The death of the Roman Empire, Byzantium, the Empire heroically Romanov took place, a thriving, providing a bright, invoice material for future generations of historians, poets and musicians. This material is for the antique tragedy, epic, for Wagner, finally. Not that the loss of Soviet empire - it's not Shakespeare, not for the romantic poet, not even for Prokhanov. This story for an economist - and here we economist Yegor Gaidar's book about the death of the Soviet empire. This is a story about the time that it did lose about a mad organizing a national economy, massive food imports, saving and deadly surge in oil prices. The Soviet empire did not fell under the blows of external enemies, but decayed from the inside, its economy has not been able to not only introduce the Soviet people in the consumer society, but just feed him. It seems that the loss of empire has occurred so recently, but over the decade and a half, managed to grow up and socialize a new generation of Russians for whom the empire was left in the tender recollections of a happy childhood pioneer, pyatachka for metro and other small, but so lovely joys of the Soviet era. For them, there were children, and no matter how good they were today, wealth and a high level, stand in the social hierarchy - is still a child, there, in the Soviet era, it was better. Just believe and many of their compatriots, more than adults, for which the «beautiful» Soviet far-left youth, hiking, singing at the campfire, endless conversations in the kitchen. The property of human memory is such that all the bad with time spent on the second to the third plan, a good, even if it was quite a bit, remembered as the most important, as the core content of the age. «We had a wonderful era», we are ahead of the entire planet, we are respected and feared - we had a great empire. And there was supposedly no good reasons for its dissolution, so evil will geopolitical rivals yes «sold» them «fifth column» - Democrat. These are the sentiments and evaluation occur in the mass consciousness, so is born so well described by Gaidar postimpersky syndrome. But when it comes to the breakup of the Soviet Union, the same here with Russia, which these lessons can be for the modern Russian state? After all, most recently 90 years the new Russian government tried to curtail naezzhennoy with centuries of imperial gauge, but it seemed that we are forever renounce imperial ambitions. The Soviet experience shows that the imperial way of development of the country leads to disaster. Nevertheless, today «the risk of movement in this direction is high». Gaidar compares the post-Soviet Russia with the Weimar Republic, citing examples of almost verbatim matches out of the spirit and the symbols of democratic nation-state in favor of an imperial past - «imperial national symbols has been restored in Germany in 8 years after the collapse of the empire - in 1926, in Russia - through 9 years - in 2000 ». But postimpersky syndrome to Russia is inextricably linked to authoritarian syndrome, as for power so great a temptation to avoid a long and sometimes painful procedures for approval within a democratic system of economic, political, social and ethno-religious interests. Gaidar formed today, the system calls the «closed (managed) or the soft authoritarianism of democracy». Indeed, it is difficult and at times excruciatingly difficult in negotiations, public dialogue to align the interests of different social groups, territories, so far from each other both geographically and culturally, such as the North Caucasus and the Far East. Where is easier to build the power vertical, piercing being the top down, amounting to every social, professional and ethnic groups, economic actors, political parties and non-profit organizations - refer them to the power supply chain orders and superiors. But if the simple solutions authoritarian course, their effectiveness is quite conventional, in fact, they can bring only the current, short-term gains. Winning in tactics by raising the current level of controllability, authoritarian power plays in the strategy, jeopardizing the future of the country, our own future. Gaidar believes that «the appointment of the presidents of the autonomous republics of the federal center provides a powerful trump card in the hands of nationalists, allowing them to easily prove that Moscow sees no Autonomies residents as full citizens, but as conquered subjects. The best gift to the separatists to think hard ». Authoritarian politics in the spirit of the Russian socio-cultural tradition leads to self-destruction, as evidenced by repeated failures can serve as our history, revolutionary rather than evolutionary path of development, where each subsequent stage negates the previous one, going on a gap of historical and cultural continuity. Only in the twentieth century the country experienced two break with the past, the first - the tragic gap first decades of Soviet rule and the second - purificatory, surprisingly mild, in the social revolution of the 90-ies. Introducing the reader to specific figures, excerpts from a strictly secret, and then letters of memoranda from various levels of the Soviet nomenklatura, E. Gaidar shows how neadaptivnaya authoritarian system was to his self-destruction. In the last period of its existence, the Soviet empire had ceased to meet the challenges of our time, in fact solve the accumulated problems. Even under Stalin their decision to deliberately substituted the removal of people and social (ethnic) groups who voice these concerns. But after the disappearance of people, turning it into camp dust, no more artikuliruemaya problem persists, gradually destroying the system, which has nothing inside, all decayed to ashes, and left only one outer envelope. Gaidar believes that Stalin is largely responsible for the collapse of the Soviet economy, in fact it lays its foundations: «I. Stalin, the model of industrialization, the opposite buharinskoy, laid the foundations for economic and political system, which over time have been formed large cracks, creating a risk of destruction with relatively modest external impacts ». But the Soviet empire collapsed not only due to defective economic foundation, insufficient funds for maintenance of grain imports, the sharp drop in oil prices and the surprising weakness of intellectual rigidity and the ruling bureaucracy. All this with the arguments and facts, with the set and the little-known archival materials, academic, and strictly told readers E. Gaidar. There is another important reason - when there is no democracy, there is authoritarianism, then the probability of self-destruction system increases dramatically. It does not need an external conspiracy, it is part of an authoritarian system, and therefore unavoidable, is not known in advance only to the specific time frame. These dates are unknown poet, but known economist. Today, Russia as the USSR and the seventies, eighties, depends on the situation of world commodity markets, particularly hydrocarbons, is dependent on food imports. And if we add to this economic crisis of a possible rejection of democracy - the harmonization of interests within the country and the open and covert imperial expansion outside - but a repetition of the fate of the Soviet Union is becoming increasingly likely. Only far from clear that the stories there is another version of this surprisingly gentle dismantling of the continental empire, as was the case with the collapse of the Soviet Union. So no need to tempt fate a penchant for authoritarian and imperial, time after time is the same rake, you need to learn lessons, teach the Soviet Union, the lessons that so vividly and relentlessly reminded us all Yegor Gaidar.
Published at the Foundation «Liberal mission» http://www.liberal.ru/libcom.asp?Num=276 And also on the site demokratiya.ru http://www.democracy.ru/article.php?id=1180