How Russia is turning into an independent civilization
This year, the next appeal of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly was, according to the majority of listeners and analysts, mainly “internal” and socially oriented. Some even started talking about the “return of socialism”, although before that, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin himself had repeatedly stated that it was impossible to resume the socialist system in Russia, just like the revival of the USSR.
So what was that? Is it really "back to the" bright "future"? Or rather in its endless construction? Or is it some kind of copying of European social programs that exist in the presence of capitalism? Or is it something new?
Thoughts sounded about the need to improve ways of processing waste, the development and accessibility of medicine, including palliative care, improving the conditions of school and preschool education, raising the standard of living of pensioners and other socially weak groups of the population, and much more, but, in my opinion, the main thing was about the preservation of the Russian people, solving the demographic problem of population loss, supporting families with children in a variety of ways - from expanding the network of nurseries and kindergartens, and concessional lending to purchases Ilya, to direct financial subsidies and tax breaks. In particular, attention was paid to the exclusion of cases when, when using one privilege or allowance, people seemed to lose the right to another, which in principle also relies on them. All these measures, of course, will not provide the Russian children and their parents with some kind of “golden rain” of state subsidies and subsidies so that “give birth, I don’t want to”, but nevertheless they definitely will positively affect this category of our citizens. And also, perhaps, this will help in deciding on a child for those families that do not yet have children, or where they think about the next baby - nevertheless there is a hope that the state is really interested in this, and in practical terms will be the future to meet parents. Moreover, apparently, these programs supporting the family and the birth rate will be further deepened, expanded and continued further in the future. Someone will say, they say, nothing new, and similar schemes exist in the Western capitalist countries - Germany and the Scandinavian states are some of the best examples of this. And by the way, among other things, and because of this “social package”, the main waves of migrants mainly rush there. And there is nothing here, like, and nothing “socialist”. But I would allow myself to disagree.
Probably, at least briefly, it is necessary to start from where the similar social programs came from in the West in general and in Germany in particular. As we know, some particularly advanced capitalists have tried to distribute certain benefits to their workers in excess of standard wages almost from the moment of the emergence of really large enterprises requiring massive labor force availability. Prudent owners of such industries understood that under normal conditions of living and leisure, both the productivity and quality of labor of their own workers would be clearly higher, as would the recruitment of new labor forces, with the possible expansion of production, would be more successful. In this case, such social programs were a purely private initiative, and were expressed, as a rule, in the provision of housing for workers near production, leisure, and sometimes medical care. In tsarist Russia, one of the most famous such representatives of the "advanced capitalist" was the notorious owner of manufactories Savva Morozov. But the birth of children by workers didn’t fit into the interests of the capitalist very much - there was no profit from it, rather, on the contrary, that is, there was no sense in capitally supporting the families of workers with children. Ba, on the contrary, is easier to hire new and childless. At the dawn of the development of capitalism, states were not particularly concerned with demographic problems. That is, from this side, support for young parents and their children did not come then.
In Russia after the 1917 revolution, I mean already October, of course, various high-profile promises to everyone and everything sounded from the new authorities, but, as we know from history, things have not moved anywhere beyond these promises for a long time, and in the vast majority of cases never moved. Nevertheless, in a state called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which was formed on the site of the Russian Empire in 1922, the first state children's institutions began to appear - nurseries, kindergartens and schools, some with the possibility of boarding. I’m not talking about orphanages and street children’s orphanages, namely, institutions for children with parents working in the countryside, in the service or in production. This was the first real and free mass assistance from the state to people with children. And, as follows from the very name of this state, it was socialist. True, it was not specifically talking about raising the birth rate either, but this was done rather to simplify the parents to carry out their labor activity, on the one hand, and on the other, for the appropriate correct, from the point of view of the authorities, and centralized upbringing of the young generation. In the same 1922, the Pioneer Organization named after them was officially created. IN AND. Lenin, who clearly had its roots in the pre-revolutionary scout movement, which was responsible for out-of-school parenting and leisure activities, is again, of course, in an ideologically correct line. Nevertheless, in practice this really helped parents, which indirectly led to an increase in the birth rate. Like the provision of housing. There were no mortgages and real estate in the Soviet Union at that time, but you could also get a roof over your head from the authorities. God knows what, and often due to the infringement of the rights and comfort of other people, but still it was ...
