Is it possible the other Russia?

6

Возможна ли другая Россия?

Great-power ambitions and greed of the ruling elite does not allow you to build a developed welfare state, which would like to live people.

Various opinion polls consistently show that the number of supporters of a liberal market economy, which not long ago was the dream of Russians is decreasing every year. But the request for state aid becomes more urgent, and today, many ideal called “the welfare state”, in which the elements of the market combined with large-scale social programs and safeguards.

“Rosbalt” asked the experts how Russia can be a viable model of intelligent welfare state that prevents us to build it, and why the Russians tend to rely on the “shoulder state” and not become more independent from the government.

Irina Khakamada, the economist, business coach, and politician:

“A reasonable welfare state exist in Europe the past forty years, and no wild capitalism there is long gone. This model, in fact, beneficial to any society. But to make it work, the country should not claim the role of superpower. All socially sensible countries prefer no one to fight and pursue a more peaceful foreign policy. They spend money on the military budget, and the maintenance of free health care, quality education and a decent quality of life for seniors. And in the US, on the contrary, almost no social budgets, but there is a very large defense spending. Russia also claim to superpower status. So I’m afraid with the welfare state we have nothing. Geopolitical influence is more important to us than anything else. Foreign policy we have always wins the internal. We are constantly all something to prove, and for that we need a huge military budget.

Of course, this is not the only obstacle. In Russia, monopolized and corrupt economy, where the state is a major player. In such circumstances, the commodity of the elite will always be profits, and the rest will fall crumbs. The idea is that oil revenues can be channelled into funds for future generations and for the improvement of social infrastructure. But we do not have control over such funds: there is no independent Parliament, civil society, political parties, who would monitor how the state is fulfilling its obligations. We do not even know exactly where the money goes. And they are distributed on anything, including the world Cup. We are a country show, in which the government never thinks about people.

There is another important point. If you encourage a small business that is in a reasonable state, even at low income entrepreneurs are independent and they have equal access to credit and rental resources. If you run this mechanism, it will eventually grow powerful middle class, which simply sweep away corrupt elite. And the main task — to not be touched. Yet the people remain silent, and give him some money so he can continue in the same spirit. In such circumstances, to build a welfare state is simply impossible”.

Vladimir Ryzhkov, politician, historian:

“The model of the welfare state today is the base for most of the capitalist countries — and works great. Moreover, not only in Scandinavia but also in France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, etc. the Cannibalistic capitalism that is described in “Capital” Marx does not exist already years fifty or sixty, and that a functioning market economy supports social policy. For Russia, this model is also perfect. By the way, it is absolutely wrong to think that we have no welfare state. Just the fact that it exists on a background of very low income.

Today in the structure of monetary incomes of the Russian population, 62% is for salaries, and 21% — on social benefits. At the same time revenues from business activities account for only 8% property — 6%. Interestingly, in 1975, in the heyday of developed socialism, the share of wages was 80% and social payments — only 14%. The percentage of social benefits is higher than under Brezhnev. It turns out that we have a huge number of people dependent on the state and lives at his expense. In Russia, 43 million seniors and approximately 22 million public sector employees of all kinds. Total — 65 million adults who receive income from the state. This is 2/3 of the voters. But if we take into account the family, we do 80-85% are due to the state budget. This figure, of course, need to be reduced. It turns out, an absurd situation: Russia, on the one hand, the state is extremely poor — more than 20 million people live below the corresponding traits, and at the same time very social. However, we have a 130 dollar billionaires — more than all the world after the United States.

So we need to change the structure of the economy, including to destroy monopolies and to promote competition. Accordingly, it is necessary that the number of private firms and companies have been much more. This will lead to innovation, economic growth and increase tax revenues to the budget. And when you get to the base budget, then there will be money for a welfare state and living standards will rise significantly. This is a real task in the horizon of ten years.

But while we have vysokomehanizirovannyh state capitalism, when more than half of GDP is in the public sector and the vast majority of the adult population receives income from the state budget, to overcome the stagnant poverty, we can not. And our welfare state is at such a low level of security. All the country’s wealth remains concentrated in the hands of a handful of people. Such a system is extremely inefficient and unfair to society, but it remains the tip for the sake of its own interests. People just resignedly keep quiet, getting the crumbs from the master’s table”.

Dmitry Gudkov, the politician:

“I believe that the question of whether to build in Russia a reasonable welfare state, should not be on the agenda. Our choice lies in another plane. We have a state economy without any competition in which there are no institutions, neither political, nor economic. It is impossible to speak of the social state, while in Russia there is no real separation of powers, independent courts and Parliament, direct elections of governors and mayors, limit the power of the President and the allocation of budgets to regions. Only then the economy will grow, and the state will be able to pay attention to the social component.

However, I do not see sense to discuss the model of the last century. Now in the world there is a competition between the progress and the archaic. Progress is developed institutions, freedom, competition. Archaic — authoritarianism and dictatorship. That is what hurts Russia. So talk if us social capitalism, reminiscent of the age-preparing for the last war already.

