Кто владеет информацией,
владеет миром

Мichael Delyagin: System Basically Not Capable of Development Has Been Consciously Created in Russia

Мichael Delyagin: System Basically Not Capable of Development Has Been Consciously Created in Russia

We continue publications of answers to the questions received at the Internet - conference on Inosmi.ru by the director of Institute on Problems of Globalization, Doctor of Science M.G.Delyagin:


Sergey, 02.09.2008 15:29

What would you say about the future of Russia?

Economic and political system basically not capable of development was quite consciously created in Russian in 2000s. Therefore system crisis, that is loss by the state of the control over the major spheres of public activity, is inevitable; its concrete forms can be various - from "palace revolution" (that it more softly, than in 1998) up to some analogue of 1917 with full destruction of country and society.

Present almost double reduction in price of oil and double falling of share market - catalyst of this system crisis. In its course, if Меdvedev will fail to keep situation (though during the Georgian crisis he proved to be unexpectedly well), casual and not burdened by high morals people will come to power. Most likely, it will be natives of the present second - third echelons of power who had no time to compromise themselves seriously, possessing good administrative and political skills, contacts and financial resources.

However they will remember from experience that the neglect public interests leads to catastrophe - the same way as government officials of Khrushchev's and Brezhnev's generation remembered from personal experience that neglect interests of defensibility led to it.

This very fear will be sufficient to provide to the whole generation of new Russian leaders relative responsibility, aspiration to service to the interests of the society.

If they appear to be competent, the Russian state will be improved, will start to carry out reasonable policy in the interests of society and from the growth of a standard of living democracy - certainly, not the western one but specifically Russian will gradually grow.

If they appear to be incompetent, Russia will hardly manage to keep high-grade control over the territories to the east from Ural, let alone the south of the European part of Russia (not only Northern Caucasus), Таtarstan and Bashkiria, the Kaliningrad area. As a matter of fact, it will be the end of history of the Russian civilization and even the Russian culture in their traditional understanding.

The target of my activity for last ten years consists including in explanation to society of that in conditions of system crisis even ultraweak influence can become decisive, that is even separate people, let alone groups of people, can define the future trajectory of movement of Russia. Thus they basically will not be capable to understand consequences of their efforts - "we can't foresee how our word will be responded" and how "the deeds" will - especially. We again, as it happens in crises, shall face not simply with opportunity but also with compulsory duty of historical creativity. There is nothing pleasant in it but it's necessary to be ready to it at least to help the country instead of ruining it as in 1991 and not to miss historical chance as in 1998. As Vysotsky sang - "not to overlook, not to forgive and not to lose then".

You and Science

Michael (Novosibirsk), 02.09.2008 17:29

Dear Michael Gennadjevich! How do you think whether science should benefit necessarily to society or business, or it represents self-value? What do you consider the most valuable, the most important from your scientific achievements?

Science, if not to confuse it with obtention of grants or bureaucratic schizophrenia which it more often becomes not only in Russia but also in the developed countries, is a search of truth. I am engaged basically in analytics: fortunately - because official science degenerates and unfortunately because true science is as perfectly, as true love.

Fair search of truth - self-value from the aesthetic point of view; from practical side it always though and far from the very beginning brings significant economic benefit. A problem of fundamental science - in impossibility to predict terms, scales and directions in which its financing will give profit. However if search of truth and not social way of the fine clerks proud of their belonging to science is supported, fundamental science as a whole necessarily makes huge profit - unfortunately, in case of mass "brain drain" not necessarily to that country which puts money in it. It is the locomotive of qualitative, technological development.

4 my own scientific results are the most important for me:

1. Revealing that at globalization the most profitable from public and, accordingly, the most important type of business is human consciousness.

2. Revealing of complex character of crisis of control systems in conditions of globalization (including inability to cope with explosive growth of volume of information - "the second Gutenberg's crisis").

3. Revealing of complex and multilevel character of crises which mankind enters now (from crisis of understanding of democracy up to the crisis of overproduction of the goods of information technologies and modern control systems).

4. Formulation on the basis of analysis of expansion of hypothecary crisis in the USA of the law of preservation of risks: reduction of individual risks of system elements leads to increase of system risks up to its destruction.


National Enterprises in Russia

Valery, 02.09.2008 18:38

Michael, there is a need in Russia in a number of manufactures which in due time have been disorganized, plundered and so on... Plenty of vital materials, components, equipment is necessary to buy abroad - developing "enemy" companies. All money appeared new Russians spend either for apartments in London or in Courchevel... How do you treat the following idea. The state builds (on budgetary money) a factory with modern equipment, technologies for production of import-replacing goods. A COMPANY (with own brand) is organized and releases shares (already ready production and not Berezovsky's empty idea about national automobile). The shares are compulsorily (informally) are sold... to officials with slippery (where it's possible to take a bribe) posts. It is possible to stake privately (incomes are known, let's recollect Мisha 3 %). The state does not grow poor - all money come back to the treasury and there will be more factories. This way is not new, let's recollect post-war bounds... Economy has grown on them.

Idea of development of manufactures by the state for different reasons excessive for business is correct, though You have forgotten necessity of protectionist protection of such manufactures at the first stage. Besides basically all these are not factories which by their nature are interesting to business but infrastructure.

As to the idea to sell them to the potential corrupt officials - you know, these people quite successfully make their business - empires without it. At the same time they are pathologically non-efficient: corruption and development of business - completely different functions. Therefore to release shares of enterprises created is necessary for involving of skilful, effective private businessmen and not effective corrupted officials: in fact the task is to develop them and not to steal.

Money of corrupted officials is necessary to return to the country using other mechanisms.

By the way, Kasyanov - I should stop on it - was named "Misha 2%" and not "three" and, even if to treat this nickname seriously, on a background of some representatives of power oligarchy such "norm of recoil" looks more like charity and a policy of stimulation of private business, than corruption.

Though I don't feel warm feelings to him: at all his lacks, he was the second on quality reformed prime-minister (after Primakov; in particular, he would not admit cannibal "monetization of privileges" and as a whole destructive social reforms of 2004-2005) but he failed to become anything real in public work.

China Is Our Ally Or...

Lyudmila, Mytischi 02.09.2008 20:36

Hello, Michael!
I am afraid of the growth of power of China. It seems to me, the West shuts its eyes to the fact that the countries of EU and the USA promote this growth (by accommodation of manufactures in this region). If it has already taken place, the power of Russia should be favourable to Europeans to counterbalance China in this region.
In fact while they are pressing Russia, trying to achieve next concessions, China on the sly gains strength and nobody asks anything from it.
Europe and Russia in my opinion should be united against China. Europeans by way of their short-sighted policy push us away more and more.
What do you think in this occasion? Thanks.

This opportunity has been already missed - basically because of permanent crisis of controllability in the European Community which has united too diverse territories and consequently has lost ability to strategic planning.

The USA are too aggressive to get united strategically and depend too much on China, actually they are already afraid of it. They have got used to destroy competitors from within - but it's not possible to do with China. Now they are destabilizing Pakistan to cut off China from oil of Iran and to clamp the last in "a ring of chaos".

We should blackmail the USA with that in case of Russia got weak its resources to the east from Ural will go to China, thus excessively strengthening it. On the other hand, we cannot participate in a new stage of global opposition: let the USA and China grapple each other, our operative task in foreign policy - so that the Americans appointed Iran and not us "Big Satan", our strategic task - to head analogue of "the movements of non-alignment" and to receive benefits from both participants of global opposition.


Читайте также:
In other::