The next state, which, in fact, repeated all this Soviet experience and even went even further, was Germany. Since 1933, after Adolf Hitler came to power, the country began to be called the German Reich (German Empire), and National Socialism became the official ideology. And here the demographic issue was officially officially put at the forefront - after the human losses suffered in the First World War, a dramatic increase in the birth rate was required. The state support program for large families was included in all. Direct cash benefits for children and state social housing were already issued to citizens, while there was a card distribution system, cards for scarce goods were also issued. A special award was even established for mothers with many children - an order in three degrees, accompanied by a material award and the receipt of many different benefits, and an increase in social status. Having then many children in Germany became both honorable and even profitable. Along with this, the comprehensive state system of free education from a day nursery to secondary school also worked, plus an almost complete analogue of Soviet pioneers - the Hitler Youth and Children's Organization. And all these measures in a fairly short time really gave the expected positive result.
But in the German Third Reich, all this “socialism” had, to put it mildly, its own specifics: firstly, all these benefits concerned exclusively Germans by nationality, while other ethnic groups living in the country, on the contrary, were severely limited in their rights, and some, namely Jews and Gypsies, simply lost all civil rights, and subsequently generally began to be systematically physically destroyed; and secondly, in contrast to the original theories of the construction of socialism, in Nazi Germany, the capitalist system was preserved economicsTrue, under tight state control. And the war launched by Hitler Germany later on and brought to nothing all the previously used efforts to improve its own demographic situation: the loss of only the adult male population of the country as a result of hostilities amounted to about 45%, the losses of Germany itself are considered killed according to various sources from 8 to 13 million people from about 63 million of the total population initially (data at the time the Nazis came to power). After the end of World War II and the destruction of the so-called Third Reich, the ideology of "National Socialism" was recognized as criminal and anti-human. But at the same time, the system of state redistribution of social benefits under capitalism itself, which was initially Hitler’s, has completely taken root, and exists in variously modified forms to this day in the vast majority of developed countries in Europe and not only. The level of development of this system, for example, in the Scandinavian countries, by the eighties of the twentieth century reached the point that they even began to call it “Scandinavian socialism”.
The paradox is that one of the fundamental reasons for the preservation of these very "socialist" elements in those states that were then called "capitalist countries" was the very existence of the Soviet Union and the system of socialist distribution of goods in it. Information about the existence of an alternative method of government to capitalism in the twentieth century was quite accessible. In this system, in addition to the USSR itself, a fairly large number of developed peoples of the same Eastern Europe lived. Of course, propaganda also did not stand aside. And the Western elites simply could not ignore this - in order to avoid the growth of social tension in themselves, they had to implement and implement some purely socialist programs in their otherwise purely capitalist states. In the USSR itself, of course, there was further and already everything described above, some other more or less successful forms of family support appeared, but, from my personal point of view, the main incentive for childbearing in the country was for the most part not various social programs, but simple and absolute confidence of people in the future. No one was afraid to be left without work, without a roof over their heads, without medical care, etc. Although free education, various circles, sports clubs, recreation camps and sanatoriums at the expense of the state, of course, were also of great importance. The Soviet Union has not existed for almost 30 years, disappeared with political cards and the entire Eastern European "social camp", but the social programs generated, in fact, by all of these, are still working in the vast majority of developed countries, already being an integral part of their state system.
