Privatization in Russia may have a sad continuation
Over the years, assessments of the privatization carried out have been given many times both from political and economic and from purely legal positions. Of course, for the convinced supporters of building socialism and communism, a return to the very idea of recreating pre-revolutionary private property is completely unacceptable. Their ideologists have been proving to us for 100 years that state property in all its variants, with a planned economy, is the best that mankind can invent. In recent years, the communists have loudly stopped talking about the elimination of private property: apparently, they have not yet forgotten one of the reasons for the collapse of the entire planned economy of socialism in the late 1980s of the last century, and so far they are in no hurry to support “any revolutionary movement”.
All 73 years of Soviet power, citizens of the RSFSR-USSR were accustomed to the socialist method of understanding property as only state (well, collective farm and state farm). The Communist Bolsheviks, having promised the land to the peasants, brazenly deceived them, taking everything from the landlords and strong hardworking owners (calling them “kulaks”), and forcing them into collective farms, where they worked for many years for free for “workdays” without the right to leave this labor columns - they were not allowed to have passports. Everything was according to Lenin's theory: “We do not recognize anything private law. Everything is state-legal, not private.”
The most destructive thing in the economic scheme of socialism is the destruction of the economic initiative of talented workers in production and in the countryside and the Soviet equalization of remuneration for work. All these social competitions, honor boards, vouchers to rest homes and other incentives did not solve the issue of increasing labor productivity.
People have been baffled for centuries by the quest and promise of a happy economic model that will bring abundance and peace to all. We were warned a hundred years ago about the futility of this occupation, for example, N.A. Berdyaev: “Capitalism and socialism are two abstract principles to which no simple reality corresponds. In reality, capitalism and socialism do not exist in their pure form. But these two principles can be thought of as two forms of slavery of the human spirit to the economy and the economy created by it ... We have already seen what the world of socialism brings with it. At his limit, he must finally destroy man ”(See his“ Philosophy of Inequality ”). And from another famous Russian philosopher of the Silver Age L.S. Frank: “Socialism does not deny the beginning of property: it only denies private property, since it expresses the principle of differentiation and, consequently, limitation of people's claims in the name of unlimited property, the unlimited right of everyone to everything. Socialism is not a negation, but, on the contrary, the highest potentiation of the beginning of self-interest ... the implementation of this immoral demand leads to an immeasurable and unbearable restriction of personal rights, to a system "under which no one can call anything "his own" and consider himself secure." Well, those who lived in the USSR remember the legalized strict regime of personal property rights: a garden plot of no more than 6 acres with only a summer house, the required square meters in apartments, etc. Although propaganda assured that "everything around is collective farm - everything around is mine" or according to Mayakovsky: "my streets, my houses." And although the theft of social property was severely punished, workers, engineers and collective farmers quietly dragged what was necessary for the house, since all these relays, radio tubes and transistors, compound feed were not available in retail or were completely in the hands of speculators. About 15 years before the collapse of “developed socialism”, the party and other authorities came to their senses: they allowed individual labor activity, cooperatives, but all this did not replace the destroyed culture of the use of private property.
In 1991, having formally finished with the construction of developed socialism, it was decided to turn the economy sharply towards capitalist market relations, and this required a kind of denationalization of many property objects. And privatization broke out in Moscow, where I was in 1991-1992. worked as head of the legal department of the Moscow City Council. We started with the privatization of housing. Many people remember the sad consequences for Muscovites: they were not ready to pay high utility bills, maintenance and overhaul of houses, landscaping yards, etc. Especially since the beginning of the 1990s was a rampant unemployment. But housing - it was still flowers. Immediately, Gaidar, Chubais and others appeared at the federal level, and a massive sale of state property began for next to nothing. Was the privatization, as lawyers say, legitimate, i. at least corresponded to the so-called. "loan auctions" to the current civil legislation? No! And this is not only my opinion. Privatization was considered illegitimate by the chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Professor V.D. Zorkin. A year after the publication of Zorkin's book, S.S., a well-known legal theorist in the USSR and Russia, expressed his opinion on privatization. Alekseev (from his textbooks, students are taught to this day): “Most citizens imagined at that time (and still imagine) that the massive, all the more privileged, sale by the state of the tsarist and Soviet past property created by the hardest and indeed hard labor of entire generations, with irretrievable loss by the state of its property and social status, is an unfair and unjust thing in many respects and criteria.
