(Reflections on the French revolution)
In recent years, Russia has become a very popular “anti-revolutionary rhetoric”, the essence of which is: “we Have to maintain political stability, and this requires all forces to support the incumbent President and the ruling party, and the alternative would be a paid Western agents of revolution, as in Ukraine, and all will Bo-Bo!”.
Followers of this concept forget that paternalistic economic model loyal to every movement of the mind and heart of those in power is directly dependent on the availability of money in the Treasury.
Here to see: we have a country so fond of the Soviet regime! And still in love! I still remember how “the grass was greener, and the sparrows were fatter, the girls were prettier and the sun shines brighter!”. What endless streams of tears pour from the eyes of our fellow “one Country”, which is no more… meanwhile, in 1989-1991-om those very same citizens were deeply spit on the Union and the CPSU and the Soviet government, and the ideals of social justice.”
Moreover, many of today’s mourners, in that period, participated in rallies, strikes, protests against the Communist regime. The answer is simple — the “people’s state” is simply the money ran out after the collapsed energy prices. And people swearing allegiance to “the cause of Lenin” when taken in the pioneers, the Komsomol, the party, swearing, taking the military oath, “to the last breath to be loyal to the Soviet Motherland and the Soviet Government” he spat with a high bell tower and Lenin and the Soviet government, because there was nothing to eat.
And if at the present time phrases like “no Money, but you stay here!” spoken top leaders are treated with humor and, in General, favorably, in 1991, the year after these words officials could beat.
There is an objective law of the universe: the government “national trust” money ever end… Here in the country of victorious Bolivarian revolution — Venezuela — the “people’s government” money at 15 years, and now Venezuelan workers, in whose hands Comandante Hugo generously gave the oil industry, stormed the border with Colombia, in order to get toilet paper.
Hence the conclusion: if you want to maintain “political stability” and personal power for decades, the North Korean variant with the total brainwashing of the population and mass repressions for you no longer, in this case, there is only the way Lee Kuan yew and Chiang Kai-shek — the way of market transformations.
The most tragic example of a ruler who were not able to go to the end of the market reform process is, of course, the French king Louis XVI. In the first year of his reign, Louis appoints the controller of Finance follower of the principle of “laisser faire, laisser passer” Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (here and below, the author relies on the monograph of V. G. Revunenkov “essays on the history of the French revolution 1789-1814”  and the monograph of J. M. Sacher “Turgot”), made the rules of his leadership of economic transformations three conditions: “No bankruptcy, no increase in taxes, no loans”. Turgot began reforming the French economy by establishing free trade bread.
In order to understand how important was the reform in the agricultural sector we will remind that on the eve of the revolution of the 25 million population of France was 22 million, it is the peasants; the annual income from agriculture was three times higher than that of the industry. Before the reform, to buy grain from farmers had the right solely to Paris merchants and the farming was strictly regulated by the government. For example, a farmer could store harvested grain not more than two years, and then was obliged to sell it in the market; in addition, local authorities had the right to force farmers to sell their crops and before the expiration of the two-year period.
There Institute a kind of “bread” to the commissioners, who were to ensure that the necessary quantity of grain and flour were regularly exported to the markets (a kind of “requisitioning”; the grain trade outside of markets, for example, “home” was strictly forbidden; the farmer had to sell brought to the city of bread, even on the most disadvantageous price, because re-export it from the forbidden city.
To engage in the grain trade was only possible after obtaining a special permit from the authorities (this limitation has touched merchant class). The government has invested considerable sums in the hlebotorgovlya and suffered losses — thus useless spend taxpayers ‘ money. To end this vicious system, Turgot made an edict, which was signed by king Louis in September 1774, the year. This edict abolished all regulations and restrictions that existed in the grain trade; manufacturers were given the opportunity to trade bread with anyone, anywhere, anytime; the more the king refused to intervene in the hlebotorgovlya. (It is worth noting that the government in France strictly regulated and also the salt trade: established norms of consumption of salt per person and the price; French citizen was obliged to buy from the state a certain amount of salt in a week.
When this salt is produced is not state-owned enterprises and private producers, which are then under the threat of confiscation was required to sell the state salt set by the government price; then this salt sold by the government at a higher price.) However, as in the Russia of 1992, when the liberalisation of prices caused a shock in our fellow citizens, accustomed to artificially low prices, and in France, refusal of state regulation of prices for bread has led to great dissatisfaction.
The fact is that unfortunately, the harvest of 1774, the year was bad, consequently the price of bread began to grow rapidly. Began the so-called “pastry war”: an angry mob of proletarians sank vessels with grain, burnt grain warehouses, dealers were forced to sell their bread at a “fair price”, smashed shop those who refused to sell bread at a loss. In may 1775, the year the rebels showed up in Versailles and forced the king to establish the pre-reform price of bread.