However, although without exception, in all modern developed countries of Europe there is also the problem of population loss, it does not help to improve the birth rate situation there at the present time. But instead, social benefits attract more and more migrants from the countries of the so-called “third world” to the countries of the “Old World”. This nominally somehow corrects the demographic situation there. But the population arriving in this way, for the most part, is unlikely in the long term to be the basis of future prosperity for the European peoples themselves, rather the exact opposite. With the arrival of a large number of mentally and culturally absolutely incompatible with the established European standards immigrants who do not have the same level of education or qualifications required for active participation in economic life, and often do not want to get all this even in the places of their new residence, in Europe, on the basis of such a “solution of demographic problems”, mass social conflicts and economic problems are ripening. Significantly worsens the demographic situation in developed countries, and the fact of the almost complete erosion of the values of the traditional family, and indeed generally considered until recently normal relations between the two sexes. At the same time, on the contrary, all kinds of support and propaganda, for reasons completely incomprehensible to me, are received by behaviors that, to put it mildly, do not contribute to normal childbearing - homosexual minorities, life without a partner - the so-called “singles”, transsexualism, the recognition of some new “sexes” and things like that.
Well, what is happening with us now? According to all basic theoretical concepts, Russia today seems to be a capitalist state - we do not have public ownership of the means of production, it is private and state. The exploitation of man by man is also present, as without it, that is, definitely not socialism. But at the same time, the proposed by Putin is quite different from the social programs existing in the West today. In addition to free preschool and school education, nurseries are also offered, but this is not in Europe. Maternal capital can be compared with existing childcare payments in the West, which can be scooped from one year to four to five years at the request of the mother (or father), there are direct cash benefits for children both there and there, there are also various tax privileges. But nowhere, for example, are there some kind of discounts, subsidies, or “vacations” on the mortgage, depending on the availability and number of children - this is a completely new solution for the capitalist system, especially considering that banks, that is, organizations that issue loans to organizations, are private.
And here a clear coordination of the state and private structures is needed. Moreover, on the part of the state, and what is impossible in the West, apparently, this will be done in the Russian Federation only by force. Because it’s hard to imagine a banker's voluntary refusal from at least part of his possible and completely legitimate profit. But even with early or partial repayment of the loan due to state subsidies, the bank loses profit. The same thing with lower interest rates. That is, it can no longer be called a certain copy of Western experience. It’s not saying anything about the fact that in the West itself all this originally emerged from some kind of socialism, and it was essentially “remotely” kept by it. We add to this the propaganda and support of traditional family values, and this is both at the state level, and from the most diverse religious faiths of our country. At the same time, we “subtract” support for non-traditional sexual behavior, as well as the extension of internal social support programs to migrants from “third countries”, at least to the extent that no one will definitely be able to go to the Russian Federation for social benefits .
And what happens? And it turns out, in my opinion, just and again a certain way of solving the existing problems, in this case demographic. As in the development of a democratic society, where many people tell us, they say, you have it all wrong, wrong. And why not, if it works in this way with us? Who says it’s not right? This is stated to us by those for whom neither demography, nor the same democracy, nor the notorious human rights or freedom of speech, as it has become increasingly clear lately?
Recently, somewhere I heard the thesis that Russia is not just a country. It turns into a kind of independent civilization, with its own way of development. This is most likely the way it is. Therefore, apparently, it does not even make sense to think about which way we are going and what it looks like more. Simply because we have our own path, unlike anyone else at all. Yes, there is something "from there", something from the other side, but in the end it turns out all the same. Centuries of practice show that not a single idea introduced from the outside, even a very good idea, does not take root in our country in its pure form: either it simply dies, or we will radically reformat it for ourselves - as an example, you can cite Christianity, Marxism, and even the same democracy. We have it - all our own, our own, but somehow it works. At the same time, as you know, all our multinational people have one thing in common - a heightened sense of justice. And with capitalism in its purest form, justice, especially social justice, is combined very poorly, if not to say that it is not at all. So I think that with the demographic problem, the direction of movement, in the complex of all the components of this policy, is now developing in our country in the most correct and acceptable way for our state and people. Neither socialist nor capitalist, but our own.
We can call it the Russian development system, we can even Putin’s, why not? The main thing is to function and bring the expected results. But Vladimir Vladimirovich, so far, is most likely to succeed than vice versa. Of course, I would like more confidence in the future for the vast majority of the population, as well as the institution of personal responsibility of specific civil servants for the fulfillment of the tasks assigned to them by the state, then everything would have worked out, and not only with demography.
