"THE NEW SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT"
Q: Vladimir Ivanovich, our economy has already crossed the threshold of the crisis. You often say: "It is high time to act". The Trans-Eurasian Belt of Development is an example of such a comprehensive action. I'll try to go from simple to complex. TEBD is a generator of investment, both in this and related projects, while lack of investment in production stifles our economy. The next level: TEBD is a solution to the problem of transforming Russia into a great transportation power. Look at the globe: producing Asia is over here, and consuming Europe is over there, and Russia connects them. The third level is a fundamentally new approach, as you have said many times, to the development of society in the broadest sense. I have talked to many supporters of this project, and my feeling is that it is still at the conventionally passionate stage. There are experts driven by you, they are doing their work, but no step has been taken towards the practical implementation yet. Clearly, the state should take it, but it is not in a hurry. Remember the words of a recent classic: there is a link in solving the most difficult task, by pulling which you can pull the whole chain. Where is that link?
A: I'll start from the beginning. You said that Russia had crossed the threshold of the crisis. Then there are two futuristic pictures: if it is the last stage, then the next is collapse. Which is wrong?
Q: Economic crises have been and will be: this is how an economy is arranged.
A: Then the second picture: the crisis began in 2008, even at the end of 2007, if we talk about the global financial system crisis. And we were one of the first who said that it could not be overcome without the integrated efforts of the international community, without which the second wave of the crisis can inevitably arise. As for the heart of the matter, there is a well-known Russian proverb: the more things change, the more they stay the same. I was amazed when after the first articulation of the idea of creating such a mega-project – it was probably about five years ago at the World Forum "Dialogue of Civilizations" – there were two things. The first is that some Western participants of the forum immediately responded. These were mainly Italians – bankers, scientists and politicians. They all immediately realized the prospects of this project. Italy has enough of its own economic problems, and it, like us, is The essence of the project is not in the development of transport infrastructure. The essence is in offering the vast and diverse economic project. From the point of view of international historical development, in terms of the needs of our economy, economies of countries that tend to Russia, as well as on the basis of the developments of economic science, alternative to today's theory of the loan and the world of finance, which was put forward, in particular, by the Professor of the University of Southampton Richard Werner, this project in all of its substantial parts can be regarded as a mega-project of international scale. You put it right: we see producing Asia and consuming Europe. But Asia also consumes high-tech products, which are produced in Europe. Historically, in face of the competition between land, air and sea transport, the transportation of goods between Europe and Asia was mainly by deep-ocean transport. In the struggle for the efficiency, the sea transport reduces its speed due to saving fuel, and today goods from China to Hamburg will arrive not within 40, but within 60 days, which in itself is necrosis of the capital, while rail transport of the mass and rapid transit allows, as we did it in a pilot project, to make the same way in 14 days. This is just one aspect of transport and logistics. The very substantive idea of TEBD is in the need to focus on the formation of a new economic order, a new social and economic model of development of our society. And the international historical experience shows that such projects especially require to focus on infrastructure development. This was demonstrated by both the US and Europe after the Second World War, that’s a given. The most extensive infrastructure is required: rail, road, energy, information, new education, new cities and so on, and so forth. And the new infrastructure is imposed by economic idea associated with the development of regions. And here a belt of development from the Pacific Ocean to the center of Europe, if not to the Atlantic Ocean, appears, and if we are talking about our territory, there are enormous natural resources, vast territory and enormous opportunities within that belt – everything that is becoming a very valuable legacy. I mean clean air and water. This is from the perspective of a global assessment of the project prospects. From the point of view of the national evaluation, it is an opportunity to attract partners for the development of our territories and our infrastructure as well as for the joint use and building of a new model of interaction between Asia and Europe.
