I liked it when he said, "These cases are complicated and difficult to prosecute, but if you're serious
about doing them, you can." Doesn't that describe the situation perfectly? It can be done if we set our minds to it. We need
to get started and make that happen.
Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
The modern power elites thrive by forgetting any regrettable past. This amnesia is easy at Harvard, where the
legal fiduciaries operate in secret and need not answer for their acts. They are the antipodes of the selfless institutional servants
who built Harvard and other great American enterprises, and they bear close watching.
Under supervision of Harvard mafia Russian economy has all but collapsed, the class of oligarchs emerged, population
standard of living slided to Central African levels and its infrastructure and key assets were looted at bargain basement prices.
Many fail to to see that the 1990's 'economic shock therapy' as a deliberate attempt to push Russia into total
capitulation. And that CIA played an important role in this effort. While economic hit man (aka academic Mafiosi) like Andrei
Shleifer were not probably directly on CIA payroll, they were essentially a part of the well planned and well financed
operation for the destruction of Russian economy. Whether they plan to create in Russia mafia state which was result on shock
therapy is unclear, but the net result was just this.
A interesting rogues’ gallery of international financial criminals with high academic degrees who got their education in Harvard
(Harvard mafia in a broad sense) owes its existence to the dissolution of the USSR and subsequent financial crisis. The level of corruption
and rent seeking behaviors of those individuals is really breathtaking. The term "mafia" is not rhetorical overshoot: they are
mafia in a very precise meaning of this word: the mafia at its
core is about one thing -- money (see also Russian board game
Mafia). Like in a typical Mafioso family there is an ethnic core and a hierarchy, with higher-ranking members making decisions that
trickle down to the other members of the family. And its policies are always about oppression, arrogance, greed, self-enrichment, power
and hegemony above and against all others. Harvard mafia was the the first wave of Mafiosi style figures intelligence agencies used
-- Browder
was another very interesting example of the same.
The personal story of Andrei Shleifer in Russia is a classic story of "academic extortion": betrayal of trust and academic principles by Harvard
professor of economics (probably not without the influence of his wife, hedge fund manager Nancy Zimmerman, longtime friend of
Larry Summers). While the guy
was just a pawn in a big game run by intelligence agencies, the issues of criminality of economists acting as economic hitmen and
relevance of RICO statute against such offences is a much bigger issue:
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within
a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those
found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition,
the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity."
RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a
civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect
treble damages.
... ... ...
On March 29, 1989, financier Michael Milken was indicted
on 98 counts of racketeering and fraud relating to an investigation into
insider trading and other offenses. Milken was accused
of using a wide-ranging network of contacts to manipulate stock and bond prices. It was one of the first occasions that
a RICO indictment was brought against an individual with no ties to organized crime. Milken pled guilty to six lesser offenses rather
than face spending the rest of his life in prison.
There is a disturbingly deep analogy between Harvard University (which had been benevolently charged with just breach of contract
by the US government) and Michel Milken activities. Later as a whitewash Shleifer and another Harvard mafia associate, Jonathan Hay, were charged with conspiracy
to defraud the U.S. government. As a slap on the wrist Shleifer was stripped of honorary title "Whipple V.N. Jones Professor of Economics" due to
"ethics violation",
but he managed to preserve his position at the university due to Summers protection (Larry
Summers A Suicidal Choice - Mark Ames).
How close were Larry Summers and Andrei Schleifer? According to former Boston Globe economics correspondent
David Warsh, Summers and Schleifer “were
among each other’s best friends,” and Summers taught Schleifer “as an undergraduate, sent him on to MIT for his PhD, took him along
on an advisory mission to Lithuania in 1990, and in 1991, shepherded his return to Harvard as full professor, where he was regarded,
after Martin Feldstein and Summers, as the leader of the next generation.”
The furor about Andrei Shleifer shadow dealings in Russia contributed to the ouster of Summers from the Harvard presidency. It also
exposed sad fact that neoclassic economics represents a dangerous sect which, if not exactly mafia, is pretty much borderline phenomenon.
Somewhat similar with Lysenkoism
The cynical view is that "Rape of Russia" was a Mafiosi style operation, which was conducted using as Trojan horses special class
of Mafiosi -- academic economics. This might well have been the intent (in best "disaster capitalism" style of thinking). Instead of helping
post-Soviet nations develop self-reliant economies, writes Marshall Auerback,
“the West has viewed them as economic oysters to be broken up to indebt them in order to extract interest charges and capital
gains, leaving them empty shells.”
Corruption and local oligarchy were natural allies of this process which was, in essence, the process of Latin-Americanization of
post Soviet space. And off-shore safe heavens were the tool. They partially failed in Russia as some of the most notorious deals of
this periods (especially in mineral recourses and oil areas) were reversed in 2000-2008, but were quite successful in Ukraine, Georgia,
Latvia and several other post Soviet republics. The external debt of those is just staggering. As Professor Michael Hudson noted:
It may be time to look once again at what Larry Summers and his Rubinomics gang did in Russia in the mid-1990s and to Third World
countries during his tenure as World Bank economist to see what kind of future is being planned for the U.S. economy over the
next few years.
Throughout the Soviet Union the neoliberal model established “equilibrium” in a way that involved demographic collapse: shortening
life spans, lower birth rates, alcoholism and drug abuse, psychological depression, suicides, bad health, unemployment and homelessness
for the elderly (the neoliberal mode of Social Security reform).
I echo lambert’s and scraping by’s sentiments. The economics profession is not about an analysis of our economy that can make
reasonable predictions about it. Economics and economists are enablers of the con and validators of kleptocracy.
They say the many must make do with less and do not say that the result of this policy will be the few will have more.
These are not innocent, unworldly types tied to outdated and obsolete ideas. They are abettors and apologists for the
greatest economic crimes in human history. We should call and treat them for what they are: criminals. Kleptocracy is
not a some time thing. It is not a label you apply occasionally. Kleptocracy is a system. The looters can’t function without corrupt
politicians, a complacent propagandizing media, or complicit enabling academics. With kleptocracy, there is no middle ground.
You either stand with the looters or their victims. I think this is the critical choice we all must make.
Q: Is it really plausible that economists threaten top banks that in the absence of some kind of payoff, they will change
the theories they teach in a direction that is less favorable to the banks?
A: There are certainly cases in history of the following sequence:
a. Economist E espouses views that are less favorable to certain special interest groups S. Doing so threatens the ability
of S to extract rent from the public.
b. Later, E changes his view, thereby withdrawing the prior threat.
c. Still later, E is paid large amounts of money by representatives of S in exchange for services that do not appear particularly
onerous.
For example, let E = Larry Summers and let S = the financial services industry. In 1989 E was (a) a supporter of the Tobin tax,
which threatened to reduce the rent extracted by S. This threat was apparently later withdrawn (b), and in 2008 E was paid $5.2 million
(c) in exchange for working at the hedge fund D. E. Shaw (an element of S) for one day a week.
However, it is naturally more difficult to witness the negotiations in which specific threats were appeased with specific future
payouts. This is a problem that also bedevils Public Choice theory, in which it is likewise difficult to show exactly how a particular
politician is remunerated in exchange for threatening businesses with anti-business legislation. The theory assures us that such
negotiations occur, although they are difficult to observe directly. Perhaps further theoretical advances will help us to close this
gap.
Q: Isn’t it offensive to assume that economists, for motives of personal gain, shade their theoretical allegiances in the
directions preferred by powerful interest groups?
A: How could it ever be offensive to assume that a person acts rationally in pursuit of maximizing his or her own utility? I’m
afraid I don’t understand this question.
Disappearance of a formidable opponent of unrestricted looting of developing countries that USSR formally represented on the the
world scene essentially released all moral stops and considerations both inside the USA and outside. The triumph of
neoliberalism
And former USSR republics were the first victims of new super-aggressive
neoliberal "new normal". Despite crocodile tears about corruption, our world is being reshaped, in sinister fashion,
by wide open capital markets and an international banking network that exists to launder hundreds of billions of dollars in ill-gotten
gains stolen by government officials and oligarchs in "weaker" countries. In other words, corruption is an immanent feature and principal
tool of neoliberalism in developing countries and xUSSR area.
In a broad sense the term Harvard mafia means corrupt (mostly neoclassical and supply side) academic economists which
enjoy revolving door with government and get most of the income from the financial services industry. There are multiple documented
examples when their activity was pretty close to activities regulated by RICO statute. Recent film of Charles Ferguson
Inside Job is nice illustration of behavior of those predators in academic
clothing
In a narrow sense Harvard mafia is the team of (mainly) neoclassical economists and "experts" who disastrously advised
the Russian government on conversion of centrally managed "command economy" to more Western model in the 1990s. While Harvard mafia
is probably the most notorious in its like to the economic rape of Russia, Chicago University economic school probably played a similar
role for the USA. In this sense we can speak about Chicago economists mafia as well (what a surprise ;-)
Under pretext of showing the Russians how to convert command type economy to neoliberal model, and how to controls corruption, the
gang-style rape of the country was inflicted on its unsuspecting citizens with poverty raising from 2% to 40% of the population.
World have witnessed Russia losing half of its total output, plunging it into a depression deeper than the U.S. Great Depression.
Please read
Anne Williamson’s testimony. Here is one quote:
From the perspective of the many millions of her children, Mother Russia in late 1991 was like an old woman, skirts yanked above
her waist, who had been abandoned flat on her back at a muddy crossroads, the object of others’ scorn, greed and unseemly curiosity.