However, even after the Paris houses a proclamation, threatening to destroy the king and all of his relatives, if the price of bread will be reduced, and Turgot will not be dismissed. All ended with the introduction in Paris and the surrounding area of troops and the arrest of hundreds of rebels.
But Turgot still managed some time to keep the influence on the king in February 1776, the year Louis XVI signed a number of edicts, among them the decision to abolish the road of serfdom for peasants and replace it with road tax (road to serfdom the peasant had to come with a cart and horse; this service is taken from 12 or more working days in a year), which was levied on all citizens, the decision to abolish the guilds and the right of every Frenchman to do any fishing (remained only the shops of the booksellers, typographical, pharmacists, hairdressers and goldsmiths) — it is worth noting that the outdated and prevented the mechanization of production workshop to the regulations set by the government in the 17th century, had to obey also and French entrepreneurs, not the former tsehoviki.
The Parliament of Paris refused to register these Royal orders, and Louis barely managed to persuade parliamentarians to do so; however, some regional parliaments never submitted their registers of the decrees. Discontent with the policies of Turgot grew, and in 1776 he was dismissed. The successor of Turgot to the post of Director of Finance was the banker Jacques Necker, who wrote in their brochure against the reforms of Turgot, calling to return to administrative regulation of the grain trade. Becoming the main financier of the country, Necker persuaded the king to liberate the serfs of the Royal lands (1779) and to reduce the maintenance costs of the yard.
Necker, being a banker, made a bet on the replenishment of the Treasury by borrowing. To give lenders greater confidence in the system of public Finance, Necker, with the permission of the king published a report on the state of the Treasury. And although the report was concealed resulting in the budget deficit and, in General, was very good-looking, nevertheless publicly demonstrated expenses for the maintenance of the yard.
As a result of dissatisfaction of the courtiers Necker was dismissed. Then, in the late 1780’s king Louis XVI attempts to produce reforms: in particular, in 1787-the year will again be issued by the Royal edict on the freedom of grain trade and a number of other decrees; however, the Paris and provincial parliaments refused to register these edicts of the king.
In August 1788, the year will again be called to the post of Director General of Finance hapless reformer Jacques Necker, who restored the practice of prohibitions and regulations in grain trade, again, gave local authorities the right to force the farmer to sell their crops at markets in their established deadlines, but never achieved the lower prices these administrative procedures. The resignation of Necker a year later, on 11 July 1789 th, will serve as a signal to start the revolution.
So, what conclusions can we draw from this story? First, introductions of market transformation should be pursued with firmness, durability, stiffness, confidence, and ignoring the opinion accustomed to the paternalism of much of the population (these qualities are, unfortunately, not enough Russian President Boris Yeltsin in the period 1991-1994, who decided that it was necessary to go “democratically”, with the result that though we’ve made significant steps forward and broke free from the shackles of the Soviet system, but stopped somewhere halfway to the market revert back to socialism)
. Secondly, it is only market reforms, not political antics, like Louis XVI convening the Assembly of notables, the States-General of, can ensure the stability, development and prosperity of any country without revolutions, wars and upheavals; provided, of course, that the population of this country is not totally from the slackers and incompetents — in this case nothing will help, but the experience of Korea shows that even the most backward and seemingly hopeless country can turn into an advanced and prosperous, if you give people the opportunity to work for themselves, not the “people’s state”.
The author can argue: Yes, what the revolution in Russia, if 86% of “for”? Let us remember that not so long ago, Deputy Finance Minister of Russia said that, perhaps, in the 2017th year, the state will not be able to pay public sector wages (see here). And state employees — is not only dumb and harmless Museum workers and librarians, it is also soldiers, police officers, employees of state security. What happens if these people stay without pay?
Do not forget that in Russia’s recent history has been the attempt of the military-socialist revolution on the basis of lack of money in the 1998th year; then headed the conspiracy of the ex-komandami army corps, Lieutenant-General Lev Rokhlin. Interesting detail: like in the October revolution played a decisive role sailors and Rokhlin coup was planned the participation of the Baltic fleet, the train which was to arrive on the Leningrad station in Moscow. Former participants in the conspiracy claim that Moscow police had agreed not hindering the movement of troops and armored vehicles; clearly the case that the police authorities would take this step not from good life. However, fortunately, the conspirators were reckless and their rebellion did not take place.
To prevent the emergence of new Rokhlin in the future, the Russian authorities should turn the course of the economy for state companies and state corporations to the private sector economy, with the economy of a huge state social obligations to the economy with private social security, with the economy of the chicanery and extortion on the economy of tax cuts and free enterprise.
Or market, or a revolution — no middle ground!