Q: Exciting prospects. But now I want to ask a question about a different thing. There is such thing, not popular today, as dialectics. Always, when moving in a certain direction, we face new challenges. This is the law of development. There is an idea of TEBD you told about. At the moment, a part of the world outlook is more developed. TEBD is something new, aimed not at a profit, but at united development; not development of some at the expense of others, but joint development. But the same part of the world outlook brings new questions. You said that the Chinese started later, but move faster. There are several reasons. The chief lobbyist of the "Silk Road" on the world stage is President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping, which is certainly very important, but there's something else. A good friend of yours, Chinese Professor Li Xin speaks of the "Silk Road" as a step towards greater openness of the Chinese economy and the liberalization of China's foreign trade. Much poorer than you are talking about TEBD, but he speaks the language his audience can understand, including potential investors or partners on this project, ¬– and you said that we would need partners. You're essentially talking not about one particular project, but about the concept of restructuring the world economy and general principles of world development. My personal opinion is the following: isn’t it better to separate the two topics? There is a specific project, and there is an idea that is much broader, for which you must first receive the Nobel Prize, and then take up the implementation. Let me say quite a mundane thing: remember, in "The Little Golden Calf", Ostap Bender began hunting Koreiko guided by the approach "a man fears incomprehensible the most". When we say that we will not just build the railway, not just create all the most modern communications and infrastructure, but also reorganize the world, don’t you think that our partners or investors can eventually distance from this idea? In my opinion, these are still assorted things. The new ideology should extend to our entire globe, while the project with all its grandeur is still not so global.
A: You know, when I spoke at a conference in Lanzhou and Shanghai, I noticed that the original "Silk Road" in its modern form was considered solely as a transport corridor. It was referred to as a development zone in China after we presented our TransEurasian Belt of Development project, TEBD. You are right that projects of this scale have two levels: the level of the idea and the level of practice. The project is global by definition.
And its implementation will inevitably have an impact not only on the formation of transport, but also on the new banking and new production. And that's exactly the idea of the project itself, and since we initially proceed from the necessity of creating the peace in the world, i.e. the peaceful world...
Q: I wish it were so...
A: We're talking about the interaction of equal civilizations in accordance with their self-identification, as the Head of the Russian Federation also says, and now I can agree with the fact that this is an add-in designed to show the world that Russia is not fighting for any empire, Russia does not involve the formation of systems of domination, Russia is proposing a project open to cooperation, and from this point of view, it may be more attractive than the idea of the "Silk Road", which you’ve just mentioned, with all due respect to our Chinese friends and colleagues. In this case, the policy you are talking about is peculiar to the Chinese: the policy of small steps. But their policy is never reduced to pragmatic alignment of these boxes: small steps – and then we'll see. Nothing like this. China has the strategy, and this strategy is for the next 50 years. Therefore, TEBD and what our Chinese friends do are compatible rather than separable. The second level of the project is its practical implementation. For example, we are responsible for the railway infrastructure, and for this part we are in charge, we have proven the need to modernize the Trans-Siberian and BAM...
Q: Is this a part of TEBD already?
A: Yes, this is a part of TEBD, and we are already doing this. On the basis of the TEBD ideology, we say that we understand how important this infrastructure will be for developing TransUrals, Siberia and the Far East regions, for people living in these areas and the formation of the cargo base. We have a very pragmatic approach to this, as we represent the railroad. The next step is to employ people in this infrastructure and these vast expanses. V.V. Putin spoke about the need to create 25 million high-tech jobs by 2020, but they won’t be created out of nowhere. This requires facilities with such high-tech jobs. Rail transport today is served by 19 sectors of the economy – this is a technical specification for the production of everything that transport consumes. And if we add road transport and energy to this, TEBD is the formation of the huge volume of pragmatic tasks and projects that should be implemented within a unified concept. I would also add banking here, which, by the way, the Chinese are already doing.