It is the Russian people who kept their wits about them, helped her to her feet, dusted her off, straightened her clothing, righted
her head scarf and it is they who can restore her dignity – not Boris Yeltsin, not Anatole Chubais, not Boris Berezovsky nor any
of the other aspirants to power. And it is the Russian people – their abilities, efforts and dreams – which comprise the Russian
economy, not those of Vladimir Potanin or Viktor Chernomyrdin or Mikhail Khodorkovsky or Vladimir Gusinsky. And that is where we
should have placed our bet – on the Russian people – and our stake should have been the decency, the common sense and abilities of
our own citizens realized not through multilateral lending but through the use of tax credits for direct investment in the Russian
economy and the training of Russian workers on 6-month to one year stints at the U.S. offices of American firms in conjunction with
the elimination of U.S. tariffs on Russian goods.
The collapse of the USSR was by-and-large caused by internal problems and betrayal of nomenklatura which quickly understood that
new neoliberal regime is more profitable for them that command-style economy (although role of financed by West wave of nationalism
and West imposed technological isolation should not be underestimated). BTW this myth that Reagan administration won the Cold War is
still current.
After the dissolution of the USA, there was a vacuum of ideology in Russia and it was successfully filled with Harvard promoted neoliberalism
and associated neo-classical economics. This was a powerful fifths column, oriented on helping the West to extract as much wealth from
Russia as possible was created. The USA essentially forced Russians into so called shock therapy using Harvard academic mafia (plan
was authored by Jeffrey Sachs who was lecturer at Harvard and implemented by Larry Summers protégé, Russian émigré Shleifer and several
other Harvard academic brats with a couple of British poodles to make the gang international) and
internal compradors in Yelstin government as fifth
column. As a result poverty level jumped from 2% to 40%. Everything that can be stolen, was stolen by implementation of rapid privatization
policy. During the heydays of corrupt Yeltsin regime implementation of shock therapy GDP dropped 50%. Suicide rate doubled, life expectancy
for males dropped below 60 years (12,8% death rate increase), homeless children which were unknown in the USSR became mass feature of
new social order.
The key seller of shock therapy was about Harvard Mafiosi, Professor Jeffrey Sachs who was a prominent neoliberal who because his
role in destruction of Russian economics, contributed to immense sufferings in Bolivia, Chili, Poland and several other countries.
Instead of something like Marshall plan, a merciless ands unlawful grab of capital and national resources was successfully implemented
in less then five year period after the dissolution. This was an amazingly greedy and short-sited policy by Clinton administration.
To rephrase Talleyrand, it was worse then a crime, it was a blunder. As Otto von Bismarck advised long ago:
Do not expect that once taken advantage of Russia's weakness, you will receive dividends forever. Russian always come for their
money. And when they come - do not rely on the Jesuit agreement you signed, you are supposed to justify. They are not worth the paper
it is written. Therefore, with the Russian stands or play fair, or no play.
Let's hope that the USA will be protected by Providence from the consequences of this blunder because as Otto von Bismarck suggested
"There is a providence to that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America". Otherwise, the level of
anger felt by wide strata of Russian people (almost everybody outside of fifth column) can materialize into something really tragic.
In Russian history, a generation that has taken a beating is often followed by a generation that deals one. In a way Putin is already
a certain punishment, but the possibility of coming to power a real Russian nationalist instead of "resource nationalist" is not out
the realm of possibilities ;-)
Now Professor Jeffrey Sachs repainted himself from a sharky promoted of "shock therapy" into the Director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet
Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University. Here is an apt comment about
this member of Harvard mafia (
NYT, 2009)
Arsen Azizyan
I grew up cold and hungry in the former Soviet republic of Armenia during the shock therapy years of the 90′s; my grandfather
was one of the 3 million who died prematurely during those days (incorrect medication and power outages did him in).
I would very much like to tie Mr. Jeffrey Sachs to a chair and slowly force-feed him every worthless page of every idiotic
policy paper he’s ever written. I believe that would justly mirror the diet that I had to subsist on for a number of years
during my childhood and adolescence.
He still insists that Yeltsin, rather than his American advisors, was responsible for the fact that the privatization policy amounted
in practice to the theft by a handful of favored apparatchiks of the industries previously ran – in its own inimitably corrupt fashion
– by the state. As former World Bank economist David Ellerman noted it was the speed of the privatization which made such an outcome
inevitable stating that
“Only the mixture of American triumphalism and academic arrogance could have produced such a lethal dose of gall.”
Janine R. Wedel in
The Harvard Boys Do Russia (The Nation, May 14, 1998) wrote the following about extremely damaging for the USA (in a long run) and
Russia (forever) policies Harvard mafia pursued:
"After seven years of economic "reform" financed by billions of dollars in U.S. and other Western aid, subsidized loans and rescheduled
debt, the majority of Russian people find themselves worse off economically. The privatization drive that was supposed to reap the
fruits of the free market instead helped to create a system of tycoon capitalism run for the benefit of a corrupt political oligarchy
that has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars of Western aid and plundered Russia's wealth. The architect of privatization
was former First Deputy Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais, a darling of the U.S. and Western financial establishments. Chubais's
drastic and corrupt stewardship made him extremely unpopular. According to The New York Times, he "may be the most despised
man in Russia." Essential to the implementation of Chubais's policies was the enthusiastic support of the Clinton
Administration and its key representative for economic assistance in Moscow, the Harvard Institute for International Development.
Using the prestige of Harvard's name and connections in the Administration, H.I.I.D. officials acquired virtual carte blanche
over the U.S. economic aid program to Russia, with minimal oversight by the government agencies involved. With this access and their
close alliance with Chubais and his circle, they allegedly profited on the side. Yet few Americans are aware of H.I.I.D.'s
role in Russian privatization, and its suspected misuse of taxpayers' funds.
At the recent U.S.-Russian Investment Symposium at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, Yuri Luzhkov, the Mayor of
Moscow, made what might have seemed to many an impolite reference to his hosts. After castigating Chubais and his monetarist
policies, Luzhkov, according to a report of the event, "singled out Harvard for the harm inflicted on the Russian economy by
its advisers, who encouraged Chubais's misguided approach to privatization and monetarism." Luzhkov was referring to H.I.I.D.
Chubais, who was delegated vast powers over the economy by Boris Yeltsin, was ousted in Yeltsin's March purge, but in May
he was given an immensely lucrative post as head of Unified Energy System, the country's electricity monopoly.
Some of the main actors with Harvard's Russia project have yet to face a reckoning, but this may change if a current investigation
by the U.S. government results in prosecutions. The activities of H.I.I.D. in Russia provide some cautionary lessons on abuse of
trust by supposedly disinterested foreign advisers, on U.S. arrogance and on the entire policy of support for a single Russian group
of so-called reformers. The H.I.I.D. story is a familiar one in the ongoing saga of U.S. foreign policy disasters created by those
said to be our "best and brightest." Through the late summer and fall of 1991, as the Soviet state fell apart, Harvard Professor
Jeffrey Sachs and other Western economists participated in meetings at a dacha outside Moscow where young, pro-Yeltsin reformers
planned Russia's economic and political future. Sachs teamed up with Yegor Gaidar, Yeltsin's first architect of economic
reform, to promote a plan of "shock therapy" to swiftly eliminate most of the price controls and subsidies that had underpinned life
for Soviet citizens for decades. Shock therapy produced more shock--not least, hyperinflation that hit 2,500 percent--than
therapy.
One result was the evaporation of much potential investment capital: the substantial savings of Russians. By November 1992,
Gaidar was under attack for his failed policies and was soon pushed aside ...
I.I.D. had supporters high in the Administration. One was Lawrence Summers, himself a former Harvard economics professor,
whom Clinton named Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs in 1993. Summers, now Deputy Treasury Secretary,
had longstanding ties to the principals of Harvard's project in Russia and its later project in Ukraine. Summers hired a Harvard
Ph.D., David Lipton (who had been vice president of Jeffrey D. Sachs and Associates, a consulting firm), to be Deputy
Assistant Treasury Secretary for Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. After Summers was promoted to Deputy Secretary,
Lipton moved into Summers's old job, assuming "broad responsibility" for all aspects of international economic policy
development. Lipton co-wrote numerous papers with Sachs and served with him on consulting missions in Poland and Russia.
"Jeff and David always came [to Russia] together," said a Russian representative at the International Monetary Fund.
"They were like an inseparable couple." Sachs, who was named director of H.I.I.D. in 1995, lobbied for and received U.S.A.I.D. grants
for the institute to work in Ukraine in 1996 and 1997 ...
Andrei Shleifer, a Russian-born emigre and already a tenured professor of economics at Harvard in his early 30s, became
director of H.I.I.D.'s Russia project. Shleifer was also a protege of Summers, with whom he received at least one foundation
grant ...
Another Harvard player was a former World Bank consultant named Jonathan Hay, a Rhodes scholar who had attended Moscow's
Pushkin Institute for Russian Language. In 1991, while still at Harvard Law School, he had become a senior legal adviser to the G.K.I.,
the Russian state's new privatization committee; the following year he was made H.I.I.D.'s general director in Moscow. The youthful
Hay assumed vast powers over contractors, policies and program specifics; he not only controlled access to the Chubais
circle but served as its mouthpiece ...
With help from his H.I.I.D. advisers and other Westerners, Chubais and his cronies set up a network of aid-funded "private"
organizations that enabled them to bypass legitimate government agencies and circumvent the new parliament of the Russian Federation,
the Duma.
