In one of his books, the famous Vladimir Voinovich expressed the following sentence: “The people are stupider than one man. To lure a man with an idiotic idea is much more difficult than a whole nation.” If anyone doesn’t believe, let’s look for the bright results of the endlessly protracted great Bulgarian Transition, most of which were realized through absurdly idiotic ideas: “small” state, “complete” restitution and privatization, freedom of the “market”. “everywhere and in everything, formal democracy, etc., Prof. Boyan Durankev punished before epicenter.bg
It seems that to this day our people stubbornly bite either idiotic ideas or “promising” messiahs. Anyone who has taken a bite out of “800 days that will fix Bulgaria” may again be tempted by another empty promise; who has preferred the delicacy “bodyguard of Zhivkov and Simeon”, can also focus on a new clever beauty!
I am writing the above because new people are emerging in politics and government who are proposing “new ideas” that will solve “all the problems” that are actually very complex, not in 800 days, but “immediately”. Besides, for sure – after the messiahs Simeon and Borisov – it is time to propose a new messiah to “lead the dance” in the right direction.
Today’s case is a duet of messiahs who offer simple solutions to complex problems. I can’t ignore the fact that they rose to the political sky as a clever choice of the president, that pretty good words can be said about them – they rolled up their sleeves and exposed some of the obvious (“legal” in most cases) atrocities of the governments of Borisov that their youthful audacity is of the Nth degree (convincing diplomas from renowned universities and work in organizations and countries of the Western type), that they are loyal to friends and relatives (some of their new appointments proved it).
In general – a model of leaders of a new type, nice and eager to work, received a bonus to fit into the long-term political landscape thanks to their short stay in a caretaker government, which allowed them to comfortably sit in the media and prepare their political project from afar .
The target group of the party of Kiril Petkov and Asen Vassilev is “everyone and everything”, because they will surround themselves with “people with a high level of integrity who have a career and a successful existence outside politics”. Incidentally, I will mention that a large part of modern oligarchs (both in Bulgaria and in other countries) are people with a “high level of integrity” (if someone tries to insult them, then they will understand what the Prosecutor General means!), With “career” and “successful existence” outside politics, illustrated by owning many properties around the world and in our country, fat bank accounts (and offshore), luxury yachts, showy life of polished rentiers.
Unfortunately, many of the hundreds of thousands of honest and clean people – and they are most of our fellow citizens – do not have the “successful existence” that the newly rich enjoy, but instead work hard after acquiring the right to a pension so that they can they pay for their bread, electricity and medicines.
But how to attract the humiliated and offended by the Transition, who are the Tomanists – this is the majority of voters? And here is another joker pulled out of the sleeve of young people: “We strongly believe in right-wing instruments to achieve left-wing goals. This means not raising taxes, attracting investment, ridding businesses of corruption, which is the most important thing for to achieve higher incomes for pensioners, better health care, better education “.
It is an honor for the duo to acknowledge the “left-right” dilemma, which for some of the Bulgarian political figures (most of the “mother” BCP or later “father” BSP) does not exist. In fact, the dilemma does not exist for a few dozen (no more!) Bulgarian politicians, most of them – blissful from the Transition, but such a dilemma is recognized worldwide.
“Left – right” is convincingly politically represented in all democracies and even in oligarchic dictatorships; the alternative concepts “capitalism – social democracy – socialism – communism” have acquired not only broad citizenship, but also a serious scientific justification. We do not need to bury ourselves in scientific theories and hypotheses, it is enough to compare Sofia with Northwestern Bulgaria or even just Bankya and Filipovtsi to get the practical evidence of the “right – left” dilemma. It is an indisputable statistical fact!
Now a few words about the very idea of young people. The formula “right-wing instruments to achieve left-wing goals”, presented at the end of 2021, goes beyond the life of the duo by more than half a century.
The outlines of the hypothesis of a possible such socio-economic development can be found in the ideologues of the alternative “socialism with a human face” (Hungary, Czechoslovakia and even in Bulgaria – through the idea of the “New Economic Mechanism” of 1968), Eurocommunists, aiming for a “historic compromise” – the adoption of a multiparty democracy and a highly developed private sector of the economy, actively regulated by the democratic and uncorrupted state.
In short – “left-wing goals, realized with right-wing funds”, but achieved in a huge public sector – both as a producer and as a consumer.