TEBD AND THE "SILK ROAD"
Q: Then I move to the Chinese again. They are good strategists, I agree. But I would like to remind the history. The Soviet Union knew two waves of reforms: NEP and the Kosygin reform. Both reforms were eventually discontinued. The reasons are numerous. But there is one common reason – the ideological one. Reforms and, most importantly, their results did not fit into the dominant ideology at the time. Why did the Chinese reforms succeed? I think because Deng Xiaoping will be remembered not only as their strategist and architect. He will also go down in history as the author of the unpretentious phrase: "It does not matter what color the cat is, it is important that it catches mice". He managed to separate ideology and reforms, prioritize not ideological values, but the actual results of reforms. China's reforms began with the fact that it was necessary to feed the country, and it did not matter which forms of ownership would be used to do so, it was important to defeat hunger. In fact, the Chinese reforms are the Lenin's NEP – not discontinued, but constantly unfolding. Now the whole world is watching the China's economic miracle. There is another example, again associated with China. "Silk Road" has advanced further than TEBD in terms of political support. I talked to a supporter of the Eurasian project in general and TEBD in particular, Andrei Klepach. We discussed the question of where from and where to, because TEBD is a transport corridor as well, so geography is important. Klepach said that the implementation of TEBD is possible if it becomes an arm of the "Silk Road". I was surprised back then, but then I thought: this could be put the other way. While TEBD doesn’t enjoy the state support – if you refute me, I will only be glad, ¬– it needs drivers. The "Silk Road" can become such a driver. Well, let it be just an "arm", but the arms tend to grow. It is important that the binding to the Silk Road can become a winding key and, in particular, help obtain the state support. There is the second key, also associated with China. You say that the new life in the regions, through which TEBD will lie, will arise on the basis of the most modern types of infrastructure that the project will bring. Pipeline transport is also the kind of such infrastructure. But we already have a project supported by President – the "Power of Siberia". Maybe TEBD linkage with the "Power of Siberia" will be another winding key for TEBD? Now I deliberately leave the ideological approach aside and talk about things that can help TEBD get closer to the stage of practical implementation. I'm looking for the key to turn the ignition switch. I don’t believe that the Ministry of Finance will ever approve this project, but the project must live. Klepach offers one of the drivers, the other is the "Power of Siberia". Do you agree with this approach?
A: Please notice what a patient listener I am.
Q: Thank you very much, I hope the abovesaid has to do with the case. A: It wasn’t dear Andrei Nikolaevich who first thought that TEBD should be considered as an arm of the "Silk Road". The Chinese President Xi Jinping said this at a meeting with Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin during the Sochi Olympics. And it only emphasizes that we are unanimous with the Chinese in the understanding of the global economy restructuring. Being today a powerful center of economic development, they are well aware of their need to create ways of delivery and exchange of goods and people. There is no antagonism between the "Silk Road" and TEBD. We totally agree with them in this regard. We have not yet found a practical platform for the joint implementation, because they go faster pace in terms of the policies. But we definitely will find this platform. Of course, the Chinese partners are interested in the development and implementation of such a project in our Far East. As for what may be the driver, I will give an example. When the first oil pipeline to China was discussed, we had a lot of discussions. I actively opposed the idea of laying the pipe, because at the first stage, the construction attracts investment and workers, but then only 700 people are needed for the operation of the pipe. If the decision were to transport oil tanks by rail via the Trans-Siberian, it would provide jobs for 7,000 people. The same thing is with the "Power of Siberia". During the construction stage, both national and regional GDPs are growing, but the impact on the social and economic development of regions is minimal. Significantly less than that of the rail transport. The driver is likely to be the project of BAM and Trans-Siberian modernization as the first stage of TEBD. The possibility of extending the railway to Sakhalin and further to Hokkaido is already negotiated with the Japanese. This is not futurology. This is a practical need, just like the existing American project of constructing a tunnel transition between Alaska and our Kamchatka. All together it creates a unique composition of TEBD. Here the term “ideology” is appropriate. But, once again, – ideology of a united integral development, where each member of the project gets its benefit. And not only by the ready money in the form of a profit or return on capital, but also through access to new technologies, raw materials, to a new lifestyle. You were talking about NEP, the Kosygin reform, but we unfairly reduce the notion of ideology only to the party ideology from a scientific point of view. Ideology in terms of the position of the world outlook, in terms of tradition and even a certain mythology, by the way, is a different interpretation of the term. In this sense, ideology cannot affect the economy except in one case where the interests that seem economically viable today can lead to enormous negative consequences if the political parameters are improperly calculated.
