How to navigate the global economic crisis

How to navigate the global economic crisis?

Eduard KIRIUKHOV, PhD in Economics.,
associated professor of
Moscow State University
Research advisor of International
center of fundamental studies
of society innovative development.

Exclusively for Forbes.

A period of great change is a time for miracles:
individual, professional and institutional. If only we
had clear vision and an exact concept and could
distinctly see the way ahead.

John NAISBITT

Let us first clarify:

Which of the three leading global civilizations will survive the global crisis and which will face downfall?

Which new global socio-technological civilization will come to replace the old?

What caused our current global crisis?

The correct answer to these questions directs us towards the shortest route to overcoming the global economic crisis.

From a strategic point of view, our modern, highly-advanced industrial world is gradually embracing post-industrial development - objectively conditioned by a modern scientific and technological revolution (STR). Transition from an industrial to a post-industrial civilization is a well documentedprocess of translational motion, with innovative ideas succeeding the old. Such a transition is accompanied by a series of recurrent economic crises, with the decrepit industrial civilization descending towards its inevitable decline. Step by step, a new, post-industrial civilization gains strength to replace the previous regime.

Today's global crisis is the last breath of a fading global industrial civilization. Naturally, as the old industrial civilization declines, it creates obstacles to the growing post-industrial civilization: "Le mort saisit le vif!" - the dead seizes the alive! Yet our innovative progress continues [1].

[1]. The level of post-industrial development in different countries varies. Some industrial societies are at the very beginning of their post-industrial development, living through early "childhood". Other states are in their "adolescence". Some societies, tired of the uncertainty of development, are significantly lagging behind in innovative progress. The absolute "maturity" of our global post-industrial civilization still lies ahead.

Initially, our modern global economic crisis seemed to be the result of a malicious conspiracy by the leading financial states, directed against their growing competitors worldwide. Its real cause is rooted in the sphere of material production - not in the distribution chain. It is an inevitable consequence of the significant changes taking place in the sphere of production, its technical-and-engineering basis. Prius is a good example. The technical-and-engineering basis of industrial production has become outdated; it must be replaced by a new, post-industrial version.

as a rule, goods made during the industrial replenishment cycle fall within the sphere of goods and money flow circulation. Should there be no demand for such goods, then they remain unsold. With no distribution, there is no money for cost recovery: for stock and materials, technological power, depreciation, salaries, etc. Production is interrupted, declines and finally stops. Enterprises close and thousands lose their jobs, bringing social tension throughout society.

To awaken the next replenishment cycle, businessmen feverishly search for bank loans, which rise in price. Many industrial, commercial and bank facilities are unable to discharge their obligations - and are announced bankrupt. Larger companies buy up insolvent enterprises for a trifling sum, increasing their own assets. Capital becomes centralised in the hands of a small group of businessmen.

Lack of orders brings the production sphere to a state of fever and, with finances struggling, there is a collapse of all stages of the industrial replenishment cycle: production, distribution, exchange and consumption. Depression follows: decline, regression and stagnation.

Revival and further economic growth is possible due to enhanced investments in the sphere of innovations - into post-industrial equipment and technologies. The global crisis can only be overcome by developing innovative (post-industrial) goods while reforming the old financial system to support such post-industrial production. It is fruitless to keep old methods of industrial production alive artificially - since this only prolongs the death-throws.

According to a number of scientists, state, political and public figures, scientific and technical progress (STP) has always been the driving force for social development and progress. Profound changes in engineering and technologies ("technological imperative" according to L. Vinner) inspire social change.

Production methods and technologies are an implemented (topical) science. Old manual, mechanical and cybernetic equipment equate to our old way of life: pre-capitalist, capitalist and post-capitalist. STP is a regulator of human society evolution and to understand it is to comprehend the logic of social progress and world history.

Industry in the civilized world has run its course utterly - from beginning to end. Global industrialism - on which our capitalist society is founded - has reached a ceiling of development. Now, we see only decline and crisis.

The first industrial revolution began in the last third of the 18th century, bringing scientific and technical progress worldwide. However, by the mid 20th century, progress was leaping forward dramatically - creating a second industrial revolution: a transition from technological industrialism to electronic-and-scientific development.

John Desmond Bernal, an English physic, sociologist and public figure is a major figure in this second revolution [2].

[2]. From 1959 to 1965, John Bernal headed the world Peace Council, and was its President.