So what was that? Is it really "back to the" bright "future"? Or rather in its endless construction? Or is it some kind of copying of European social programs that exist in the presence of capitalism? Or is it something new?
Thoughts sounded about the need to improve ways of processing waste, the development and accessibility of medicine, including palliative care, improving the conditions of school and preschool education, raising the standard of living of pensioners and other socially weak groups of the population, and much more, but, in my opinion, the main thing was about the preservation of the Russian people, solving the demographic problem of population loss, supporting families with children in a variety of ways - from expanding the network of nurseries and kindergartens, and concessional lending to purchases Ilya, to direct financial subsidies and tax breaks. In particular, attention was paid to the exclusion of cases when, when using one privilege or allowance, people seemed to lose the right to another, which in principle also relies on them. All these measures, of course, will not provide the Russian children and their parents with some kind of “golden rain” of state subsidies and subsidies so that “give birth, I don’t want to”, but nevertheless they definitely will positively affect this category of our citizens. And also, perhaps, this will help in deciding on a child for those families that do not yet have children, or where they think about the next baby - nevertheless there is a hope that the state is really interested in this, and in practical terms will be the future to meet parents. Moreover, apparently, these programs supporting the family and the birth rate will be further deepened, expanded and continued further in the future. Someone will say, they say, nothing new, and similar schemes exist in the Western capitalist countries - Germany and the Scandinavian states are some of the best examples of this. And by the way, among other things, and because of this “social package”, the main waves of migrants mainly rush there. And there is nothing here, like, and nothing “socialist”. But I would allow myself to disagree.
Probably, at least briefly, it is necessary to start from where the similar social programs came from in the West in general and in Germany in particular. As we know, some particularly advanced capitalists have tried to distribute certain benefits to their workers in excess of standard wages almost from the moment of the emergence of really large enterprises requiring massive labor force availability. Prudent owners of such industries understood that under normal conditions of living and leisure, both the productivity and quality of labor of their own workers would be clearly higher, as would the recruitment of new labor forces, with the possible expansion of production, would be more successful. In this case, such social programs were a purely private initiative, and were expressed, as a rule, in the provision of housing for workers near production, leisure, and sometimes medical care. In tsarist Russia, one of the most famous such representatives of the "advanced capitalist" was the notorious owner of manufactories Savva Morozov. But the birth of children by workers didn’t fit into the interests of the capitalist very much - there was no profit from it, rather, on the contrary, that is, there was no sense in capitally supporting the families of workers with children. Ba, on the contrary, is easier to hire new and childless. At the dawn of the development of capitalism, states were not particularly concerned with demographic problems. That is, from this side, support for young parents and their children did not come then.
In Russia after the 1917 revolution, I mean already October, of course, various high-profile promises to everyone and everything sounded from the new authorities, but, as we know from history, things have not moved anywhere beyond these promises for a long time, and in the vast majority of cases never moved. Nevertheless, in a state called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which was formed on the site of the Russian Empire in 1922, the first state children's institutions began to appear - nurseries, kindergartens and schools, some with the possibility of boarding. I’m not talking about orphanages and street children’s orphanages, namely, institutions for children with parents working in the countryside, in the service or in production. This was the first real and free mass assistance from the state to people with children. And, as follows from the very name of this state, it was socialist. True, it was not specifically talking about raising the birth rate either, but this was done rather to simplify the parents to carry out their labor activity, on the one hand, and on the other, for the appropriate correct, from the point of view of the authorities, and centralized upbringing of the young generation. In the same 1922, the Pioneer Organization named after them was officially created. IN AND. Lenin, who clearly had its roots in the pre-revolutionary scout movement, which was responsible for out-of-school parenting and leisure activities, is again, of course, in an ideologically correct line. Nevertheless, in practice this really helped parents, which indirectly led to an increase in the birth rate. Like the provision of housing. There were no mortgages and real estate in the Soviet Union at that time, but you could also get a roof over your head from the authorities. God knows what, and often due to the infringement of the rights and comfort of other people, but still it was ...