"TEBD BUILDS FROM THE BOTTOM"
Q: We mentioned the responsibility. We are talking about a global project – not only the project of the Russian Railways, but about a new strategy. I have a feeling that not everything is fine with the strategic thinking, setting strategic tasks and the organization of their solutions. It is enough to give an example: we do not have a crosssectoral balance. We have taught the world to calculate it, but were left without it. TEBD sets very global tasks, including those in terms of management. I think that in practical terms there may be a lot of problems that we either don’t see or underestimate now. Let’s bring it to the ground. Which major creative projects can new Russia produce? The Soviet Union had a lot of such projects created at a great cost, but today we are living through them. What did new Russia do? Olympics. Maybe it makes sense to use the experience of the creation of the Olympic venues. There was the Olympstroy company, which can get different feedback, but the idea was to create a company where all the structures involved in the project participate with their capital. Can this experience be used in the implementation of TEBD, or you think otherwise? Yes, of course, especially given the fact that this experience includes both positive and negative results. If not for the personal involvement of the head of state and Dmitry Nikolaevich Kozak, Olympstroy just by itself would have never built anything there. It is my deep conviction.
A: I want to emphasize that the feature of TEBD is that it is built from the bottom. In China, the "Silk Road" is built from the top. At the highest level, the party decided, and all the structures proceed with it. This is a very effective way to manage. As I said, TEBD is built from the bottom in our case. Our task is to submit to the government and the head of state the project in its various guises listing the part we are responsible for, what we see on the cross-sectoral balance, and how the country can benefit from the project. Then the state has to determine a strategy of its implementation. Our task is to drag the wood to the firebox.
Q: And where is the firebox? Redirecting all the issues to the first person is the recognition of the ineffectiveness of the entire management system.
A: This firebox must surely be the government. The government shall formulate such strategic projects. It shall determine how such projects should be implemented. The Sochi experience suggests that implementation should include a special government body – a Commission, a Committee, an Agency, whatever you like, with very wide powers to make decisions – if that body has no financial resources and powers, it will be just another decoration on the doors of a room.
Q: Are there any activities in this direction? I heard there was an idea of creating an international corporation in the long-term perspective, which will be called "TEBD", and that a working group to promote this project can be created in the presidential administration, not in the government. Are these still suggestions? Or is there something going on? I wonder about the following: you say TEBD is made from the bottom; well, it’s good it is being made, but it can only be made from the bottom up to a certain limit, and then you can’t go further without a top. Isn’t it so?
A: I can’t quite agree with you. We just talked about the fact that the modernization of TransSiberian and BAM is already a part of the TEBD implementation. There is no policy document adopted at the state level that defines TEBD as a project of national importance, being implemented under the patronage of the head of state. But, for example, the RAS president Vladimir Evgenievich Fortov handed four macro-projects to President, and TEBD is the second of them. This is the result of what we could do on our modest level. If you go higher, I do not presume to argue whether it should be a state-owned corporation. Given the nature of our legal system, I find it difficult to assume that the state-owned corporation may resolve emerging issues at its level. There should also be a political superstructure.
Q: Just like in Sochi: "Olympstroy" and Kozak Commission?
A: Don’t involve "Olympstroy". You can speak of RZD as the executive. But yes, there was a political superstructure headed by Dmitry Nikolayevich, and above it there was the country's President. There must be a strategic body for managing TEBD project, and it must unite the efforts of various corporations – RZD, Gazprom, Rosneft, etc. This is not possible within one state-owned corporation; it can be the headquarters for the implementation of the project and may receive political, financial and administrative input from the parent structure, which can be a special development agency.
Q: I've been living for a while in this world, and I can’t imagine such an agency or any government authority, which will be able to cope with such heavyweights as RZD, Gazprom and Rosneft, which are involved in one macro-project.