Scientists, politicians and executive managers all around the world - including those in Russia - have discussed the phenomenon of this second industrial revolution. Theories on history, natural science and engineering - set forth in J. Bernel's book "Science and the history of Society" (1954, translated into Russian in 1956) - were discussed in Moscow in December 1957 (see world Culture history Bulletin).

Western scientists have long been suspicious of this new scientific and technical phenomenon of the second industrial revolution and its social consequences. In the 1970s, Daniel Bell, an american sociologist and author of a theoretical paper entitled "Forthcoming post-industrial society" (1973) - published in his book "Welcome to the post-industrial society" (1976) - urged our aging industrial world to move towards new technologies. Some scientists called this our post-industrial epoch, others called it technetronic, others informational [3].

[3]. In various concepts of post-industrial societies, developed at the end of the 1960-70s (by D. Bell, H. Kan, Z. Bzhezinsky, a. Turen and others) an alternating cycle of various technological epochs is considered to be the bases of social civilizations development. Now, the leading role in developing post-industrial societies belongs to science and education and the service sector. Corporations are replaced by universities and businessmen by scientists and professional specialists.

active technotronic development (engineering combined with electronics) has resulted in the emergence of the "theory of technotronic development" (a variant of post-industrial society theory"). In the 1970s, the idea that american society was rooted in a technotronic era was declared by Zbignev Bzhezinsky - an american sociologist and public figure; from 1977-81, he advised President J. Carter on homeland security.

Norbert Winer is a prophet of our information era and the creator of the idea of an information society. He is an american mathematician and a founder of cybernetics ("Cybernetics", 1948, and "Cybernetics and society", 1954). Cybernetics have turned information from a means of consumption to a mean of production. In the 1980s, our "post-industrial society" evolved into an "information society" (E. Masud, J. Naisbitt and

others). This is a new stage in our post-industrial development: information production, distribution and consumption now rule.

A serious shift occurred in public perception of the second industrial revolution in the USa on the publication ofJ. Naisbitt's well-known bestseller - "Megatrends" (in October 1982). The american futurologist called it "the end of negation".

analysing how american society has moved from its industrial basis to that of information-and-electronics, Naisbitt pointed out, "For a long time, we have denied that our industrial base is slowly declining, though direct evidence has been available. Our inability to accept and an aptitude to deny that we can see was quite natural, as far as truth is too morbid, and too terrible. Our industrial economics have served us so long and well that few of us are ready to believe they have come to an end. Gradually, our blind devotion to industrial america has begun to yield to an emerging sense of new economics. Forbes was probably the first stronghold of traditional business to depart from the traditional. In "The Molting of america" - published on November 22nd, 1982, James Cook, the editor-in-chief, asserted that the former industrial base evades us and is being replaced by a new economy - one of information-and-electronics". (See: J. Naisbitt, Megatrends. - M.: aST Publishing House Ltd, Ermak (ZaO), 2003, p.7).

Though significantly lagging behind, industrial Russia accepted the invitation of D. Bell, "Welcome to Post-industrial Society", 1976. "Russia has no right to oversleep the expanding information revolution We must not sit back and do nothing, we must take action." (V. Putin)

In the modern world, severe competition for markets, for investments and for political and economic influence has taken on a truly global scale. In such conditions, Russia has been obliged to transform into a powerful and competitive state. It must become a strong, self-confident country - one which works not against the world community but together with it. No one is going to intentionally come to our aid; we have to fight for our place under the "economic sun".

Our economy is still slow to respond to scientific-and-technological advances, with an unstable, weak economic basis. Most industries are uncompetitive and we are not fully utilising the extensive scientific-and-technical potential of Russia. There are few worthy, long-term economic projects. The state should assist innovative Russian developers in their integration onto the world market, providing for an efficient flow of scientific products and services.

Russia's economic weakness will be overcome only by selling modern innovative goods. Steady economic advance is only possible via new technical-and-technological innovations, resulting from modern STP.

Russia will never become a prosperous economic state if it follows the philosophy of laissez faire. at the moment, it is a mixed economy lacking market-orientation. It needs state control. The highly developed countries of the USa, Japan, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Canada and others use a mixed state-controlled economy. Free market-orientedeconomies in their purest form are relics of the past, being totally self-regulating, free from state interference.