For those unfamiliar, I will mention only two interesting facts: first, the “New Economic Mechanism” in Bulgaria quickly gave very bad results and was stopped; second, the idea of the Eurocommunists was originally painted in Bulgaria during Zhilkov’s visit to Berlinguer. But neither “socialism with a human face” nor “Eurocommunism” were realized anywhere in the world. However, the comparison of the outlines of the political ideas of the Bulgarian duo is much more center-right than those of the “human face” and the “Eurocommunists”.
Later interpretations of the idea of ”center-right economic policy and center-left social policy” found expression in the “Third Way” hypothesis, masterfully painted in 1998 by Tony Blair and realized by the “new Labor”. The beautiful idea did not give the expected results, as Blair admits in his memoir “Journey” from 2010 (the Bulgarian edition is from 2012).
However, under the leadership of the “new Labor”, some “left” reforms were carried out, which suppressed the social ills created by Thatcher’s right-wing government. However, parallels between the ideas of Tony Blair and the duo “Kiril Petkov – Assen Vassilev” cannot be made, because Blair’s “system” is described in detail, while the ideas of our duo are audio expressed in two or three phrases, which are sufficient. to argue that they are much more to the right and much more obscure.
And since we mentioned Thatcher, and she is a “high ball”, we cannot fail to mention the center-right ideological variant – “right-wing economic system that gives way and left-wing results”, expressed in the theory of Trickle-down economics (known in our country as ” the economy of seepage “,” the economy of infiltration “, of” drops from the top down “), which consists in the simple idea that the middle class and the poorest sections of the population will gradually benefit from the growing wealth of the richest.
That’s why Reagan-Thatcher’s philosophy emphasizes the “free market,” entrepreneurship, and low (and declining) taxes. But most of all, the policy of privatization has become synonymous with Reaganism and Thatcherism, as well as the policy of reducing direct and increasing indirect taxes. There are indications – at least by telling the new party members during their participation as caretaker ministers that they sympathize with some of the ideas of the “filtering economy”, but as the ideologically most convinced defender of Reagan-Thatcher’s ideas in our country is undoubtedly the failed candidate for prime minister Nikolay Vassilev. But even without this mentioned person, in Bulgaria the neoliberal model has not moved (and the duo not only does not want to “scratch” it – sorry for the vulgar speech, but it is not mine – and will support it!).
Let us now turn to the practical results of the beautiful idea of the “filtering economy.” They have been studied in detail by authorities such as Joseph Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini, Toma Picketti, Branko Milanovic; organizations such as the IMF, UN, UNESCO, etc. The conclusion of the IMF from 2015 is that “the benefits do not leak”!
It did not turn out to be true that wealth would drip from top to bottom, nothing like that – the rich became richer and richer, the middle class thinned, the lower part of the social pyramid (the poorest) became more and more extensive; wherever there is no strong welfare state, inequalities increase.
It has not turned out to be true that people will become massively enterprising – without using the udder of public procurement or EU funds (in the EU).
It did not turn out to be true that privatization was a cure for the economy; on the contrary, where public property was privatized en masse, societies became relatively poorer. It has not turned out to be true that tax cuts will increase employment and raise wages, on the contrary – it has been proven that employment does not correlate with tax cuts and inequalities increase.
The ideological basis of simple “faith” (note that the authors call it “faith” and not an idea or science!) For “right-wing instruments to achieve left-wing goals” does not work well anywhere in the world – not just for -poor, but also for society – it is “failed”.
And something that will make Harvard blush, formulated by Harvard graduates: that “the pure right says: business is business, there should be no government; the pure left says: only distribution.”
Probably our boys did not study macroeconomics, but to enrich their knowledge they should read that “the pure right” does not say that “there should be no government”, and on the contrary – capital dreams and works for the creation of such a right government, which will make it even richer; moreover, the “left” does not say that it wants “only distribution”, and the left everywhere wants much more – “fair primary distribution according to the quantity and quality of labor and a high degree of income redistribution in order to systematically reduce inequality”.
I will allow myself a paraphrase of Virgil’s famous sentence “Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes” (Anyway, I am afraid of the Danites, even when they offer gifts). Do not trust the right, even those who bring gifts to the left.
And a big “But!”. But the above does not mean that with solid persuasion (and with an excuse – “literacy”) with these Bulgarian boys and girls can not lead to “cleansing” of “faith” and compromises for the future.
– .