A: What you’ve said is, generally speaking, a perversion. Neither RZD performs any domestic or foreign policy, nor Gazprom or Rosneft does. This is the procedure, and not only ours. Look at the West: there are many losses from the sanctions, but they can’t do anything. They can’t do anything against political decisions.
Q: I do not mean a political level, I'm talking about what's happening on the floor below. The budget is being sawed – not federal, although state-own corporations took part there as well, of course, – but the budget of TEBD implementation. What's going to happen there?
A: There is a project. There is a project company – let it be a state-owned corporation, it does not matter, – it is responsible for implementing the project. This project includes the creation of high-speed railway from Beijing to Moscow to start, and then, perhaps, from Tokyo to London. Funds of the state support are allocated, and a pool of investors is formed for this project. It is of secondary importance whether RZD will implement it or some other corporation, it is decided by the authority responsible for the project implementation.
Q: So we came to money and investors. I know two basic options to attract investors in such large infrastructure projects. Firstly, there is the experience of funding transnational projects in the field of energy and transport of the European Union, and secondly, China is forming the funding system for "Silk Road" before our eyes. China establishes the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Now 50 states are among its founders, including Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and Russia. The European option involves the establishment of an international framework that generates not one but a whole set of projects. If you want, it is a mini-belt of development; the set also includes all related projects. The bonds are issued in support of this set, which attract, in particular, large institutional investors. Conventionally, the Chinese version is funding from the top, from the inter-state level; the European version is funding from the bottom. Which option do you think is better for TEBD? Or all the channels will be needed, because in March 2014, in the Academy of Sciences you said that the implementation of TEBD would require "trillions, and not of rubles"?
A: There is a remarkable observation: two hairs in the soup is too much, but the same on the head is too little. I think that our project should be symbiotic. Such a project must have a financial institution, a bank. The Chinese are doing everything absolutely right. Why does the new Chinese bank attract so much interest? Because it is beyond the scope of the new Silk Road. Arabs and Asian countries, and even European countries, no matter how they demonstrated their loyalty to the United States, are well aware that today they are forced into the Procrustean bed of the current global financial system, which is suffocating for the countries, let’s call them in the old-fashioned way, of the "Third World". The creation of such a bank – the Chinese are good – is the beginning of an alternative financial system, alternative to Bretton Wood and to Fed, and the Americans understand this. But such tasks can only be set by the states. I believe that there should be several financial and economic centers in the world, and they need to communicate, otherwise we are faced with the Fed monopoly, and the monopoly in the banking industry is as harmful as in any sector of the economy. As for the AIIB and TEBD, the participation of Russia in the AIIB in no way eliminates the need to create our own financial center for the TEBD project. Whether it will be of the same scale as AIBI or focused exclusively on the TEBD implementation in all its diversity, the state must decide. Do you agree with this approach?
Q: Especially with the last sentence. Once again, and I'm sure you agree with me, we won’t escape the promotion of such a major project without any real support from the state, which is yet lacking.
A: I will not repeat in response about the modernization of BAM and Trans-Siberian. What we really do not have is a strategic plan, such as GOELRO. But the state and the government are already implementing TEBD components, this is a demand of the time. TEBD is not a futuristic idea, which had fallen from nowhere. I have already said that the idea historically developed in the Academy of Sciences, and on the other hand, we practically engaged in this work and supplemented this idea with somewhat different content. And if so, TEBD reflects the social need for such projects.
Q: I have not a question, but a remark. Let's see through which countries the land "Silk Road" lies: Iraq, Syria, the Kurdish territories, zones of raging armed conflicts – there are many more risks to the Silk Road than to the direct, shorter and geopolitically conflict-free TEBD. But the Chinese project is politically advancing. It's a shame.
A: They are advancing in terms of organization. But from the point of view of the implementation, they have more problems than we do. Our belt is Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Europe. The arms can be any: even to the US or Japan. But they have very unstable countries. Of course, everything will come to an equilibrium state one day, otherwise there will be chaos, but in terms of geopolitics, TEBD and its reliability seem to me more appealing. That is why the Chinese are considering TEBD as the northern arm of the Silk Road.