Returning Russia to its place as a wealthy, developed, mighty and respected state will only be possible by making it powerful and efficient. It must provide for conditions of free economic development, setting strategic guidelines, rendering top quality public services and efficiently controlling its mixed economy [4].

[4]. In the 21st century, all highly-advanced nations need to build a strong, efficient state. Well-known american philosopher, sociologist and futurologist Francis Fukuyama's book on 'State-Building: Governance and world Order in the 21st Century' (M.: aST: aST MOSCOW: GUaRDIaN, 2006) is of great interest.

As the economy becomes more innovative (post-industrial), state policy is more crucial than ever, since it must control all spheres - from the scientific-and-technical and economic, to political, legal, social, and spiritual. State policy and science are integrated; to be strong, state policy must be scientifically grounded.

Russia is now witnessing the start (still verbal) of an epochal transition of society from industrial-and-stock to innovative (post-industrial, information-and-electronic) - predetermined by an objective need for a scientific and technical revolution.

The gap between Russia and the West is considerable when it comes to technological development. In 2000, for the first time in the contemporary history of Russia, the development of knowledge and technologies was announced to be a top priority for state policy at national level. In his Letter to the

Federal assembly of the Russian Federation, the President noted, "We are losing the competitive battle on the world market, so we must now orient ourselves towards the innovative sector, towards a new economy - an economy of knowledge and technologies."

We are yet to see real change regarding innovative economic development, despite talk of taking this course. We are still unable to rid ourselves of our status as a primary state. at the moment, raw material sales account for approximately 67% of the total net revenue of national product. In Brazil and India, the figure amounts to just 22% and 11% respectively. Experts speculate that, within the next 10-15 years, global prices for high-tech products and services may exceed those of fuel and energy by as much as *****ssia's current share of this market stands at an insignificant 0.5% - compared to the USa's 36%, Japan's 30°%, Germany's 16°% and China's 6°%. (See: Economy and Life. 2006. December No. 50).

The awaking of interest in vigorous innovation is proving slow. The establishment of the National Innovative System (NIS) of Russia is being unreasonably delayed. Meanwhile, it took six years for the Governmental Commission on Industrial and Technological Development (co-ordinating innovative activities) to be formed. It was originally proposed by the President in his Letter to the Federal assembly of the Russian Federation in 2000 and did not come to pass until RF Government Regulation No.563, dated September 14, 2006.

At the moment, the state's innovative policy is facing an obstacle: the lack of a special federal law governing innovative activities. In December 1999, the State Duma of the Russian Federation passed, and the Federation Council ratified, a Federal Law 'On Innovative activities and State Innovative Policy'. However, in 2000, the President of the Russian Federation rejected it for not clearly defining what comprised an innovative activity. Do innovative activities cover training, retraining and personnel development? Do they cover innovative infrastructure and development, the promotion of new products and their financing? The Law specified neither characteristics nor processes. Its criteria were left completely open - as regards goods and services. The legal provisions of the Law were oriented towards a completely different model of economic development - far from that of a post-industrial society.

Since then, more than eight years have passed and the Law is yet to be ratified; it has drowned in numerous discussions by Duma and RF Government committees. Often, state and municipal executive authorities are at odds with innovators themselves. The concept of innovation remains ambiguous, with authorities failing to recognise certain activities as being innovative (thus rejecting tax preferences, land privileges and preferential leasing terms where many would argue they are rightly deserved). Can we efficiently control innovative activities without a Federal Law? The answer is categorical - no!

Scientists, politicians and managers cannot agree on the definition of a modern STR innovation - whether it is scientificand technical, organisational-and-administrative, or social (in a broad sense). Domestic science (both academic and educational) continues debating the concept of innovation without looking at the context of the second scientific and technical revolution and second industrial revolution [5].

[5]. Problems in comprehending modern innovations - scientific and technical, organisational-and-administrative, and social (in a broad sense) - result from the theoretical underdevelopment of STP and its components. The first and second industrial revolutions and frst and second scientific and technical revolutions are closely related. If we understand STP, we can comprehend its affect on the development of our society. This allows us to form correct social progress strategies - professionally dealing with issues of social structure reform.

Scientists' lack of understanding of objective STP logic makes them equate the second industrial revolution (J. Bernal) with the second STR. This leads to an erroneous definition of both scientific and technical revolutions and both industrial revolutions.