Through this network, two of Chubais's associates, Maxim Boycko (who co-wrote Privatizing Russia with Shleifer) and Dmitry
Vasiliev, oversaw almost a third of a billion dollars in aid money and millions more in loans from international financial institutions
...
The device of setting up private organizations backed by the power of the Yeltsin government and maintaining close ties to H.I.I.D.
was a way of insuring deniability. Shleifer, Hay and other Harvard principals, all U.S. citizens, were "Russian" when
convenient. Hay, for example, served alternately and sometimes simultaneously as aid contractor, manager of other contractors and
representative of the Russian government ... Against the backdrop of Russia's Klondike capitalism, which they were helping create
and Chubais and his team were supposedly regulating, the H.I.I.D. advisers exploited their intimate ties with Chubais and the government
and were allegedly able to conduct business activities for their own enrichment. According to sources close to the U.S. government's
investigation, Hay used his influence, as well as U.S.A.I.D.-financed resources, to help his girlfriend, Elizabeth Hebert, set up
a mutual fund, Pallada Asset Management, in Russia ... After Pallada was set up, Hebert, Hay, Shleifer and Vasiliev looked for ways
to continue their activities as aid funds dwindled. Using I.L.B.E. resources and funding, they established a private consulting firm
with taxpayer money. One of the firm's first clients was Shleifer's wife, Nancy Zimmerman, who operated a Boston-based
hedge fund that traded heavily in Russian bonds.
According to Russian registration documents, Zimmerman's company set up a Russian firm with Sergei Shishkin, the I.L.B.E.
chief, as general director. Corporate documents on file in Moscow showed that the address and phone number of the company and the
I.L.B.E. were the same. Then there is the First Russian Specialized Depository, which holds the records and assets of mutual fund
investors. This institution, funded by a World Bank loan, also worked to the benefit of Hay, Vasiliev, Hebert and another associate,
Julia Zagachin. According to sources close to the U.S. government's investigation, Zagachin, an American married to a Russian, was
selected to run the depository even though she lacked the required capital ...
Anne Williamson, a journalist who specializes in Soviet and Russian affairs, details these and other conflicts of interest between
H.I.I.D.'s advisers and their supposed clients--the Russian people--in her forthcoming book, How America Built the New Russian
Oligarchy. For example, in 1995, in Chubais-organized insider auctions of prime national properties, known as loans-for-shares,
the Harvard Management Company (H.M.C.), which invests the university's endowment, and billionaire speculator George Soros
were the only foreign entities allowed to participate. H.M.C. and Soros became significant shareholders in Novolipetsk, Russia's
second-largest steel mill, and Sidanko Oil, whose reserves exceed those of Mobil. H.M.C. and Soros also invested in Russia's
high-yielding, I.M.F.-subsidized domestic bond market.
Even more dubious, according to Williamson, was Soros's July 1997 purchase of 24 percent of Sviazinvest, the telecommunications
giant, in partnership with Uneximbank's Vladimir Potanin. It was later learned that shortly before this purchase Soros had tided
over Yeltsin's government with a backdoor loan of hundreds of millions of dollars while the government was awaiting proceeds of a
Eurobond issue; the loan now appears to have been used by Uneximbank to purchase Norilsk Nickel in August 1997. According to Williamson,
the U.S. assistance program in Russia was rife with such conflicts of interest involving H.I.I.D. advisers and their U.S.A.I.D.-funded
Chubais allies, H.M.C. managers, favored Russian bankers, Soros and insider expatriates working in Russia's nascent markets
...
Despite exposure of this corruption in the Russian media (and, far more hesitantly, in the U.S. media), the H.I.I.D.-Chubais clique
remained until recently the major instrument of U.S. economic aid policy to Russia. It even used the high-level Gore-Chernomyrdin
Commission, which helped orchestrate the cooperation of U.S.-Russian oil deals and the Mir space station. The commission's now-defunct
Capital Markets Forum was chaired on the Russian side by Chubais and Vasiliev, and on the U.S. side by S.E.C. chairman
Arthur Levitt Jr. and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.
Andrei Shleifer was named special coordinator to all four of the Capital Markets Forum's working subgroups. Hebert,
Hay's girlfriend, served on two of the subgroups, as did the C.E.O.s of Salomon Brothers, Merrill Lynch and other powerful Wall
Street investment houses. When The Nation contacted the S.E.C. for information about Capital Markets, we were told to call Shleifer
for comment. Shleifer, who is under investigation by U.S.A.I.D.'s inspector general for misuse of funds, declined to be interviewed
for this article. A U.S. Treasury spokesman said Shleifer and Hebert were appointed to Capital Markets by the Chubais group--specifically,
according to other sources, by Dmitry Vasiliev."
Several problems with Harvard academic advisors behavior during Russian privatization program were outlined by Adil Rustomjee (Yale
University) in the letter to Johnson’s Russia List :
From: [email protected] (Adil Rustomjee)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 13:18:14 EDT
Subject: Role of foreign advisers in the Russian Privatization Program.
From: Adil Rustomjee, Yale University, 135 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511
Email: [email protected]
Dear David,
Many thanks for your superb news service. Johnson's Russia List is fast becoming an excellent resource for those who work, who
have worked on, or who just share a fascination with that disturbing country. I am writing this letter to humbly suggest a research
topic that should be of great interest to JRLs readers. It is a subject that deserves better treatment than that received to date.
The topic itself is the exact role of foreign advisers in the Russian Privatization Program.
It is a marvelous tale waiting to be plainly told. The Russian Privatization Program, despite its subsequent vilification, ranks
as one of the great experiments at social engineering in the twentieth century. It attempted an authoritative allocation of property
rights - and consequently of power - within society on a scale never attempted before. It is therefore a very significant historical
process, more significant in the long reach of events than even Stalin's collectivization campaigns of the 1930s. It deserves
its own Robert Conquest.
The process itself went through two distinct phases - the voucher phase, and what for want of a better word, we call the "loans
for shares" phase. It is the "loans for shares" phase of the program that has attracted the most attention, primarily because of
its spectacular abuse by Russia's oligarchs. The real story is in the first voucher stage of the process and the dubious principles
it was based on.
The entire voucher program was a product of foreign economic advice. Consider the basic timeline. The Soviet Union
itself was dissolved in December 1991. In June 1992, the crucial document governing the voucher privatization effort came out - the
State Privatization Program. This seminal document outlined the basic concepts behind the voucher phase of the program. It also rationalized
what became a state sponsored giveaway of Russia's national patrimony to the country's managers. The implementation of the State
Privatization Program document took a little over two years. By June 1994, Anatoly Chubias , Russia's privatization chief, was announcing
the end of the voucher program. In a scant two years, Russia had gone from a communist country with no private sector, to a country
with a private sector - that on paper at least - was larger than Italy's !!! Such progress could never have been possible without
substantial foreign economic advice. It is a commonplace that privatization is essentially a "learning by doing" process.
Russia could never have gone through a learning curve in such a short time span. Its reformers basically rubberstamped a
scheme conceived by Western economists in the crucial 6 month period between December 1991 and June 1992.
Yet despite this, the precise story of the economists behind the entire effort has not been told. Good attempts have been made
by Janine Wedel and Anne Williamson - and I will discuss them later - but from a technical standpoint, the story has yet to be told
well.
Who were these advisors and what did they achieve? Three groups of actors may be identified - academic economists, bureaucrats
from the World Bank, and Western consulting firms. A close examination of the interaction between these three groups itself
will offer interesting insights into the birth and dissemination of ideas. For the major ideas behind the Russian program came
from a group of academics - many associated with Harvard. These ideas were picked up in the early years and became established "transition
economics" orthodoxy at the World Bank. The substantial implementation of the basic ideas was carried out by consulting firms like
the Big Six working (often) on USAID contracts.
This is as it should be. Academia is usually the source of the most original thinking on economics. International bureaucrats
- particularly those associated with the World Bank - are surprisingly timid and cautious people. They are institutionally incapable
of boldness - and great audacity was called for in the Russia of 1992.
Was this boldness misplaced? I believe it was. A rational examination of the process will, I suspect, lead to a damning
indictment of Russia's foreign advisors.They created desolation and called it reform. The defining feature
of the program was based on remarkably dubious ideas. Foremost among these was the belief that privatization was a series of payoffs
- or bribes, as one of its leading advocates, Harvard's Andrei Shleifer, called it - to various " stakeholders" in the program. Given
an uncertain legal environment and some
appropriation of state assets by these stakeholders, - euphemistically referred to as "spontaneous privatization" - , better to legalize
what was believed to be a trough feeding frenzy. This was the program's dominant idea.
There is little empirical evidence from the early years about the exact extent of " spontaneous privatization". Anecdotal evidence
abounds, especially from many near - hysterical accounts of the early 90s but the actual empirical evidence is slender. The decisions
to sell a great nation's patrimony - a one shot historical phenomenon with irreversible long range implications - were basically
conceived within a six month time frame by a bunch of frightened foreigners, using dubious assumptions, with little basis in empirical
understanding. Astonishing.
The actual privatization was accomplished through basically giving away large segments of Russian assets - and consequently
cash flows - to these stakeholders. The most notable insider stakeholders - the managers - ended up the biggest winners.
