I listened to Grigory Bazhenov’s conversation on Vadim Politikov’s channel. The conversation is boringly titled “Why Left-wing Economies are Doomed,” so I didn’t immediately decide to spend two hours on the interview, assuming that it would indeed be a banal explanation of why left-wing economies are doomed. Fortunately, Grigory, fueled by good whiskey, discussed many other things, and in particular, towards the end, modernization.

Main points:
1. In a state that is already leading, authoritarian modernization from above is impossible, because a plan works only when you know where to go; the leader, however, will have to pave the way through the operation of spontaneous orders.
2. Forced modernization from an agrarian to an industrial society within the framework of catch-up development is possible. Universal education, a transport network, a banking system—and that’s enough; after that, just don’t interfere with the work of institutions. Those states that limited themselves to this gentleman’s set, and then allowed society to develop independently, were able to successfully cut the corner, catch up with the leader, and many even surpassed the unfortunate Great Britain, once the world’s first economy. Those that played at dirigisme, crawled forward in bursts, with great costs—in short, it didn’t turn out very well.
3. Forced modernization from above from an industrial to a post-industrial society is theoretically possible, but the recipe consists precisely of the dismantling of authoritarian mechanisms, and this is not a recipe that most leaders are willing to hear. However, Grigory does not believe in dismantling from below through agorism, and this is the point on which I would discuss with him, provided, of course, that he doesn’t find a conversation partner in his own weight class.

In connection with this, I recalled a book I recently read by Dmitry Travin and Otar Margania, “Modernization: from Elizabeth Tudor to Egor Gaidar”. It is an excellent selection of historical anecdotes about who and how tried to spur the nag of history in their countries. It mainly describes a long line of kings, prime ministers, and other ministers, while only two inseparable partners of the twentieth century—Keynes and Hayek—stand apart, who personally conducted no reforms, but exerted a powerful influence on minds.

Historical anecdotes are pleasing because they are not dry theory, but a multitude of yarns, from which each is entitled to derive their own moral. In general, these stories do not contradict Grigory Bazhenov’s points, and instead complement them well, so I recommend checking them out, especially since it is a fairly light, entertaining genre.

And finally, I will give you a song by Timur Shaov, “From where modernization in Rus’ began,” to create a proper stereo effect.