It is ridiculous to invent new economic relations not linked to the technological requirements of our modern scientific and technical revolution (second STR) - leading to the second industrial revolution (second industrial revolution). Some might assume that good social relations and an economic miracle are around the corner; however, without new techniques, these will be far from easy to establish. Social change is only one part of the picture. Deep technological reform (based on modern STR achievements) will bring real change to society - economic, political, legal and psychological.

Specialists tell us that, annually, Russia loses about 5-10 million US Dollars due to insufficient implementation of scientific and technological innovation. The process of capital stock in our country is impaired. During the 1990 crisis, Russia stopped renewing its capital stock and, according to the Federal State Statistics Service, over the last eight years, the volume of investments into capital stock has fallen fivefold. as far as material production is concerned, there has been a seven­fold fall. Capital stock (especially with moving parts) suffers a high degree of physical depreciation (60-70%). This makes it difficult to remain competitive, generating sufficient income from domestic and foreign sales. Without income, employees cannot be paid, there are no profits for businessmen and the state loses out on potential taxes.

Despite measures taken, the industrial and technological crisis in Russia persists. Rapid innovation-based reform of production is needed. Innovations need to enhance and expand existing engineering solutions; they should be fundamental, arterial, make use of the current STR and provide for the implementation of the innovation penetration strategy. This is the only way that Russia will strengthen and expand its position on domestic and foreign markets, ensuring stable economic growth. Without this, falling global energy prices will leave Russia short of export revenue with which to buy imports. Without dramatic reform, even staying in our current position will prove a challenge.

Implementation of a modern STR, of new engineering and technology, is the ultimate step Russia must take to regain at least some of its previous status as an industrial superpower. It must be ready for the day when oil will be surpassed by water as the ultimate commodity.

"We must build the foundations of innovative culture as a system of generating unique knowledge (as far as knowledge means power) and capital to ensure we preserve our nation. Now and hereafter, it is inevitable - in a post-oil epoch. We must convert our raw material based economy into an intellectual one; it is our ticket to the future. We must become a creative society - able to guide history" [6].

[6]. Surkov V. Nationalization of Future // aiF. 2006. No 48.

If we do not turn Russia into an innovative (post-industrial) country, we'll fail to raise our citizens' quality of life and may fail to provide state security and health-care. We may even jeopardise our existence [7].

[7]. There were several attempts of turning the USSR to an innovative (post-industrial) development way even at the end of last century. However none of them had a success. as a result the USSR vanished from the word's political map in December of 1991.

Many ears passed but still in Russia (the USSR successor) they continue to look for some political party at fault for the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and they do not realize that an industrial superpower collapsed under the strokes of civilizational industrial crisis much earlier than "plotters" Yeltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich signed in Belovezhskaya Pushcha a "hastily drawn up document" (Evg. Primakov) on denunciation of the USSR founding treaties. Neither Gorbachev, nor Yeltsin or any other "political instructor" (like CPSU) managed to withheld the industrial superpower from an inevitable self-destruction because their predecessors - Khrushchev, Brezhnev, andropov and many others soviet party-and-state functionaries - "had drowned in empty talks", "footled away" (must be read - "missed") 2nd IR that had evolved in the world in mid fifties of the XX century, thus condemning the overindustrialized state to an inevitable failure.

Good save if ruling country's elite misses the point of turning Russia to innovative (post-industrial) way of development. In such a case Russia will suffer the same dismal fate with the USSR, and this would be eternal rest.

In the 19 and 20th centuries, Russia industrialised its economy. Now, it needs to embrace cybernatisation, electronisation, informatisation and computerization in every sphere. It is an impartial requirement of the modern scientific and technological revolution (2nd STR). Modern electronics are based on nanotechnologies (objects of 10-9 metre dimension). Naturally, the right equipment is needed. an electron microscope costs about $1 million - and is just a simple device for measurement and observation. Technological electron microscopes are needed in the scores by companies dealing with electronics.

Our modern world requires us to follow innovative trends - for bio and nanotechnologies and the production of new materials and intellectual information systems. We urgently need to implement them but our industries are slow to respond. We must overcome this - starting with state development institutes. "If we fail to catch the nanotechnology train now, we may never climb aboard". (See Izvestiya, 14.11.2008).

In his address to the International Nanotechnology Forum (December 3-5, 2008 in Moscow) the Director General of ROSNaNO State Corporation, anatoly Chubais, noted, "Today, we can certainly confirm that nanotechnology is a global technological development locomotive. Fortunately, Russia has the chance to jump aboard the train, rather than being left on the *****ssian nanotechnology sales could reach 900 billion Roubles by 2015 - a 3% share of the world market. We need to provide for healthy growth, allowing our country to find a niche of applied technologies".