Q: As I understood it from talking with the Chinese, they have two options of linking the "Silk Road" and TEBD: the primary is an exit from China through Kazakhstan to Russia, up the Volga to the Baltic and the North Sea. The second option is the use of the modernization of Trans-Siberian and BAM. The Chinese directly associate it with the task of raising the standard of living in their north-eastern region. A: And rightly so, they are good. The Chinese are great pragmatists.
"WE NEED REINDUSTRIALIZATION"
Q: Now the question of time. Is there, in your opinion, the timeframe that we have to meet when going to the comprehensive implementation of TEBD?
A: You’ve pushed me to the next step. I will return to my co-authors, the respected members of the Academy of Sciences, and suggest that we prepare a voluminous reference to the development of the RAS President’s proposal of mega-projects required for the development of economy and social development of our country, and suggest to send this reference to the head of our state who now deals with issues of developing a strategy for further development of the country.
Q: I would appreciate if I could take a look at this reference. I have a question on the integrity of the project. It must become a belt of the social and economic development not one day, once in a bright future, – it must become so from the very beginning. It is assumed that TEBD will deploy the migration of the population, outflow from the Far East will change to the inflow. Due to what? Due to which specific industries, besides the construction of the project? When I asked TEBD supporters this question, they answered: there will the modern types of infrastructure, and on this basis, the most modern industries will arise, there will be new "smart" cities. It was interesting to listen to, but the questions remain: which the most modern industries, where they come from, what kind of a garden city? Curiously, when, as the saying goes, you start to pull out the liver from the interlocutor, the picture fades, and mining of our fields again becomes the main theme. But what is new in this?
A: Mining of our fields is not a bad idea. But mining based on modern technology differs from what we know. An example: instead of carrying huge masses of coal, they can be gasified in place or turned into oil – similar to the shales. All this certainly requires new technologies. Deindustrialization that our country has suffered should be expanded on a modern technical basis. Talks about the facts that the post-industrial society lives by creating intelligent products are questionable. And what are these intellectuals going to eat? This model is too primitive. We need a reindustrialization, and which is better: to repair old or to build new? It is believed that it is more profitable to build new than remodel old.
Q: But what about the sanctions?
A: This is a temporary phenomenon, and except for those who imposed sanctions on Russia, there are others who don’t care about these sanctions. Today we talk about the high-speed transportation, and the most active partners for us are the Chinese. They started with taking the Western technology, and today they have created their own. So did the South Koreans. In case of need we’ll find a party to cooperate with. My First Vice-President has returned from a business trip to India. There are plans to develop the North-South transport corridor there, and they already consider it possible to build 28 new cities on this axis. This is another argument in favor of TEBD. I want to emphasize: here the priority is given to human interests, not the production. And we have to seriously consider what new cities within TEBD will be, where the jobs will be that provide a decent life, where people can live comfortably. There must be schools that will attract young people. We need it all, regardless of whether there is TEBD or there isn’t, but TEBD approximates its implementation.
Q: Look at the names of our cities. Bratsk, Komsomolsk, the idea of Autograd was popular when AutoVAZ was being built – the books were written about this, the plays staged. We tried to build the city of the Sun many times, to implement the ideas you are talking about, but the ideas exhaled, and people were leaving. What lessons have been learned, what industries can safely keep people? Who will do it? Clearly, not RZD. The abovementioned Andrei Nikolaevich Klepach, when leaving the Ministry of Economic Development, claimed that the Ministry should become the authority of the strategy management, reincarnation of Gosplan today. I repeat, Klepach shared this hope not coming to the Ministry, but leaving it.
A: I agree with Andrei Nikolaevich. We have repeatedly discussed this idea with him. This refers, of course, not to the Soviet Gosplan, but to the center of the integrated strategic planning. Whether it will be the Ministry of Economic Development or some new body – the main thing is that such a center is needed. We need highly skilled professionals who can calculate the economy, the sociology – everything that can be calculated.
