of the Volgograd Regional Committee supported such an extreme. Sanity took over.