Everything is in place to make this possible: we have well-trained scientists, technologists and engineers and there is clearbusiness interest regarding investments in the nanotechnology industry. The Russian Government is also keen to work in this direction. To this end, it took the unprecedented step of establishing a state corporation, ROSNaNO - investing 130 billion Roubles in the commercialisation of nanotechnology [8].

[8]. State Corporation ROSNaNO is an initial phase co-investor for the implementation of investment projects. as soon as its future partner, a private company, is ready to provide investments for the project, it will step out.

Early on, ROSNaNO concentrated on creating a transparent system of project filtering, speaking to prospective partners, applicants and co-investors. attention was also given to setting up technology and implementation centres, to the construction of business bread centres for nanotechnology and to employee training programs. The Corporation now needs a legal framework suitable for developing nanotechnology in Russia.

If it can create the necessary incentives for the development of the nanotechnology industry, Russia could become a world leader in this sphere.

The global economic crisis is impeding Russia's innovative (post-industrial) development - largely due to lack of capital in the financial market. The crisis is being felt on the investment market worldwide, with governments all over the globe eager to preserve their national financial systems. Banks are on the front line and the private sector of the economy is really feeling the pinch.

Scientists, state, political and public figures, as well as businessmen, are finding it hard to understand that the present economic crisis is the continuation of a longstanding world crisis of industrial and capitalist civilization. Oswald Spengler predicted today's situation in 1918, in his famous bestseller "Decline of the West". Of capitalist industrialism, he said: 'nothing stays forever, all things must pass'. The Great Depression (1929-32) was another cycle in the same crisis; today, we are truly in the agonies of an aged economic civilization. The end is near.

For many of us - including scientists - the way out is shrouded in a mist of uncertainty. However, there are three possible solutions:

Nations are eager to help entrepreneurs (of all patterns of ownership) overcome liquidity problems. However, this is rather like throwing money down the drain, since it is helping old-fashioned production limp on artificially. Naturally, governments are keen to preserve employment - to relieve social tension - but we must remember that global industrial production has had its day and investment should be directed into innovative industry where possible.

Several nations could boost their military output, giving another spin to the armament drive and preparing us for the Third world War. Of course, this is not a sane path. Rather, remember how industrial capitalism provided an escape route from global economic crisis during the Great Depression (1929-32). In the 1930s, the whole of the industrialised world felt this crisis, with mass unemployment. Industrial output was thrown back several decades. In 1932, in the USa, output dropped 46% (in Germany it fell 47%, in France - 31%, and in the UK - 16.5%). Mines were left without workers, blast furnaces went out and factories stood idle; industry sufferedas farming had done. Thousands of banks and industrial and commercial enterprises went bankrupt. However, major corporations took over many medium-sized and small companies, allowing them to survive [9]. In 1933, adolf Hitler came to power in Germany and the Nazi government boosted the economy with its demand for military products. alongside public utility works, military plants grew in number and the country experienced economic growth. Fascist Germany plunged the world into an armament drive. Soon, world War II was in motion. Who would want to repeat such a solution to the global economic crisis?

[9]. Roosevelt's "New Deal" program pulled the USa out of the Great Depression. In the 1930s, the USa turned from "free market competition" and "free enterprise" to a mixed economy - deliberately regulated by the government.

With active state interference, Germany, France, the UK and others have also successfully survived the global economic crisis.

(3) Nations everywhere, including Russia, need to stimulate demand for innovation production (caused by our modern scientific and technological revolution) at a macroeconomic level. This is the only reasonable way to overcome the world's economic depression. Innovation-based development opens up the board for globalisation of the scientific and technical, as well as the organisation and administration of social processes. This is our route to creating a homogenised world community, with production following long term demand - being microelectronic-based, automated and flexible, as well as environmentally friendly. It would be controlled from a cybernetic centre allowing us to truly say: Homo-mensura -"Man is the measure of all things".

Unfortunately, we can hardly imagine our future in all its technological glory. Scientists continue to debate the form our future will take. However, we should discount nothing since all things are possible. The future is steadily making its way towards every one of us - including Russia.