They ended up owning most of Russian industry. This august group, more often than not, makes the Marx Brothers seem like models of
German efficiency. For a variety of reasons, insider-owned firms are very inefficient, and indeed a long list of papers from the
Bank - Fund complex testifies to this. Consequently, Russia is today reaping the whirlwind of its privatization policy. The long
delayed supply-side response of the economy, that is supposed to be led by these insider-owned firms, simply refuses to happen.
To round out this stupidity ( and to make it theoretically neater), the advisors had to deal with the problem of insider
ownership. They dealt with it in time honored economist fashion - they assumed it away. This was done by trotting out that most venerable
of economic propositions - something called the Coase Theorem. In a series of seminal papers written at Chicago in the thirties,
Ronald Coase reached a blindingly obvious conclusion on property rights. He proved that the initial allocation - or misallocation
- of property rights would not matter as long as those rights could be traded till they found their highest valued end use. In other
words, the advisors told the Russians, "Sure, we're making second-best or third-best policy choices on privatization , but hey guys,
it doesn't matter. Through the magic of Coase, even if we misallocated the rights, they'll trade up to their highest valued end user,
and we'll all live happily ever after ". Consequently, nothing mattered except getting the assets away from the government (depoliticization)
and into the "private sector", thereby allowing
the Coase Theorem to work its magic.
The Russians believed this nonsense. The problems with using Coase as a rationale were commonsensical : too much monopoly
power in the Russian economy and the fact that Coase himself never had anything remotely resembling Russia in mind, when he formulated
the theorem. More crucially, capital markets which would be needed to trade property rights to their highest valued end use,
were nonexistent or nascent, and continue to be so. One marvels at the Russians' own capacity for advice of this nature. My
comfort is philosophical : It has often been said of the Russians, that they exhibit in extreme form, certain universal characteristics
of the human condition.
Perhaps this tendency to extremes applies to their propensity for social engineering too.
In response to critiques of their advice, the foreign advisors resort to a "burden of proof " defense. In other words, they say,
" What a pity it's a mess and had to be this way, but you'll have to prove it could have been otherwise". It is this "proving otherwise"
that is a key issue. " Proving otherwise" would require a person with substantial economic expertise. Unfortunately most of the critiques
of the advisors in Russia have come from people outside the economics community, which on Russia is quite tight knit.
Janine Wedel and Anne Williamson have made good first attempts . But given the enormity of the catastrophe in Russia that the
advice has wrought, the definitive account will have to be from a person with some economic stature.
Who were these people anyway ? They include, Wedel and Williamson point out, Andrei Shleifer a Harvard economics professor,
Jonathan Hay a freshly minted Harvard Law graduate, and Makim Boycko who was their man in Moscow. Shleifer, a Russian emigrant who
remains a tenured professor at Harvard, must have possessed the great advantage of speaking native Russian. In December 1991, Shleifer
on a World Bank consultancy authored a paper titled Privatization in Russia - First Steps. It is, I believe, the first systematic
attempt at outlining the program's defining feature - privatization as a series of payoffs (or bribes as he called it) to key stakeholders
in the process.
Later explications of the basic idea may be found in articles he co-authored with Robert Vishny on the process. Both the unpublished
document and later articles remarkably parallel the basic philosophy of the State Privatization Program of June 1992.
A sense of moral outrage over the effects of their policies - while a great temptation - has to be avoided at all costs. This
is especially difficult when one considers that the principal protagonists - Andrei Shleifer and Jonathan Hay - are under investigation
for alleged insider trading and conflicts of interest in Russia. [ GAO and USAID having found that they "abused the trust of the
US government " etc ]. The temptation might therefore be to focus on that entire shabby episode as Wedel and Williamson have done
( in part, but only in part). There is no need for this. The charges are unproven. Besides the amounts Shleifer and Hay are
accused of improperly dealing in, are a pittance, compared to the wholesale thievery their ideas sanctioned. The real story
is in the voucher scheme they designed and implemented. Told coldly, rationally, and solely concerned with the truth, it will still
be a great story. Behind the story after all, loom the long shadows of the millions of Russians whose lives were effected by
these disastrous policies. They deserve the truth.
Will the story be told with integrity. I am afraid not. There are too many reputations and too much credibility at stake. The
usual candidate would be someone of stature in academia. This is not really an option. The old Kremlinologists have been largely
rendered irrelevant by the pace of events and are struggling to retool themselves. The younger economists who work on Russia, who
have access to the data and hands-on experience, are the least likely candidates given the devastating outcomes of the policies they
advocated. Self serving rationalizations with little intellectual integrity are all that can be expected from this group. Witness
for example, Anders Aslunds' comic absurdity "How Russia became a Market Economy". If Russia is a market economy, then I,
sir, am a monkey's uncle -- Finally it would be too much to expect the protagonists themselves - Shleifer and his collaborators -
to say " We were wrong, terribly wrong". An old man named Robert McNamara looking back on his life, said that about a war that ended
twenty five years back, and look at the condemnation that brought him. It would be too much to expect Shleifer and the others - all
reportedly in their late thirties and early forties - to make such an admission.
The World Bank is another candidate, but they will distort the tale. The Bank's division that does such studies - the Operations
Evaluation Department - will use the standard bureaucratic boiler plate it excels at. Besides the Bank itself picked up the substantial
ideas and policies from the Harvard group, and has its own credibility at stake. While some hand wringing can be expected, so can
a less than zealous concern for the truth. Besides, even if it is honest, the drama of the story will be lost in the telling.
... ... ...
The reasons of such a behavior by Andrei Shleifer and other players "on the ground" probably run deeper. As Stefan Lemieszewski noted
in his letter to Johnson's Russia List:
The failure of these IMF/World Bank/State/Treasury programs should not come as a surprise. Economists such as Michel Chossudovsky
(University of Ottawa) go further and suggest that they are by design. In his book, "The Globalization of Poverty:
Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms" Chossudovsky writes:
"The IMF-Yeltsin reforms constitute an instrument of "Thirdworldisation"; they are a carbon copy of the structural
adjustment programme imposed on debtor countries in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs,
advisor to the Russian government, had applied in Russia the same 'macro-economic surgery' as in Bolivia where he was economic
advisor to the MNR government in 1985.
The IMF-World Bank programme adopted in the name of democracy constitutes a coherent programme of impoverishment of large
sectors of the population.
It was designed (in theory) to 'stabilize' the economy, yet consumer prices in 1992 increased by more than one hundred times (9,900
per cent) as a direct result of the "anti-inflationary programme". As in Third World 'stabilization programme', the inflationary
process was largely engineered through the 'dollarization' of domestic prices and the collapse of the national currency.
The 'price liberalization programme' did not, however, resolve (as proposed by the IMF) the distorted structure of relative prices
which existed under the Soviet system."
In Ukraine and some other republics the magnitude of collapse was even greater and all middle class was essentially wiped out. Many
emigrated. Also a lot of assets were simply stolen by western companies for cents on the dollar (disaster capitalism in action; some
of most blatant cases were reversed under Putin, but not much). Bush II administration was busy with reelections and Clinton administration
never viewed Russia as a partner only as a body on the ground to kick with a boot with impunity. As President Richard Nixon pointed
out a major aid package could stop the economic free fall and help anchor Russia in the West for years to come.
In this respect the Clinton administration’s greatest failure was its decision to take advantage of Russia’s weakness. And the fact
that they used puppets like Jeffrey Sachs to take advantage of the Russia situation produced a long term damage to the US strategic
interests in the region. Here is a relevant quote from Foreign Affairs article “Losing Russia”:
BEHIND THE facade of friendship, Clinton administration officials expected the Kremlin to accept the United States’ definition
of Russia’s national interests. They believed that Moscow’s preferences could be safely ignored if they did not align with
Washington’s goals. Russia had a ruined economy and a collapsing military, and it acted like a defeated country in many ways.
Unlike other European colonial empires that had withdrawn from former possessions, Moscow made no effort to negotiate for the protection
of its economic and security interests in Eastern Europe or the former Soviet states on its way out. Inside Russia, meanwhile, Yeltsin’s
radical reformers often welcomed IMF and U.S. pressure as justification for the harsh and hugely unpopular monetary policies they
had advocated on their own.
Soon, however, even Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev–known in Russia as Mr. Yes for accommodating the West–became frustrated
with the Clinton administration’s tough love. As he told Talbott, who served as ambassador at large to the newly independent states
from 1993 to 1994, “It’s bad enough having you people tell us what you’re going to do whether we like it or not. Don’t add insult
to injury by also telling us that it’s in our interests to obey your orders.”
But such pleas fell on deaf ears in Washington, where this arrogant approach was becoming increasingly popular. Talbott
and his aides referred to it as the spinach treatment: a paternalistic Uncle Sam fed Russian leaders policies that Washington deemed
healthy, no matter how unappetizing these policies seemed in Moscow.
As Talbott adviser Victoria Nuland put it, “The more you tell them it’s good for them, the more they gag.” By sending the message
that Russia should not have an independent foreign policy — or even an independent domestic one — the Clinton administration generated
much resentment. This neocolonial approach went hand in hand with IMF recommendations that most economists now agree were ill suited
to Russia and so painful for the population that they could never have been implemented democratically. However, Yeltsin’s radical
reformers were only too happy to impose them without popular consent.