Q: And it should not just be a ministry or agency among others. Who spoke at the Congress of the CPSU? Secretary General and necessarily the Permanent Chairman of Gosplan Baybakov. This is not the Ministry of Economic Development, which makes predictions but doesn’t make any suggestions on how to implement the best of the proposed scenarios, and when things do not go according to the forecast – it just makes a new, equally short-lived one.
A: We need a global designer of development; we clearly lack it. In my opinion, the Academy of Sciences was unfairly pushed away, reduced only to the consumer of some resources. I wonder where the Nobel Prize winners were born. Romping approach: let’s destroy everything and build something new, like Skolkovo – frankly speaking, this did not cause me a feeling of a strategic approach. Skolkovo must exist, Nukograd, which was in Novosibirsk, must exist – and more than one. To go to Siberia, people need to understand why. And it seems to me that one of the negative consequences of globalization and postindustrial society is a deletion of a human. We need an integrated planning of not only the economy, but also the society. People are interested not only in money, they are interested in their future and the future of their children, and their country. Formation of our society development strategy, and the formation of interest among people in the proposed projects on this basis are very important.
Q: Before asking the last question, let me make a short digression. Couple words in defense of postindustrial society. This is not a society without material production – it doesn’t work this way. It is a society where basic values are knowledge and ability to realize and commercialize it. It is an objective stage in the development of the human society. There was a time when the main value was land, then industrial capital, then financial capital, and then – it is already happening – knowledge. In this sense, it is not a deletion of a human. On the contrary, the postindustrial society gives unprecedented elevators to a human: one example is the Internet and everything connected with it. In my opinion, this is good.
A: There is no common man who would refuse to value knowledge. But the monopolization of knowledge, financial resources and everything else is harmful. We're saying that the calls for deindustrialization, against the fact that the basic knowledge was concentrated in highly developed countries, are not intended to transfer this knowledge for free or for money to others. The reason is that knowledge has become a capital on which you want to make money and get what you need, and not at a fair price. I'm saying from this point of view that the declaration, which says that we are all moving towards the information society, is in fact just a political cover of the fact that the countries highly developed in the scientific and technological term, which belong to the golden billion, are not going to let the entire earth population prosper – and if we look at Africa, where every year the hunger kills more than 3 million people, this behavior is blasphemous.
Q: The world is unfair. And it has never been like this. But there are centers throughout the world, where programming is developing, even in developing countries. I have been in such centers in India and, of course, I asked why the Indians were able to achieve such success. I liked the answer: the Hindu religion itself with its very complex construction of the hierarchy of deities teaches a systematic approach – like it or not, but you become a programmer.
A: You know, this is a brilliant demonstration of the correctness of what we stand for. Denial of traditions, denial of historicism of the human development and turning the human over for the new circumstances dictated by globalization are just human degradation.
Q: And the promised last question. Talking with the TEBD supporters, I came across this position: implementation of this project is the new Russian national idea. And what is TEBD for you personally?
A: From a professional point of view, this is definitely a project that reveals the tremendous prospects for modern railway transport development, the prospects that we can’t even imagine today. For example, the trains traveling in the vacuum tube on the magnetic suspension. And as a citizen, a member of our society and a person with some experience, like a lot of other people, I can’t help thinking about the future of the country. This is who we are. You talked about the Hindu tradition – I can probably say the same about the traditions of the Orthodox religion, which is within our development, and it is characterized by the pursuit of the ideal. The conquerors of Siberia were such idealists; apparently, Columbus was such an idealist; and we are the same idealists, perhaps, because in response to a philosophical question of what comes first – the idea or the substance, I'm starting to lean towards the fact that the materialist view is unjust. That is why the idea of TEBD is an idea that can help you see the future of your own children, the future of our society in such a way that justifies the development of Siberia, the Far East, and lots of other deeds. Thank you.
