Coronavirus pandemic has intensified the search for new models of economy in the modern world. But more recently the world had no doubt about what kind of economy the most effective. Only market. The freer the market, the higher the welfare of the society. Greed is not only not a Vice, on the contrary, almost a virtue. In short, “the vices of everyone, welfare for everyone.” It is only necessary to give scope to market forces to minimize state activity, to launch a comprehensive privatization and commercialization of the humanitarian sector of the economy — education, health, science, culture.
Today all of this is moot. Market fundamentalism has not met expectations. Welfare did not work. And turned glaring social problems: an unheard-of wealth of a few at the stagnant incomes of the middle class and widespread poverty.
Criticism of neo-liberalism have been increasing steadily after the crisis of 2008, today questioned the system of market capitalism. And the most active, not to say zealous, his critics — Americans, trendsetters in the economy. Call here, in my opinion, the most authoritative economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, James Galbraith, of Nuel ‘ Roubini and Paul Krugman. Some of them I have talked to, and most surprising was the feeling that they are somehow advocating for the revision of the model of the modern economy. Inequality for them is not a major threat, but a symptom of the insolvency of the existing system, which continually reproduces the insecure, insecurity, instability, anxiety and fear.
In General, the specter of socialism is haunting at a new stage of history. I would venture to suggest that if our so-called real socialism was not burdened by the horrific repression and disregard of human rights, now in the U.S. — the citadel of capitalism would come to power Bernie Sanders, not only with the social democratic Outlook, and the figure, we can say almost Communist wing.
I Really hope until the abolition of the market organization of the economy it will not come. Involuntarily comes to mind is a direct analogy with the famous comment Churchill about democracy as the worst method of management of society except for all the others. But the existing economic system will be radically changed under the pressure of objective circumstances. The most important of them — the rapid slide of the economy into a zone of “errors of the market”: that is, in those areas where the interaction of private market actors simply ignores the interests of society as such. First and foremost it is, of course, about health care, education, culture and science, who, because of a permanent reduction of state support are experiencing growing financiale difficulties at an alarming rate reduces the accessibility of citizens to the benefits of vital importance. Reaction to coronavirus pandemic is clear evidence of the unwillingness of the health system to such disasters.
What will be the socio-economic system in postpandemic world? Hopefully, more equitable, but not lost the value of freedom. In any case, history is a successful experience of “humanizing” capitalism. “The new deal Roosevelt (30 years), “New frontier” and “Great society”, Kennedy–Johnson, “Welfare for all” Erhard (50-60 years) — the first successful attempt to create an almost classless society, when two-thirds of the population are wealthy prosperous middle class.
the Current reality into something similar to post — and then the world literally cries out the need for a policy of social alignment. But the problem of inequality is not the only one. Right before our eyes, destroyed the human environment, and that this process at least suspend, it is necessary to limit two alarming phenomena: hyperindividualism, on the one hand, and hyperconsumerism on the other. In short, the future economic structure somehow needs to be integrated not only social but also ecological imperative.
And how Russia is involved in the search for a new economic model? Practically nothing. In many ways, she’s still looking for his future in the past. In the long tradition of running the show we have two absolutely irreconcilable schools of thought, and both are archaic. In essence, we are talking about the conflict “last night” with “day before yesterday”: the faithful adherents of the “free market” with the true believers advocates of the policy plan and authoritarian order.
Some want the Soviet in the 70s with elements of the 30’s, others in semi-anarchist 90s. There are those who want to come here: to enjoy acquired wealth (90s) in terms of the order (70). They, as one witty person, I want to live like Abramovich and manage Stalin. Some do.
it makes No sense to dismantle the idea of the future supporters, in fact, a return to the Soviet practice of policy planning, the results speak for themselves. But if to assume, in my opinion, absurd on the growing relevance of the global military threat, this view does not look strange. Mobilization of the economy is very Directive.
Much more interesting the views of the advocates of “free market”, the apology is almost everywhere but with us already out of fashion. According to the liberal marketeers, the successful development of the Russian economy prevents its “nationalization”. In the world made to quantify the participation of the state in the economy through the ratio of government expenditure to GDP. This figure in Russia ��leaves today 34%, in the developed world, it is in the range of 45-55%. So where the government is more involved in the economy and thereby supposedly “hurts” her? And the degree of private ownership we are not far behind them. According to Rosstat, the share of private sector in our economy is 80%, and this coincides with the value of the same indicators for Western countries.
however, The “nationalization” of the economy, and not only the economy we have, but how! In the XXI century we have, on the one hand, restored the archaic Executive vertical and the resultant practice of manual control, and on the other, formed the setting of the bureaucracy to increase efficiency of everything through the achievement of quantitative indicators. All this has led to a number of unfortunate results. Political monopolism is easily combined with the economic. Asserted the unity of power and ownership at all levels. System the character gains corruption. And finally, the main flaw of this kind of “nationalization” that the state intervenes where it doesn’t need to, carefully “guarding”, for example, private small and medium businesses. But otherwise minimizes his participation in the areas of life of society as education, health, culture and basic science, where it can not be replaced, except for sporadic bursts of private charity. One of the swear words the last time — “optimization”, it is already essentially ruined the wounds on the eve of its 300th anniversary, and this, apparently, is not her latest victim.
it’s Funny how from time to time violent adherents of the “free market”, and both governmental and non-governmental and even anti-government, gravely explain the failures of economic policy of the country allegedly excessive presence of the state in the domestic economy. And they love to worry about the unenviable state of our small and medium business, somehow believing that only he, freed from constraints, able to finally fulfill expected for almost a quarter century modernization breakthrough, which had “no time to lose”. I have a sneaking suspicion that this quasi-religious belief in the omnipotence of self-regulatory mechanisms, combined with rigorous antiemeticescoy rhetoric lies at the basis of the actual denial of industrial policy and strategic planning, so to speak, the verbal recognition of the necessity of both. Not accidentally the relevant laws in this area are essentially of declarative nature.
the Rejection of market mechanisms Soviet authorities was justified by the ideology that they are incompatible with the preservation of the purity of “socialist” principles, which is very costly to the economies ofs, and the country itself. Whether it is worthwhile to repeat the same mistake with possibly the same consequences, appealing not to reality but to an inability to compromise on principles of purity “market”?