In 1992, Andrei Shleifer, a Harvard professor and a close friend of Summers since Shleifer's college days at Harvard, became head
of a Harvard project that directed U.S. government money for the development of the Russian economy. Tens of millions of dollars
in noncompetitive U.S. contracts flowed to Harvard for Shleifer's Russian work, and his team directed the distribution of hundreds
of millions more. Through the mid-1990s, complaints accumulated in Washington about self-dealing and improper investing by the Harvard
team, and by mid-1997, the Harvard contracts had been canceled and the FBI had taken up the case. For two years it was before a federal
grand jury.
In September, 2000, the government sued Harvard, Shleifer, and others, claiming that Shleifer was lining his own pockets and those
of his wife, hedge fund manager Nancy Zimmerman -- formerly a vice president at Goldman Sachs under Rubin.
Soon after, when Summers became a candidate for the Harvard presidency, Shleifer lobbied hard for him in Cambridge. Rubin assured
the Fellows that the abrasiveness Summers had exhibited at Treasury was a thing of the past. They named him president--in spite of
what was already known about his enabling role in the malodorous Russian affair, and the implausibility of a personality metamorphosis.
Summers did not recluse himself from the lawsuit until more than three months after his selection as president, and even then
used his influence to protect Shleifer. The Fellows--including Rubin, whom Summers added to the Corporation--fought the case for
years, spending upwards of $10M on lawyers. But in 2005 a federal judge found Shleifer to have conspired to defraud the government
and held Harvard liable as well. To settle the civil claims, Shleifer paid the government $2M and Harvard paid $26.5M; Zimmerman's
company had already paid $1.5M. Shleifer denied all wrongdoing, and Harvard disclosed nothing about any response of its own--a departure
from its handling of misconduct by faculty farther from the center of power.
Summers remained close to Shleifer, yet claimed in a February 2006 faculty meeting to know too little about the scandal
to have formed an opinion about it. This prevarication brought a gasp from the assembled faculty and solidified faculty opposition
to the Summers presidency.
Rubin is now gone from his leadership role and his board membership at Citigroup, hauling away $126M from a firm that was $65B
poorer than when he joined it, with 75,000 fewer jobs. But he remains on the Harvard board, in spite of the financial meltdowns at
both Citigroup and Harvard and his poor oversight of the problematic president he persuaded Harvard to hire.
The Rubin network remains alive and well in the White House, including not just Summers but several other Rubin protégés. Among
the strangest of these power loops is that the well-connected Nancy Zimmerman has turned up as a member of Summers's economic policy
brain trust.
It's pretty funny that in 1993 Andrei Shleifer co-authored a
paper about corruption":
Abstract
This paper presents two propositions about corruption. First, the structure of government institutions and of the political process
are very important determinants of the level of corruption. In particular, weak governments that do not control their agencies experience
very high corruption levels. Second, the illegality of corruption and the need for secrecy make it much more distortionary and costly
than its sister activity, taxation. These results may explain why, in some less developed countries, corruption is so high and so
costly to development.
Copyright 1993, the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Compare this paper with the assessment of his own behavior in the article "On Post-Modern Corruption"(Economic
Principals):
It is against this background that a seemingly unrelated matter, the Andrei Shleifer case, should be considered. Readers are all
too familiar with the details of how a 31-year-old Russian expatriate, swiftly risen to eminence as a Harvard University economics
professor, was put in charge in 1992 of a huge US government-financed, Harvard-administered mission to advise the Russian government
of Boris Yeltsin on how to establish a market economy of their own -- until he was discovered in 1996 to be lining his own
pockets,and those of his wife, his deputy and the deputy's girlfriend. At that point the mission collapsed.
Four years later, the US Attorney in Boston sued. Four years after that, Shleifer was found to have committed fraud and
Harvard University to have breached its contract. Each was ordered to repay the government.
Perhaps the Shleifer story is no big deal, and not the symbol of post-modern corruption having spread to universities that I think
it is. Yet there are similarities to the Congressional situation, I believe. The case against Shleifer case was a civil complaint,
not a criminal charge. Cunningham was elected, Shleifer was hired. Each helped himself to some good old-fashioned graft,
and each was found by a court to have done (in the words of the San Diego prosecutor) "the worst thing an Éofficial can do -- he
enriched himself through his position and violated the trust of those who put him there."
And just as the tactics of the House leadership are more alarming than the conduct of the lowly Cunningham, so the determination
of Harvard's administrators to defend Shleifer for nine long years is more astounding than what Shleifer actually did. He
was young and inexperienced. They had all the advice and time in the world. His culpability has been established. Theirs has barely
been addressed.
Here is some information about the events form Wikipedia article
Andrei Shleifer:
Controversy
Under the False Claims Act, the US government sued Harvard, Shleifer, Shleifer's wife, Shleifer's assistant Jonathan Hay, and
Hay's girlfriend (now his wife) Elizabeth Hebert, because these individuals bought Russian stocks and
GKOs while they were working on the country's privatization, which
potentially contravened Harvard's contract with USAID. In 2001, a federal judge dismissed all charges against Zimmerman and Hebert.[4]
In June 2004, a federal judge ruled that Harvard had violated the contract but was not liable for
treble damages, but that Shleifer and Hay might be held
liable for treble damages (up to $105 million) if found
guilty by a jury [2].
In June 2005, Harvard and Shleifer announced that they had reached a tentative settlement with the US government. On August 3
of the same year, Harvard University, Shleifer and the Justice department reached an agreement under which the university paid $26.5
million to settle the five-year-old lawsuit. Shleifer was also responsible for paying $2 million dollars worth of damages, though
he did not admit any wrong doing. A firm owned by his wife previously had paid $1.5 million in an out of court settlement.
Because Harvard University paid most of the damages and allowed Shleifer to retain his faculty position, the settlement provoked
allegations of favoritism on the part of Harvard's outgoing president
Lawrence Summers, who is Shleifer's close friend and
mentor. Shleifer's conduct was reviewed by Harvard's internal ethics committee. In October 2006, at the close of that review, Shleifer
released a statement making it clear that he remains on Harvard's faculty. However, according to the Boston Globe, he has been stripped
of his honorary title of Whipple V. N. Jones Professor
of Economics[3].
Shleifer's involvement in Russia was investigated by David McClintick, a Harvard alumnus and journalist for
Institutional
Investor Magazine. His 30-page January 2006 article claims to show that "economics professor Andrei Shleifer, in the mid-1990s,
led a Harvard advisory program in Russia that collapsed in disgrace." The article drew considerable criticism among Shleifer's colleagues,
collaborators, close friends, and students. According to the
Harvard Crimson[4],
the university's daily newspaper, Shleifer's colleague and economics professor
Edward Glaeser said that the Institutional Investor article
"is a potent piece of hate creation—not quite 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' but it's in that camp." But Glaeser later apologized
for his statement[5].
Prominent role of Larry Summers in Andrei Shleifer affair shed very negative light on this very controversial figure. Positioning
him as a key figured in Clinton administration intended to destroy the xUSSR republic economies, especially economics of Russia. And
that role perfectly alight with his general political role in Clinton administration and after that. The role of enforcer of neoliberal
social order. Role of Larry Summers in adopting "shock therapy" and Yeltsin privatization of state assets still needs to be investigated.
But it is perfectly consistent with his track record. Among key "mis-achievements" of
Bubble Boy Larry:
A prominent role in repealing of Glass-Steagall
The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by
Phil Gramm (Republican of
Texas) and in the House of Representatives by
Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities
on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a 343-86 vote in the
House of Representatives[13]. After passing both the Senate and House the
bill was moved to a conference
committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was
passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting). [These margins of passage, if repeated,
would have been well over the two-thirds needed to overcome any veto, had the President returned the bill to Congress without
his signature.] The legislation was signed into law by President
Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. [14]
The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research
Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[7]
A prominent role in killing attempt of derivatives regulation by Brooksley Born. Summers "led
the opposition" against Brooksley Born, a Clinton appointee became the head of the CFTC in 1996 and refused to accept the industry's
stance. "In late 1997 and early 1998, she said the emperor has no clothes," says Greenberger. "She said that derivatives are futures
contracts and that the CFTC had jurisdiction." In the 2003 interview, Ms. Born reveals that it was Wendy Gramm who single handedly
made OTC derivatives possible by adopting a regulatory exemption as "virtually the last act as CFTC chair." This article from
Stanford Magazine
details the dirty tricks used by Three Marketers (Summers, Rubin and Greenspan) in blocking her regulatory efforts of the
derivatives market whatsoever on a very simple ground that the financial industry and its lobbyists were objecting:
As chairperson of the CFTC, Born advocated reining in the huge and growing market for financial derivatives. . . . One type
of derivative—known as a credit-default swap—has been a key contributor to the economy’s recent unraveling. . .
Back in the 1990s, however, Born’s proposal stirred an almost visceral response from other regulators in the Clinton administration,
as well as members of Congress and lobbyists. . . . But even the modest proposal got a vituperative response. The dozen or so
large banks that wrote most of the OTC derivative contracts saw the move as a threat to a major profit center. Greenspan and his
deregulation-minded brain trust saw no need to upset the status quo. The sheer act of contemplating regulation, they maintained,
would cause widespread chaos in markets around the world.
Born recalls taking a phone call from Lawrence Summers, then Rubin’s top deputy at the Treasury Department, complaining
about the proposal, and mentioning that he was taking heat from industry lobbyists. . . . The debate came to a head April
21, 1998. In a Treasury Department meeting of a presidential working group that included Born and the other top regulators, Greenspan
and Rubin took turns attempting to change her mind. Rubin took the lead, she recalls.
