How to train your country

3

Как приручить страну

Practice manual control is monopolized at the highest level

Andrey Gordeev / Vedomosti

Philosopher Alexander Rubtsov about the required addition of manual control

 

17 Sep 23:33

Manual control is usually understood purely economically. Priorities and megaprojects, targeted, individual support, strong-willed balance of regions, industries, etc. – it all kind of necessary form of economic regulation. However, in our conditions manual controls discreetly forms the shadow ideology, the very essence of the relations of domination and subordination consolidation of society, the production of loyalty and legitimacy. It is not an individual style, and the Foundation of the regime, the political form, of itself, generate the type of economic regulators, not Vice versa.

Manual control often oppose the idea of the “invisible hand of the market”. But not all opposing of self-organizing forms of governance and regulation (for example, “system”, “indicative”, etc.). are manual. Healthy liberalism holds back not regulation as such (for example, the notorious industrial policy) and a policy of handing out money to specific companies and individuals with the same hand, the subjective assessment of the performance of investments. No manual tabulation of hands manual control too quickly reveals the fatal inefficiency of all this generosity.

Fluxes of manual control is also often associated with defects in regulation of the economy through the institutions. I see this as an emergency measure, which I would like to give up, but not yet out: “autopilot” is not included, and the “glide path” leads away from the strip. The idea of limiting manual control to speak regularly and at various political levels. Hence the image of the “galley slave”, is fraught with thorny questions: who, in fact, makes the country a galley where you sweat all the rowing, but in different senses?

Как приручить страну

 

Manual operation creates new costs for the system

5

A fundamentally different approach to the problem considers not as a forced and temporary institutional investigation, but rather as a basic and “eternal” political objective. It is a perfect justification of all kinds of authoritarianism, personalism, paternalism, etc., up to the maximum concentration and the actual tenure of personal power. The higher the automation, the more obvious opportunities for regular, painless change either direction. Conversely, the apotheosis of manual control of genetically creates ideologies such as “if not X, then who”; “will not X, there will be no Russia.” When control override by management, who “lead hands”, naturally becomes the leader, the father, the Savior and demiurge.

Such regimes require not only manual control in the economy, but “the country” in politics. All can be for anything safe to touch, no bite, and if it snaps, it is only to maintain the image of an effective training – with the cat family in the arena. “Society on its hind legs”, the name of the carrot and the stick.

To assess the moral and political meaning of such manual control, it is enough to understand the propaganda and television PR, especially pre-election. Frequent meetings with people live and in the script of these meetings, an increasing emphasis on the solution of individual, personal problems the personal involvement of the commander in chief with a visit to the locations and distribution of assignments for utilities, and even just a family scale. To build the same image sharpened and news programs with episodes of participation of the first person. If you put together all the stories from the individual point assignments made otherwise than in the eyes of the population, formed the image many times more manual control than is seen in the political economy analysis. If we extrapolate this technology to the generation and distribution of management decisions on the entire practice of governing the country, it appears, that there is not any action, beyond the control of the first person. There’s no point in arguing about the arguments and findings: built (quite successfully!) it is this way.

The king – not real?

About the same reports on the most different occasions, allegedly with the aim of obtaining the highest sanctions to run one way or another, even the most banal and uncontroversial ideas. Knowing the system it is clear that organizational sense, these contacts have not. Moreover, such decisions should be made by the regulations of the Federal authorities, the Federal bodies of Executive power. Brought up only those problems that cannot be solved in offices, ministries, the meetings of the Chairman, interagency committees and in the government. Without passage of this multi-layered filter to raise such issues up the device is simply not allowed. So, it is done for the sake of image, hiding the self – image political election campaign.

The meaning of such pictures is much deeper than it seems. Reflexing the community understands, but it’s not interesting. The base electorate have taken the game: the President forges greatness of Russia’s foreign policy and military victories for social and economic problems the responsibility of the government. But the President is not removed from the topic of the day and prose of the inner life. He has a point, manual solutions to correct the most egregious failures of the Cabinet and the entire vertical. Once in communication with the Minister of Finance, it was called “pour money”.

The significance of the practice of manual control reveals that it is rigidly monopolized at the highest level. We is a personal, purely personal privilege. It’s hard to imagine the direct hands “hands” engaged in the live of someone else. Manual control we have both the Orb and the scepter – the main symbols of autocracy, dynasty, in which the throne every six years inherited himself from himself.

In our history any non-radical change of government is accompanied by moderate criticism of the predecessor. Ever present to the Board, gently put the blame it is his passion manual guide. At first, all seem harmless, but then it can automatically lead to much more radical conclusions.

The author is head of the Centre for studies of ideological processes

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here