Trajectories of Economic Transformations. Lessons from 2004 for 2024 and Beyond. Valery Kushlin

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Union,” the outstanding thinker Nikita N. Moiseev remarked shortly before his death. “And our Russian conception of the future, and above all of the future of Russia, cannot be at all correct if we begin to regard the national internal crisis only as our own, outside of those general processes of global development that clearly testify to the general planetary ill-being.”7

      This global malaise prompts the highly developed countries – the most active and powerful part of the world – to use all means to overcome the emerging contradictions based on their understanding of “progress.” And far from a secondary place among the actions taken is given to the use of the processes of purposeful adaptation of the space of the post-socialist countries – a space that was not previously part of their direct influence – to the tasks of such “progress.” Hence the activity of external consultants in Russia and other countries of the transformation zone. But the concepts and programs developed with their decisive role in today’s coordinates of the globalization of the world economy cannot, in principle, be impartial. In practice, they are built to a large extent on the interests of the developing party and only insofar as they are based on the interests of those countries that have undertaken to implement them on their territory.

      Thus, in the concepts and composition of the driving forces of the processes of economic transformations in Russia and similar countries, a significant “specific weight” is occupied by the interests of the external order. Recognition of this fact prompts a more thorough assessment of the reasons for the ambiguous outcome of the activities recommended by the programs for reforming countries. In Russian practice, analysts of the official circle usually interpret the contradictions of the ongoing transformations because of deviations from the planned ideal course, as “inconsistency in the implementation of the reform program.” But what is to be done when this program only to some extent corresponds to the interests of the people of the country, and largely works either for the false benchmarks of “progress” or for the interests of competitors?

      If the model models that were decided to be followed during the transformations are not completely good, then is it not logical to first make sure of the correctness of the goals and content of the reform programs, to assess the degree of their compliance with the interests of the people of your country? Only based on such continuous verification can the issues of the adequacy of implementation efforts to the proposed reform goals be properly resolved. Such a continuous feedback loop between the idea and the result is, among other things, a guarantee of maintaining confidence in reform actions and preventing possible irreversible disappointment in society regarding the very idea of systemic transformations. All this should further strengthen us in the opinion that a comprehensive study of the meaning of the overdue transformations in the economy and society, as well as the trajectories of their optimal implementation, will remain the central problem of social science for a long time.

      Evolution of Strategies for Change

      Economic reforms, filled with a market component, started in our country long before the collapse of the USSR and the socialist system. In 1955—1956, Nikita Khrushchev set the pace for the shake-up of the Soviet system. Although the reforms he initiated were essentially administrative and even voluntaristic, they to a certain extent paved the way for the inclusion of market mechanisms. A new quality of research (at least in the ideological sense) appeared with the start of market reforms in 1965 that were associated with the name of Alexey Kosygin, Soviet Prime Minister, as well as following a number of attempts at economic and political reforms in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland.

      If we talk about the Soviet Union in the second third of the 20th century, the frequency of reform initiatives seems to be synchronous with the growth of difficulties in socio-economic development. Accordingly, in the 1990s, the start of market transformations was conditioned by the need to resolve a huge number of fundamental contradictions within the socialist economy. However, it is still impossible to understand the driving forces and factors of these transformations only on the basis of an analysis of intra-system contradictions. It is also necessary to address the contradictory course of processes in global space.

      The middle of the 20th century was characterized by many positive changes in the world, which promised great hope. A special place is occupied by a complex of phenomena that at that time acquired the title of a complex scientific and technological revolution (STR). Philosophers, economists, sociologists, and systems engineers from all over the world enthusiastically joined the study of this scientific and technological revolution. Turning to the topics of scientific and technological development has greatly changed not only the economy, but also attitudes. Prospects for accelerating socio-economic development in the field of scientific and technological development. They were seen both in the developed capitalist countries and in the camp of the socialist countries led by the Soviet Union. The modernization direction of economic development was a logical response to the situation of that time. On this basis, the concept of “competition between two systems” has developed in a quite serious and long-term direction. For a while, this competition became quite constructive. Scientific conferences of an international nature began to be held on this problem, and quite serious works were published. The concept of convergence has emerged and has been powerfully developed capitalism and socialism.

      It is noteworthy that the ideas of convergence originated on Western soil, and its developers included not only objectivist figures such as Pitirim Sorokin or John Galbraith, but also the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski who were clearly ideologically biased against socialism and the USSR. This circumstance alone confirms the conclusion that the issue of competition between the two socio-economic systems at that time was by no means far-fetched, and its outcomes were a matter of serious concern for influential forces in the West.

      In the USSR and other countries, hopes arose at that time for the objective presence in the depths of the socialist system of certain serious advantages in the sphere of the development of scientific and technological development. Studies have been launched on the problem of combining the achievements of scientific and technological development with the advantages of socialism (in which the author of these lines also joined with sincere intentions) and books and articles have been written. A set of “advantages” of this kind was multifaceted and characterized in these works. But it turned out to be hypothetical and did not manifest itself in practice. It can be argued that the unfulfilled hopes for the “advantages” of socialism in the sphere of scientific and technological development turned out to be a key factor in the rapid aggravation of many economic contradictions in the USSR and in the socialist system.

      The long-term peaceful coexistence and competition of the two world systems meant that the USSR made strenuous efforts to maintain military parity with the United States (and NATO), for which the arms race and the unconditional priority of the defense and space complex in all economic policy were vital. This steadily maintained a relatively high level of science in the country, but, on the other hand, created the most complex structural distortions in the economy and society and prepared the way for the exhaustion of the economic system of the USSR. This exhaustion was largely the result of the extensive processes of expanded reproduction in the existing structure of industries and the inability of the Soviet system to respond to the challenges of innovative development.

      At the same time, the long period of real rivalry between socialism (led by the USSR) and capitalism (led by the USA) and its inherent undoubted progress in the USSR in a number of areas – a breakthrough into space, the development of nuclear technology, the industry of modern weapons, the high class of the education and culture system, the general availability of many social services, etc. – had its impact on the world of capitalism. It was forced to respond to the increased cost of social components СКАЧАТЬ