“I was told by the secretary of the treasury that the CFTC had no jurisdiction, and for that reason and that reason alone,
we should not go forward,” Born says. . . . “It seemed totally inexplicable to me,” Born says of the seeming disinterest her counterparts
showed in how the markets were operating. “It was as though the other financial regulators were saying, ‘We don’t want to know.’”
She formally launched the proposal on May 7, and within hours, Greenspan, Rubin and Levitt issued a joint statement condemning
Born and the CFTC, expressing “grave concern about this action and its possible consequences.” They announced a plan to ask for
legislation to stop the CFTC in its tracks.
As Bob C noted in his comment to
As Obama Taps Larry Summers, Recalling Summer's Days as a Regulation Foe Mother Jones "One thing to keep in mind about Summers
and Rubin's position on regulating derivatives is the timing: in July of 1998 when Summers testified, the hedge fund Long Term
Capital Management, had not yet failed. That would happen 3 months later, when it became clear that a substantial part of LTCM's
problem was that it had massive side bets in derivative instruments that when it could not cover these bets, caused massive dislocations
and threats to the global banking system (which had invested heavily in LTCM, thinking it was run by "geniuses"--see Roger Lowenstein's
great book, "When Genius Failed".) I think Summers and Rubin might have had a different view on the regulation of derivatives
after the LTCM catastrophe."
Serving as a lobbyist of hedge funds with "former government official" statute.
The NY Times claimed that Summers was doing consulting work for Taconic Capital while president of Harvard which does
seems problematic
He continued cashing in his former government official status in DE Shaw.
Lawrence H. Summers, one of President Obama's top economic advisers, collected roughly $5.2 million in compensation from
hedge fund D.E. Shaw over the past year and was paid more than $2.7 million in speaking fees by several troubled Wall Street
firms and other organizations. . . . Fees ranged from $45,000 for a Nov. 12 Merrill Lynch appearance to $135,000 for an
April 16 visit to Goldman Sachs, according to his disclosure form.
Attempt to shield from prosecution his friend from Harvard Mafia, professor Andrei Shleifer
Summers also flopped on Enron. As Alex Gibney has recently noted elsewhere he was a "Technocrat surfer boy, thrilled with
freedom, getting a good ride."
Pushing for capital gains tax cuts during is stint in the Clinton administration...
...Even in the contentious world of economics, [Joe Stiglitz] is considered somewhat prickly. And while he may be a Nobel laureate,
in Washington he's seen as just another economic critic—and not always a welcome one. Few Americans recognize his name... Yet
Stiglitz's work is cited by more economists than anyone else's in the world... And when he goes abroad—to Europe, Asia, and Latin
America—he is received like a superstar, a modern-day oracle. ...
... ... ...
... Stiglitz's defenders say one possible explanation for his outsider status in Washington is his ongoing rivalry with Summers.
... Since the early '90s, when Summers was a senior Treasury official and Stiglitz was on the Council of Economic Advisers, the
two have engaged in fierce policy debates. The first fight was over the Clinton administration's efforts to pry open emerging
financial markets, such as South Korea's. Stiglitz argued there wasn't good evidence that liberalizing poorly regulated Third
World markets would make any one more prosperous; Summers wanted them open to U.S. firms.
The differences between them grew bitter in the late 1990s, when Stiglitz was chief economist for the World Bank and took issue
with the way Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and Summers, who was then deputy secretary, were handling the Asian "contagion"
financial collapse. After World Bank president James Wolfensohn declined to reappoint him in 1999, Stiglitz became convinced that
Summers was behind the slight. Summers denies this...
Some use the term “neo-feudalism” to characterize operation of the USA and "friends" in xUSSR space but they are essentially neocolonialism.
When open brutal used of military force for conquering nations was substitutes by financial instruments. But neoliberalism definitely
use neo-feudal methods, and that includes usage of neoclassic economics in the USA. Here I mean use of neoclassic economic as a new
religion that justify and "bless" neoliberal social order. Essentially the same role that Catholic church played for classic feudalism.
It serves as "An opium for the masses", if we use slightly overdone Marx quote ;-)
While related to economic rape of Russia, Shleifer's story has a wider meaning as an apt symbol of "post-modern" corruption at universities
and especially in Harvard where students were actively indoctrinated in pseudoscientific theories which constitute a theoretical framework
of casino capitalism serving simultaneously as the role of ideology which
is not that far from the role of Marxism in the USSR. Here is Anna Willamson view (The
Rape of Russia, Testimony of Anne Williamson Before the House Banking Committee)
From the perspective of the many millions of her children, Mother Russia in late 1991 was like an old woman, skirts yanked above
her waist, who had been abandoned flat on her back at a muddy crossroads, the object of others' scorn, greed and unseemly curiosity.
It is the Russian people who kept their wits about them, helped her to her feet, dusted her off, straightened her clothing, righted
her head scarf and it is they who can restore her dignity - not Boris Yeltsin, not Anatole Chubais, not Boris Berezovsky nor any
of the other aspirants to power. And it is the Russian people - their abilities, efforts and dreams - which comprise the Russian
economy, not those of Vladimir Potanin or Viktor Chernomyrdin or Mikhail Khodorkovsky or Vladimir Gusinsky. And that is where we
should have placed our bet - on the Russian people - and our stake should have been the decency, the common sense and abilities of
our own citizens realized not through multilateral lending but through the use of tax credits for direct investment in the Russian
economy and the training of Russian workers on 6-month to one year stints at the U.S. offices of American firms in conjunction with
the elimination of U.S. tariffs on Russian goods.
Russia is a fabled land, home to a unique and provocative thousand year-old culture, and a country rich in the resources the world
needs whose people had the courage and resilience to defeat this century’s greatest war machine, Hitler’s invading Wehrmacht.
Yet, thanks to Boris Yeltsin’s thirst for power and megalomaniacal inadequacy, Russia has become the latest victim of American expediency
and of a culturally hollow and economically predatory globalism. Consequently, Americans, who thought their money was helping a stricken
land, have been dishonored; and the Russian people who trusted us are now in debt twice what they were in 1991 and rightly feel themselves
betrayed.
The worst of it was that some pretty good ideas - private property, sound money, minimal government, the inviolability of contract
and public accountability - that have delivered to the West’s citizenry the most prosperity and the most liberty in world history,
and might have done the same for the Russians, were twisted into perverse constructions and only then exported via a Harvard-connected
cabal of Clinton administration appointees who funded - without competition - their allies at Harvard University courtesy the public
purse. Joining the US-directed effort were the usual legions of overpaid IMF/World Bank advisers whose lending terror continues to
encircle the globe.
As reader with nickname DownSouth commented on Naked Capitalism blog (Obama
Administration “Nothing to See Here” on Foreclosure Crisis « naked capitalism), historically one of the most powerful forces that
supported feudalism in Europe were Catholic and Orthodox churches: the feudal order was upheld by the Church’s priestly class allied
with European royalty.
In the modern USA something similar can be said about the relations of the neoclassical economists and bankers. It wasn’t meant to
be this way, either with the priests of old or the priests of new. As Robert H. Nelson points out in Economics as Religion,
…Samuelson followed the Roman Catholic model. The members of the economics profession, and other scientific and professional elites,
would be motivated by the higher considerations of a priesthood, as compared with businesspeople and other ordinary citizens in the
commercial realm. There would be no popular votes held for the scientific leaders of society. Samuelson acknowledged the practical
necessity to allow wide rein for the pursuit of self-interest in the marketplace. However, the professional economists and other
scientific managers of the progressive state would function according to the ethical standard of the Roman Catholic priesthood. They
would reject the commercial motive of self-interest and instead act in their professional and public capacity to serve the common
good—-“the public interest”—-of all of society.
In Darwin’s Cathedral David Sloan Wilson made the observation that all major churches seem to have a “life cycle.”
Religious denominations range from huge established churches that encompass most of the population to tiny sects that reject the
larger churches as corrupt and regard themselves as keepers of the original faith. The huge established churches begin as sects, grow
into churches, give rise to offspring sects, and then mysteriously fall into senility, to be replaced by their own offspring sects.
I would just add that it seems like theology follows function in this life cycle.
For instance, as Wilson points out, the early Christian church, while it was still a small sect, had “a policy of extreme altruism
and forgiveness toward the downtrodden” and “a policy of unyielding opposition” toward the main Jewish religious institutions, which
it perceived to be in league with the Roman Empire. As the Christian church matured and became the established church, however, it became
part and parcel of the power structure, championing it and defending it against the downtrodden. What began as a small sect with a theology
based upon knowledge and moral authority morphed into a church whose theology was all about defending wealth and power.
Eventually a new sect rose to challenge this priestly class. As Nelson explains:
Indeed, it was this strong distinction between ordinary people and the church priesthood that, among a number of other tenets
of Catholic doctrine, incurred the wrath of Martin Luther. Luther saw the Roman Catholic Church as selling ordinary people short
and thus declared a new Protestant “priesthood of all believers.” The ministry of the Protestant churches would stand on an equal
plane with the faithful—-both, for example, would marry. The leadership of Protestant parishes would be elected by the ordinary members
of the church, while the Roman Catholic Church would continue to select its own leaders in a hierarchal fashion, as when the pope
designates the cardinals of the church.