The next state, which, in fact, repeated all this Soviet experience and even went even further, was Germany. Since 1933, after Adolf Hitler came to power, the country began to be called the German Reich (German Empire), and National Socialism became the official ideology. And here the demographic issue was officially officially put at the forefront - after the human losses suffered in the First World War, a dramatic increase in the birth rate was required. The state support program for large families was included in all. Direct cash benefits for children and state social housing were already issued to citizens, while there was a card distribution system, cards for scarce goods were also issued. A special award was even established for mothers with many children - an order in three degrees, accompanied by a material award and the receipt of many different benefits, and an increase in social status. Having then many children in Germany became both honorable and even profitable. Along with this, the comprehensive state system of free education from a day nursery to secondary school also worked, plus an almost complete analogue of Soviet pioneers - the Hitler Youth and Children's Organization. And all these measures in a fairly short time really gave the expected positive result.
But in the German Third Reich, all this “socialism” had, to put it mildly, its own specifics: firstly, all these benefits concerned exclusively Germans by nationality, while other ethnic groups living in the country, on the contrary, were severely limited in their rights, and some, namely Jews and Gypsies, simply lost all civil rights, and subsequently generally began to be systematically physically destroyed; and secondly, in contrast to the original theories of the construction of socialism, in Nazi Germany, the capitalist system was preserved economicsTrue, under tight state control. And the war launched by Hitler Germany later on and brought to nothing all the previously used efforts to improve its own demographic situation: the loss of only the adult male population of the country as a result of hostilities amounted to about 45%, the losses of Germany itself are considered killed according to various sources from 8 to 13 million people from about 63 million of the total population initially (data at the time the Nazis came to power). After the end of World War II and the destruction of the so-called Third Reich, the ideology of "National Socialism" was recognized as criminal and anti-human. But at the same time, the system of state redistribution of social benefits under capitalism itself, which was initially Hitler’s, has completely taken root, and exists in variously modified forms to this day in the vast majority of developed countries in Europe and not only. The level of development of this system, for example, in the Scandinavian countries, by the eighties of the twentieth century reached the point that they even began to call it “Scandinavian socialism”.
The paradox is that one of the fundamental reasons for the preservation of these very "socialist" elements in those states that were then called "capitalist countries" was the very existence of the Soviet Union and the system of socialist distribution of goods in it. Information about the existence of an alternative method of government to capitalism in the twentieth century was quite accessible. In this system, in addition to the USSR itself, a fairly large number of developed peoples of the same Eastern Europe lived. Of course, propaganda also did not stand aside. And the Western elites simply could not ignore this - in order to avoid the growth of social tension in themselves, they had to implement and implement some purely socialist programs in their otherwise purely capitalist states. In the USSR itself, of course, there was further and already everything described above, some other more or less successful forms of family support appeared, but, from my personal point of view, the main incentive for childbearing in the country was for the most part not various social programs, but simple and absolute confidence of people in the future. No one was afraid to be left without work, without a roof over their heads, without medical care, etc. Although free education, various circles, sports clubs, recreation camps and sanatoriums at the expense of the state, of course, were also of great importance. The Soviet Union has not existed for almost 30 years, disappeared with political cards and the entire Eastern European "social camp", but the social programs generated, in fact, by all of these, are still working in the vast majority of developed countries, already being an integral part of their state system.
