Elephant Remained Unnoticed. About Anti-Crisis Proposals of «Solidarity»

The steps to political democracy suggested by "Solidarity" do not cause objections but they are not sufficient. They should be added by radical revision of laws about political parties, freedom of meetings and demonstrations, carrying out of referenda and many others. I suppose that there's here large field for joint actions.

But... the document is devoted to economic policy. In this, main part, it looks extremely out-of-date. Certainly, I, as a person of leftism, stand for essentially different method of treatment of our economy (not necessarily surgical one). However, even if to compare recipes of "Solidarity" with what the western governments do, their inferiority becomes obvious. The essence is that authors, according to their belief, proceed from boundless ultra-liberalism. They test deep disgust for any participation of state in economic processes. It's their deep, if you prefer, old-fashionedness. In this very case the first thing that becomes evident is not what "Solidarity" offers contain but what is absent there.

They contain:

1. No mentioning of real economy as though it's in general nonexistent in nature or crisis has nothing to do with it. Nothing's said about necessity of preservation and creation of new workplaces.

2. Accordingly, the problem of branch reorientation of economy, modernization of industry, development of high technologies is not stated.

3. Nothing's spoken about overcoming of crisis in science, education, public health services.

4. Targets of social protection of the population are completely ignored even as a problem definition.

Nice work! Obama and Sarkozi, Меrkel and Berluskoni, left, centrists, demo-Christians and others, steen of pairs "clean" and "dirty" carry out with each other and among themselves discussions how the state should help (everyone in own country) to car industry, builders, metallurgists, banks certainly, etc., but it's the state which should help! At that - the main thing - not for nothing but on some conditions. What is strange, all are uniform: private business is not capable to cope with the crisis brought by it.

Actually, all offers of "Solidarity" refer to the taxation and finance, to the spheres, apparently, more familiar to the authors. Authors, as though silently, proceed from the fact that decrease in tax burden and other monetary injections will automatically lead to the growth of capital investments into intensification of manufacture, the fact that has not been proved by experience. However, not all offers of "Solidarity" are clear in this sphere. Authors suggest - to allocate means directly to citizens by way of credits, return of the sums of surtax paid or direct financial help. It's clear that credits will carry special-purpose character and what about the rest? To return taxed paid - to all? To give direct money to all, or only to small business? Only once, or how?     

Here you are the concrete example which "Solidarity" results in substantiation of "direct help" to citizens. Similar "is especially actual in mono-cities dependent on inefficient city-forming enterprises where social intensity is especially high, while funding of state means to enterprises - bankrupts leads to corruption and plundering". However what should people who received in such cities "alive" money do? To cover all city with fine shops, cafe, workshops, hairdressing salons? Ridiculous! Here the state should act as investor: to modernize, reconstruct, to redesign if it is necessary leading enterprise and to give citizens modern work.

Authors of "Solidarity" prove their confidence of assurance in harmfulness of the state participation on life experience, on actual condition of half-decayed machinery of the state. But in fact they are fairly write that without political democratization "it will be impossible to prevent scale corruption at distribution of state help for struggle against crisis... to use means of the state - i.e. our money - in maximum effective way". So, let's proceed from the fact that we should have a normal state.

At last, the document, obviously, is prepared hastily, badly verified and edited logically. What does only one phrase, worthy however to begin an aphorism cost: ".. which common ideology (of offered measures, - А.P.) - in necessity of full change of ideology... ". Many repetitions are also unjustified. However, the one mentioned does not mean repetitions as if all stated offers are erroneous. So "we must set to, comrades!"

Send by mail

Print