What Luther had to say about the priestly class of the Medieval Catholic Church rings true about modern-day high priests of "casino
capitalism", the neoclassical economists of "Harvard Mafia". As Luther wrote the Pope in letter in 1520:
But they See, which is called the Roman Curia, and of which neither thou nor any man can deny that is more corrupt than any
Babylon or Sodom ever was, and which is, as far as I can see, characterized by a totally depraved, hopeless, and notorious wickedness—-that
See I have truly despised… The Roman Church has become the most licentious den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the
kingdom of sin, death, and hell… They err who ascribe to thee the right of interpreting the Scripture, for under cover of thy name
they seek to set up their own wickedness in the Church, and, alas, through them Satan has already made much headway under thy predecessors.
In short, believe none who exalt thee, believe those who humble thee.
Now there is an indirect evidence of participation of of British intelligence agencies such as MI6 in Russia privatization scam.
And the point man for such investigation is William Brower, who recently got nine years of jail (in absentia) from Russian court.
Browder was one of financial sharks (or as one Amazon reviewer of his book called him "financial crack cocaine seller" -- the term
applicable to the whole Harvard mafia) who somehow was extracted for Solonon brothers and went to Russia. He voluntarily put himself
in substantial danger getting into environment which he completely did not understand and with very little many from a dubious source.
Which might be explainable if he was assigned a specific task by MI6. After all according to some sources Bill Browder’
grandma, Raissa Berkman, was an agent for the KGB ( http://spartacus-educational.com/USAbrowder.htm
).
...The following is a PASTE from an electronic mail message REPLY to me from a friend in the know whom I can’t reveal all of his
name but just John, which I believe you shall find interesting:
Browder could be CIA or Mossad or NSA or Naval Intel or something we don’t even know or a combination of all of the above.
Or, just a no-good slimy person.
Plus, Fletcher Prouty said that many times people are working for intelligence and don’t even know it. Entire military units
are under CIA command and don’t know it.
Another Amazon reviewer of his book described one of the criminal scheme Brower used (he used several)
The book was fun to read, like a Marvel comic book. Truly Bill Browder is, according to Bill Browder, a brilliant man willing
to take daring risks where he sees an opportunity for personal gain. And I have to agree with him. With his inherited genetic intelligence,
and some of the best education money can buy, he made himself enormously rich profiting from financial transactions that produced
nothing of real value. I found this book to be quite self-congratulatory, written with no embarrassment for taking advantage of a
whole population.
As Browder writes, “I found that to transition from communism to capitalism, the Russian government had decided to give away most
of the state’s property to the people. The government was going about this in a number of ways, but the most interesting was something
called voucher privatization. The government granted one privatization certificate to every Russian citizen---roughly 150 million
people in total—and taken together these were exchangeable for 30 % of nearly all Russian companies.“ “The market price of the vouchers
equaled 3 billion…this meant that the valuation of the entire Russian economy was only 10 billion! That was one-sixth the value of
Wal-Mart!” “Russia had 24% of the word’s natural gas, 9% of the world’s oil, and produced 6.6 % of the world’s steel, among many
other things. Yet this incredible trove of resources [owned by ordinary Russian citizens] was trading for a mere 10 billion! Even
more astonishing was that there were no restrictions on who could purchase these vouchers. I could buy them, anyone could buy them.”
He recounts, “The Russian people had no idea what to do with the vouchers when they received them for free from the state and, in
most cases, were happy to trade them for a $7 bottle of vodka or a few slabs of pork.” Mr. Browder took advantage of their ignorance
and brought millions of vouchers from the Russian people for a pittance of their true value. This is something to brag about? It
is not laudable to buy something for a pittance of its real worth, from owners who have no idea of its true value. It is reprehensible.
It was disturbing to me to see no introspection on the rightness or wrongness of beating someone out of his or her money.
Mr. Browder describes in his Sidanco deal the feeling he has when an opportunity for ungodly gains presents itself, “I had that
tingling, greedy tension in my gut, similar to when I saw my $2,000 Polish investment multiply by nearly ten times, or when I unearthed
the Russian voucher scheme.”
Greed is not a virtue, Mr. Browder. It is a vice.
Reviewer Ian Kaplan wrote:
The second half of the book is about how Putin's gang tried to crush Hermitage Capital and everyone associated with it.”
And, I would add, how Browder’s gang is trying to crush Putin. It makes me think that a large part of Mr. Browder’s dogged determination
in pushing the Maginsky Act through Congress, and signed into law, was not so much a humanitarian turn of the leaf for him, but a
strategy to enlist the whole backing of the United States into his personal war with Putin, who put him out of a lucrative business
in Russia.
And there there is Necrasov's documentary which Brower successfully blocked from distribution in EU and the USA. Could he done so
without the support of intelligence services?
'More to a point, Browder is the man who contributed most to the new cold war between the West and Russia'
Yes you really do read it correct we are going to war so some tax dodging Jew s*yst*r can recover his ill gotten gains
'Browder, a grandson of the US Communist leader'
You just couldn't make it up could you? If it was in a Tom Wolfe novel it would be deemed over the top
'came to Russia at its weakest point after the Soviet collapse, and grabbed an enormous fortune by opaque financial transactions'
Him and countless others of his kind
'As you’d expect, huge tax evasion was discovered. Browder thought that as long as he sucked up to Putin, he’d get away with bloody
murder, let alone tax evasion'
Along came a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph...
'Foreigners had to pay much more. Browder bought many such shares via Russian frontmen, and he was close to getting control over
Russian oil and gas. Putin suspected that he had acted in the interests of big foreign oil companies, trying to repeat the feat of Mr
Khodorkovsky'
Who's shares in Yukos reverted to Jacob Rothschild FYI
'His second mistake was being too greedy. Russian taxation is very low; but Browder did not want to pay even this low tax'
No comment
'Mr Browder does not deny these accusations; he says there is nothing criminal in trying to avoid taxes'
Well that's alright then
'For this reason alone, Browder can be counted as a part of the power which eternally wills evil and eternally works good'
And for other ethnic reasons of course.
'Nobody listened to them, until they demanded that Browder testify under oath. He refused.'
Mala fides anyone?
'The New Republic wondered: if Browder was indeed the victim of persecution in Russia and had enlisted the U.S. justice system to
right the balance, why was he so reluctant to offer his sworn testimony in an American courtroom?'
You know when you are a Jewish financial criminal and even The New Republic is against you you may have gone too far...
'It turned out Browder tried to bribe the journalist who made the interview to have these words expunged'
Well I never. But Jews never conspire to tell everyone what to think...that's just crazy tawk
'This is probably a uniquely Jewish quality: Jews outspend everybody in contributions to political figures'
Yup
'Much bigger sums were transferred via good services of Brothers Ziff, mega-rich Jewish American businessmen'
Didn't I see this on an episode of the Simpsons?
'Almost all involved figures appear to be Jewish, not only Browder'
Stereotype threat
'Even his enemy, the beneficiary of the scam that (according to Browder) took over his Russian assets is another Jewish businessman
Dennis Katsiv'
You just couldn't make it up could you? 'Maxwell stole a few million dollars from his company pension fund before dying in mysterious
circumstances on board of his yacht in the Atlantic'
He stole hundreds of millions after breaking the back of the print unions and then stealing the pensions of the workers who remained.
Amongst other things he used the money to float Mossad and bankroll the victory parade after the first gulf war. His children and wife
were never required to make restitution even though they received considerable inheritances.
'He was given a code name Solomon, as he worked for Salomon Brothers' Jesus wept where's Evelyn Waugh when you need him
These people are walking caricatures aren't they? We are basically beyond parody now aren't we?
Absolutely.
I re-watched that section where he threatens Nekrasov.
Because, after Browder stood up, he was partly blocking the camera view and it was a bit unclear.
So, who are Browder’s enforcers?
Who can ensure that Krainer’s book and Nekrasov’s film are “disappeared”? That screenings of the film are suddenly canceled?
Is there any way to approach this legally? For instance, who canceled the showing of the film in NYC? Can that be established?
Was someone threatened in the same vein the Browder threatens Nekrasov?
After showing, in the docudrama segments of the film, the unpleasant deaths of the three guys who (I think) were the recipients
of Browder’s company’s assets, I do hope that Nekrasov is watching hiw own back.
Browder has reinvented himself as an advocate for “human rights” in Russia. So, in our upside-down world, Putin in a thug,
Russia is a kleptocracy, and Browder is a “human rights advocate.” What a sick joke. the soon this guy and his story can be blown,
the better.
Maybe we can “exchange” Browder for Assange. Browder gets to stay here in the West, and Assange is transferred to Russia.
Which also raised the question why Browder duped the US congress so easily. Was the US congress ready to be duped because Browder
served as a pawn in a large operation "Containing Russia"?
Mr. Nekrasov’s documentary makes it crystal clear Browder has duped the fawning US Congress. Browder is both a liar and, more
importantly, a murderer. It seems everyone who was involved with hiding his assets for him have died. How convenient for Mr. Browder
in that they cannot testify against him.
Magnitsky, as it turns out, was never a “brilliant lawyer” hired to look into lost taxes paid, but instead was a long-time
accountant for Browder’s Hermitage Fund. Browder has used his death as a way to exonerate him from paying taxes owed to the Russian
government.
Browder should spend the rest of his life in a Russian prison, not be hailed as a human rights hero.
At 1 hour
and 18 minutes into the film Nekrasov confronts Browder with the evidence against him. He doesn't do it overtly, that is, straight
on, as in j'accuse, but rather acts kind of coy, asking his questions about the "problems" of fact that he has discovered. Asking
his questions as if he were confused, and hoped Mr. Browder could provide some clarification.