Take the example of Sweden. There is the highest level of social protection of citizens with a liberal economy. These are things that each other do not contradict. We just have the word “liberal” is perverted to the limit. A free economy is the path of growth of state revenues, the increase in the number of businesses and jobs. But to build it, we must once and for all do away with authoritarianism and start to create a normal free society for citizens, not for presidents and other non-replaceable leaders.”

Andrei Nechayev, an economist:

“When we are talking about a welfare state, you should always ask one basic question: “who pays for everything?” Such a model inevitably involves increased budget expenditures and thus higher taxes, which is a negative background for business. For example, the classic socially oriented state is Sweden. But when in the 70-80-ies of the government of the social Democrats repeatedly raised taxes, many wealthy Swedes simply have to change tax residency. Thus, the country simply has driven itself into a dead end. You should always look for a compromise. Because, in fact, big business to evade taxes is much easier: it employs thousands of consultants who will find the way how to do it, even within the limits of the law. As a rule, the increased tax burden falls on the middle class, and it all depends on how much he is willing for the sake of social stability to bear the increased tax burden.

That is why in the political arena of most Western countries we see constant swings. As a rule, a power struggle between two parties, one of which focused on the social economy with elements of populism. But when it comes to power, then after some time, the business begins to die, growth stops, there are serious budget problems and a large debt load. Eventually begin to suffer everything. Those who are focused on the state ceases to receive in the same sizes as the budget is reduced with the increase of debt. And then come to power other political forces (usually liberals) who start to reduce their tax burden, and with it social obligations. The country returns to economic growth.

In Russia, of course, the picture is quite different and it all depends on what the concept will choose the President. On the one hand, the government regularly declares that Russia is a welfare state. But if we draw an independent opinion poll, it is unlikely that a significant portion of the population will say that he feels socially protected. So all this talk is just propaganda stamp, although formally this thesis is enshrined in the Constitution.

We still exists the Soviet system of issuing the “natural” benefits — for example, departmental polyclinics, rest homes, housing, etc. And the system of departmental life support in recent times has even increased. A symptom of the welfare state — is, on the one hand, the equality of all, in terms of state support, and on the other it targeted. Assistance should always be directed to the real needy. Same story with the differentiated income tax. You can endlessly raise taxes — and in the end overdoing it. But there’s also the option to exempt from tax the poorest part of the population. For these people, saving a few thousand rubles will be extremely important and will give additional motivation.

In my opinion, a great demand for social support from the state in our society is, first and foremost, birthmark Soviet way of life. All social problems solved by the state — not always, incidentally, is true. If today in our country a very strong differentiation in income, then it was at the level of natural renditions: departmental health, rest homes, sanatoriums, distribution of housing, food rations, closed, Atelier, etc. And we are still influenced by the vestiges of a system in which we lived before. And now this added and illusions about it. The younger generation did not live under socialism of the Soviet type. But since our propaganda likes to tell the truth about that period, the youth creates the idea that it was a society of social justice and increased social security.”

Maxim Goryunov, a philosopher:

“The request of the Russians on the state is quite logical. Professor Richard pipes, who led at the time by the Center for Russian studies at Harvard University, has an ingenious theory about this. Comparing Canada and Russia, he draws attention to the fact that 90% of Canadians live in the southern part of the country, on the border with the United States. Uninhabitable North — taiga and tundra — think your home is about 10%, mostly Indians.

According to pipes, if the Russians had behaved like Canadians, a significant part of the territory of the Russian Federation would be depopulated — it’s too hard climatic conditions. In Moscow the climate is not suitable for life, and the farther from the capital to the North and East, the climate is worse. Large cities in such conditions, the beyond the road and is only possible with the support of the state. If not the state, says the Professor, many cities in Russia would disappear, because they don’t feed themselves.

Thus, the Russians are a prisoner of the climate and the state that facilitate this prisoner. The government is pushing people further North and East. They are going to be even more a prisoner of the climate and require even more assistance from the state. Pipes argues that this cycle of captivity and the help was always. Already in the XII—XIII century migration to the territory of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality was organized by the princes and depended on their support. According to this theory, our government was originally formed as a mechanism which, on the one hand, helps to survive in terrible climate conditions, and on the other it also takes out people in the taiga for the sake of their strange “geopolitical” purposes, condemning those who left the dependence on aid.

If the canadian government, says pipes, suddenly go crazy and begin to build a huge city in the forest tundra, Canadians who will be in these cities, will soon begin to behave like the Russians, and the Prime Minister Trudeau, realizing the scope of their power over dependent citizens will suddenly stop being cute and become authoritarian and will stay in his office for many years.

The problem is that in Russia easier for those who can rely on the government to work in a state institution, to your tiny part of the oil rent. This is the easiest way to survive in specific Russian conditions. This means that people will continue to resort to it, in an effort to minimize risk one day to freeze to death.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here