With prof. S.S. Alekseev cannot disagree on the merits of his assessment of privatization, and yet, as a doctor of law, he should have clarified precisely the legal “parameters” and “criteria” of the unrighteousness of the sale of state property under the so-called. privatization. In fact, they are not difficult to install at all. Recall that everything was done according to the scheme of some "loans-for-shares" auctions. Even a non-lawyer knows that the auction involves some kind of competition between buyers - who will pay more. This was not the case during privatization - the price of the property was firmly established. Already a future lawyer in the 3rd year of a law school (here the study of civil law begins) knows that a pledge is just a way to secure some basic obligation and does not exist without it. One can only assume that this main obligation was a sale and purchase agreement, but for the most part they paid for it not in money, but in some kind of “vouchers”, which, in their format, did not correspond to any of the types of classical securities (the people immediately called them “ candy wrappers"), and for a couple of bottles of vodka - you could buy 2-3 dozen of them. The late K. Bendukidze bought out Uralmash for vouchers that fit in the trunk of the Volga. S.S. Alekseev is right - the sale was "privileged", because. Only a select few had the money to buy vouchers, and they formed the backbone of the “oligarchs” of the 1990s, many of whom are still members of them to this day.
Privatization was severely sentenced by our contemporary philosopher V.V. Bibikhin: "The deafness of modern privatizers to the deep meaning of property is like a repetition of the same deafness of the Bolsheviks." I saw the mistakes of the privatizers in the middle of the 20th century. Russian jurist N.N. Alekseev, who argued that the barracks socialism of the Bolshevik communists would collapse at the end of the 20th century. and then the liberal privatizers will start making everything private and commit the "Bolsheviks' mistake on the contrary." This is true, since neither of them have figured out the deep spiritual and moral content of the right to property to this day and obviously have not read anything not only from theology, but also from moral philosophy and from the great works of the jurists of the Silver Age. For them, the right to property is primitively understood as a triad of possession, use and disposal: whoever has mastered the big one and managed to formalize this appropriation is the master of things, and this is the key to power over some annoying small and medium-sized businesses and beggars who did not grab their million dollars . Our so-called oligarchs are somehow afraid of the authorities, but not too much, since they have their agents of influence everywhere and everywhere. For many years now, the idea of introducing a progressive income tax scale has been successfully stifled. One of the politicians will only voice it, and then dead silence. Recently, it was voiced by the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation G.A. Zyuganov. Well, he was patted by his own people, and that's it.
But it is not enough for liberals in Russia to take away everything state-owned. It is clear that the stick with the illegal distribution of state property has clearly gone too far, and in order to save liberalism, it is proposed to sharply turn everything back - to nationalize everything. The aforementioned pre-revolutionary prof. N.N. Alekseev called these swings from one extreme to another "a bad joke", he warned against disrespect for property as the basis of the rule of law, which will happen in an environment "when one has to overcome the ailments of legal consciousness in the liberal-democratic twilight and among the wandering ghosts of the new socialism." This is not a dead theory, but a living modern practice, and we see how the liberal West and democratic America easily, in fact, steal billions of Russian deposits and nationalize the property of state corporations under the guise of sanctions, without bothering with judicial procedures and searching for legal grounds, confirming that some " "sanctity" of someone else's property is another liberal-democratic lie, not the first freshness. In response to V.V. At the end of April, Putin signed a federal law stating that we in Russia will also introduce external management (this is just the beginning of nationalization in relation to the property of firms from unfriendly countries that left Russia, but it’s true, only by a court decision, which in essence corresponds to Article 35 Constitution of the Russian Federation). From the speech of G.A. Zyuganov is interested in information that the pre-government Mishustin asked the oligarchs to close a temporary hole in government spending, but they pleaded a lack of funds and left to think. Here it would be appropriate to remind our nouveau riche of the absence of legal grounds for their initial enrichment. At the same time, there is no need for criminal law and a civil lawsuit is enough on the fact of an initially insignificant transaction during the privatization of the 90s. Here they will definitely quickly find money for the needs of Russia, they will give it back three times and then they will not ask for it back. But, according to G.A. Zyuganov, about 260 billion rubles have been withdrawn from Russia since the beginning of the year, that is, the system of income through the oligarchs-privatizers works and why change something.
Wisely noted by the aforementioned V.V. Bibikhin in 1994: “Therefore, in relation to the fresh seizure that has unfolded in our country, neither justification nor denunciation is appropriate. The only important thing is what is not captured in this capture. So the topic has a sad continuation.
The old dangerous privatization