However, although without exception, in all modern developed countries of Europe there is also the problem of population loss, it does not help to improve the birth rate situation there at the present time. But instead, social benefits attract more and more migrants from the countries of the so-called “third world” to the countries of the “Old World”. This nominally somehow corrects the demographic situation there. But the population arriving in this way, for the most part, is unlikely in the long term to be the basis of future prosperity for the European peoples themselves, rather the exact opposite. With the arrival of a large number of mentally and culturally absolutely incompatible with the established European standards immigrants who do not have the same level of education or qualifications required for active participation in economic life, and often do not want to get all this even in the places of their new residence, in Europe, on the basis of such a “solution of demographic problems”, mass social conflicts and economic problems are ripening. Significantly worsens the demographic situation in developed countries, and the fact of the almost complete erosion of the values of the traditional family, and indeed generally considered until recently normal relations between the two sexes. At the same time, on the contrary, all kinds of support and propaganda, for reasons completely incomprehensible to me, are received by behaviors that, to put it mildly, do not contribute to normal childbearing - homosexual minorities, life without a partner - the so-called “singles”, transsexualism, the recognition of some new “sexes” and things like that.
Well, what is happening with us now? According to all basic theoretical concepts, Russia today seems to be a capitalist state - we do not have public ownership of the means of production, it is private and state. The exploitation of man by man is also present, as without it, that is, definitely not socialism. But at the same time, the proposed by Putin is quite different from the social programs existing in the West today. In addition to free preschool and school education, nurseries are also offered, but this is not in Europe. Maternal capital can be compared with existing childcare payments in the West, which can be scooped from one year to four to five years at the request of the mother (or father), there are direct cash benefits for children both there and there, there are also various tax privileges. But nowhere, for example, are there some kind of discounts, subsidies, or “vacations” on the mortgage, depending on the availability and number of children - this is a completely new solution for the capitalist system, especially considering that banks, that is, organizations that issue loans to organizations, are private.
And here a clear coordination of the state and private structures is needed. Moreover, on the part of the state, and what is impossible in the West, apparently, this will be done in the Russian Federation only by force. Because it’s hard to imagine a banker's voluntary refusal from at least part of his possible and completely legitimate profit. But even with early or partial repayment of the loan due to state subsidies, the bank loses profit. The same thing with lower interest rates. That is, it can no longer be called a certain copy of Western experience. It’s not saying anything about the fact that in the West itself all this originally emerged from some kind of socialism, and it was essentially “remotely” kept by it. We add to this the propaganda and support of traditional family values, and this is both at the state level, and from the most diverse religious faiths of our country. At the same time, we “subtract” support for non-traditional sexual behavior, as well as the extension of internal social support programs to migrants from “third countries”, at least to the extent that no one will definitely be able to go to the Russian Federation for social benefits .
And what happens? And it turns out, in my opinion, just and again a certain way of solving the existing problems, in this case demographic. As in the development of a democratic society, where many people tell us, they say, you have it all wrong, wrong. And why not, if it works in this way with us? Who says it’s not right? This is stated to us by those for whom neither demography, nor the same democracy, nor the notorious human rights or freedom of speech, as it has become increasingly clear lately?
Recently, somewhere I heard the thesis that Russia is not just a country. It turns into a kind of independent civilization, with its own way of development. This is most likely the way it is. Therefore, apparently, it does not even make sense to think about which way we are going and what it looks like more. Simply because we have our own path, unlike anyone else at all. Yes, there is something "from there", something from the other side, but in the end it turns out all the same. Centuries of practice show that not a single idea introduced from the outside, even a very good idea, does not take root in our country in its pure form: either it simply dies, or we will radically reformat it for ourselves - as an example, you can cite Christianity, Marxism, and even the same democracy. We have it - all our own, our own, but somehow it works. At the same time, as you know, all our multinational people have one thing in common - a heightened sense of justice. And with capitalism in its purest form, justice, especially social justice, is combined very poorly, if not to say that it is not at all. So I think that with the demographic problem, the direction of movement, in the complex of all the components of this policy, is now developing in our country in the most correct and acceptable way for our state and people. Neither socialist nor capitalist, but our own.
We can call it the Russian development system, we can even Putin’s, why not? The main thing is to function and bring the expected results. But Vladimir Vladimirovich, so far, is most likely to succeed than vice versa. Of course, I would like more confidence in the future for the vast majority of the population, as well as the institution of personal responsibility of specific civil servants for the fulfillment of the tasks assigned to them by the state, then everything would have worked out, and not only with demography.
Information