Which is the right path - one that will prevent holocaust and wasted effort? Surely, it is that which is logical and draws from past experience [10]. world history has much to teach us regarding the past, present and future.

[10]. In the early 1920s, Oswald Spengler - a famous German philosopher, historian and founder of modern philosophy - wrote his world-known best-seller "Decline of the West". He was the first to predict the future with some accuracy. He saw: 'It is evident that no one has yet realised a solution to such an immense problem. If they have realised a solution, perhaps they lack the necessary means or have used their resources badly'. Spengler understood that the future of European culture would be based on world history. It was not by accident that the Great German posed a question at the very beginning of his masterpiece: 'Is there any logic in history?' Unfortunately, the distinguished scholar left no scientific ground for this logic.

Objective logic is evident in world historical processes but world history logic lacks a theoretical basis. The future is an uncertain path. This makes it difficult to give scientific explanations for social development - including the global economic depression of today.

The history of humanity derives from the history of development: science, technology, national identity, economics, legal, politics and spiritual culture. It is easiest to discuss logical theories where there is a scientific base and where we accept that the spheres of science, technology, national identity, economics, politics, legal and spirituality are interconnected.

Science finds application in technology and the form of the technology preconditions the development of society - such is the objective logic of world history [11].

[11]. The logic of history specified by us (via science - technology - society) is abstract. This abstract chain is subject to detailed specification.

If we understand the objective logic of world history, we can comprehend the overall strategy of human development. We can correctly evaluate our past, present and future while scientifically determining the historical place of our modern global economic depression. We can then visualise how to overcome it.

To our deep regret, it's impossible to identify the objective logic of world history in terms of science. Our lack of knowledge concerning this logic has scientists from all over the world unable to formulate a strategic CONCEPT of world society development (and how it is used by the ruling elite to direct actions). Famous american sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein states: 'It seems to me that we roam a sombre forest, not understanding which direction to follow. I deem that we need to discuss our path together as soon as possible at world level' (see: I. Wallerstein - "The End of the world as We Know It. Social Science for the 21st Century". - M.: Logos, 2003, S. H). The words of the great 19th century Russian dramatist alexander Ostrovsky ring true for our times: 'Sure, we move forward, and we find ourselves somewhere, but we - like those who lead us - don't know where. What will be the result?" It is a classic truth.

The main feature of our times is that social reformers lack a scientific conceptual idea of the natural and historic logic of world development: scientific and technical, economic, political, legal, spiritual and cultural. What should be objective in the history of humanity - including Russia - remains locked behind seven seals. The authorities have absolutely no scientific or ideological concept to explain world society development. They act - politically and economically - by blind experimentation, with shocking results - extravagant and ugly.

The mind boggles. For a quarter of a century, Russia - without a strategic scientifically grounded CONCEPT of revival and development - has moved with the times towards an unknowable future. The thinking behind its actions remains *****ssia is troubled by the questions: "What to do?", "Where to go?", "Is the time coming?" etc.

Today Russians often moan: 'it's absolutely illogical', 'we steer by guess and by God', 'we rush and run', 'a government that leads the country in the wrong direction loses the right to rule'. (from materials read).

At best, the powers that be offer our society a random, fragmentary strategy, which will prove ineffectual. Plans for economic, socio-political development in Russia, as a general rule, are conflicting. They lack scientific foundation, being based on tactics rather than outcome. Resolving private questions rather than key areas will not gain us much.

Russia's industrial crisis is gathering steam, with the ruling elite unable to prevent the fall of industry, unemployment, inflation, poverty, criminalisation and corruption of public authorities. The authorities have no way out. However, the answer is so clear. In order to change something in Russia, we must be governed by strong reputable authority with a prevailing intellectual side.

Well-informed Russians think we can break through the global economic crisis with a President who:

Understands objective logic regarding world historical processes, comprehending the essence of the problem in the context of history: scientific and technical, economic, political, legal, spiritual and cultural;

Understands the ideological and strategic CONCEPTION of development and the renaissance of Russia, in compliance with the objective logic of world historical processes;

Has a plan to implement operational-tactical PROGRAMS (short, medium and long term) in scientific and technical, economic, political, legal, spiritual and cultural spheres, leading to the renaissance of RUSSIa. These PROGRaMS should be developed in compliance with the scientific-ideological CONCEPTION for the creation of a NEW Russia.

Without this, the country will face a dull future - a vegetable existence in the footnotes of Universal Progress.