Mr. Browder figures out straightaway that he's been busted. A realization that is easy for him, since he has had perfect consciousness
of his guilt from the moment he began planning the crime. Now we see him awakening abruptly to the realization that the man he
hired to make the cover-up film has discovered the truth that the film was meant to conceal.
Look at his face, see the tension there. Listen to his voice crack -- at 1:22:30 -- as his throat locks up and his mouth gets
dry. Then for the next 26 seconds Browder offers a straight-up lie, that the original registration documents are necessary to
re-register the companies. He then watches, to see if Nekrasov buys it, and then... seeing that Nekrasov doesn't buy it -- he
gulps visibly under the tension -- understanding in that moment that he's been busted. It's an amazing moment caught on video.
It's not a stretch to conclude that you are watching a man see his life pass in front of his eyes. And then finally we watch as
Browder stands and threatens Nekrasov with reputational destruction.
At 1:23:45, Browder says -- threatens actually -- "I'd be really careful about going out and trying to do a whole thing about
Sergie not being a whistleblower, it's not gonna do well for your credibility in the show."
I love that he calls it "a show".
Powerful stuff
MOST IMPORTANT VIDEOS OF SOCIOPATH BILL BROWDER
Deposition in case of U.S. vs. Prevezon Holdings
Bill Browder April 15, 2015 Deposition – Part 1
Bill Browder April 15, 2015 Deposition – Part 2
Bill Browder April 15, 2015 Deposition – Part 3
Bill Browder April 15, 2015 Deposition – Part 4
Bill Browder April 15, 2015 Deposition – Part 5
Bill Browder April 15, 2015 Deposition – Part 6
FULL TRANSCRIPT is available here. [But then you don't get the shifty eyes, sweaty upper lip, and significant pauses.
"I know nothing ... nooothing!!!]
From Peter the Great to Catherine the Great to Alexander I, Nicholas I, Alexander II,
Alexander III and Nicholas II in 1917, Romanov czars ruled Russia. After 1917 came Vladimir
Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin
and Vladimir Putin.
Pat was doing so well up until this set of sentences... when Pat Buchanan horribly erred
in including the shifty and ne'er-do-well Boris Yeltsin as such person was an idiot & a
crook so much more so than an autocrat... He was too dumb, crooked, naive, drunken, and out
of touch with reality to be an autocrat... Yeltsin was just a fool, a lost fool, a forlorn
fool, and a weakling... Much like the Czar that came under the spell of Rasputin... Yeltsin
bought into all the Western Elites malarkey and foolishness about economic reforms that came
close to ruining Russian civilization and destroying Russia as a society and a nation...
Thereafter God upon feeling guilty for having allowed the worthless Yeltsin onto power...
then God sent the Angel St. Vladimir to save Russian civilization from destruction and to
save the Russian people... and the Holy Putin worked his magic and Russia was not destroyed,
the Russians were saved, and Russian civilization preserved for the future and spared its
demise...
CovidBannedTard 12 hours ago (Edited) remove link
The CCP loving corporate western bankers who sold American manufacturing to the CCP almost
had Russia on its knees with Yeltsin.They were asset stripping it.
Then Putin slammed their tally whackers in a door.
And booted them out.
The same CCP loving corporate bankers are still asset stripping America 21 years and
counting since Putin kicked them out.
Several previous studies have examined the risks across generations of radiation exposure
from events such as this, but have yielded inconclusive results. In this study, the
investigators analyzed the genomes
of 130 children and parents from families where one or both parents were exposed to
radiation due to the Chernobyl accident, and where children were conceived afterward and born
between 1987 and 2002.
There was no increase in gene changes in reproductive cells of study participants, and
rates of new germline mutations were similar to those in the general population, according to a
team led by Meredith Yeager of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, in Rockville,
Md.
Don't make simple things complicated the irony of starting this way for this post lol :D
(of course everything is complicated as well as simple, language betrays us all).
· The people of the Warsaw pact and then the Russians did what they did for
themselves and not for others, and they did it by themselves. It went well as long as the
people were in charge (ie. the initial actions) but the politicians then soon messed it up as
politicians anywhere are bound to do.
Gorbachev and Yeltsin didn't want or wish for disasters due to the results they got (and
maybe their tasks were impossible in their context). Clear mistakes were made and crimes
"allowed", far too much was rushed and ill thought out. The politicians had no way of being
prepared any more than they would be in the US right now.
· The US is out-competed, dysfunctional, and trapped in a cycle of excuses
in order to shoehorn their labyrinth of lies into their current reality. All people lie
despite this clear lesson as to why no one should, it is the lies one tells without realizing
they are lies that are the worst. This is much like the USSR was but easily even worse.
Will people in Europe and the US manage to duplicate the fall of the Warsaw pact and the
USSR? Right now it looks unlikely but remember or be aware that no one predicted the fall of
the Iron Curtain or the Politburo and most if not all outsiders in "the west" had trouble
believing it and understanding it when it happened or even now (and especially people
on both/all sides that are running on ideological biases as fuel).
(Our systems and models do not capture reality and can not, not even theoretically, a
different bigger discussion which boils down to the Shannon limit in the end (but I notice
thermodynamics is contentious among some so why would I invite that much work?)).
A repeat of history is not necessary nor automatic; the US isn't doing anything to stop
its own ongoing fall, at least not anything that I have noticed.
Because b is right.
(I really hope the CPC has a better grasp on this than that article vk posted hints at
because I want a stable prosperous China and that includes/demands the continuation of the
CPC and the way they have shaped and structured the Chinese system which is noticeable for
not taking the USSR approach that worked itself into a blind alley despite decades of
repeated attempts at reform (hell even Stalin tried)).
Interesting interview. Apparently, Yuri Andropov had a contingency plan on the event of
the disintegration of the USSR - and yes, it included the partition of the Ukraine into two
("east bank Ukraine" and "west bank Ukraine" - probably West of the Dnieper, East of the
Dnieper). It's in Russian, so maybe inconsistencies with automatic translation may exist:
The interview is with Russian neoliberal banker (of the circle of Yeltsin and Gaidar, St.
Petersburg intelligentsia) Viktor Loshak, from "Alfa-Bank group" (machine translation). He
was a working under Shatalin in the 1980s, so he's allegedly an eye witness (primary source)
of the alleged plans.
He also claims that the St. Petersburg neoliberals never intended to end the Union, and
that what really happened in the 1990s wasn't intended. Smells like revisionism to me, but
ok, the St. Petersburg circle was never known for their intellectual prowess, so it's
possible.
--//--
@ Posted by: Mao Cheng Ji | Apr 10 2021 21:07 utc | 51
It has in the sense that the Ukraine wants to restore its entire territory, not just some
part of it. There is no scenario where, it being able to reconquer LPR-DPR, it would leave
Crimea with Russia.
The privatization drive that was supposed to reap the fruits of the free market instead
helped to create a system of tycoon capitalism run for the benefit of a corrupt political
oligarchy that has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars of Western aid and
plundered Russia's wealth.
People are all too vulnerable in the Righteous Empire. The enforcers of right attitudes can
do with you anything, anything at all. A scientist who kept quiet when he heard the word n<
> being uttered, has lost
his job . A man, Robert Hoogland, has been
sent to jail for calling his 14-year-old daughter, "daughter", and publicly referring to
her with the pronouns "she" and "her", while the girl still isn't allowed yet to buy beer
insists she will be a man. Add to that the misery created by lockdowns, and you will understand
why thousands of Russian émigrés rush back into Mother Russia.
Since 1980s, Russians considered themselves lucky if they could escape their frosty homeland
and move westward. The children of Stalin and Khrushchev, top government figures of Yeltsin
days, artists and scientists, moved to Florida or Paris. They were always ready to condemn
Putin the brutal dictator. A popular film actor Mr Alexei
Serebryakov had left Russia for Canada, angrily slamming the door, condemning the "bloody
regime" and Russia's "mix of strength, arrogance and rudeness". And suddenly – the wind
had changed, and the reverse drift has begun. Serebryakov returned from Canada, though many
Russians aren't welcoming his move back at all. A science journalist Asya Kazantseva returned
to Moscow from Tel Aviv and Bristol, UK and wrote:
An unexpected collateral effect of the pandemic is that all the friends who immigrated to
Europe a long time ago flocked home to spend the winter here in Moscow, where vaccines are
free and available, and there is no lockdown. Social life here is twice as active as it was
in peacetime. I will never be lonely again! [A popular Jewish blogger] Alina Farkash recently
wrote that in Moscow, you are a beloved child in a large family, while emigration [in her
case to Israel] is like being sent to an orphanage. That's all true. I really hope that I
will never go anywhere else, that I will always be here, and that I will firmly remember what
an endless happiness it is just to be here."
Indeed, Russia is not a wonderland; it has many faults and problems. Its oligarchs are too
rich, its people are rather poor; taxes are too low; the social gap is greater than in the US
or China, as you can read in this text (in Russian) .
However, Russia is free. You can say and write whatever you wish. There are no lockdowns.
Schools operate as usual; distance learning is rare. Churches are open. Theatres, ditto. There
are no obligatory masks; where they are obligatory, the Russians still ignore them.
Soviet leaders were of the people as you say, yes, but when you drill into the details of
their careers before they became General Secretaries of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union, you find they had careers as political administrators and propagandists. Only Leonid
Brezhnev had a technical background. They were the early equivalents of people like former UK
Prime Minister David
Cameron who went straight into the British Conservative Party after leaving Oxford
University with typical graduate qualifications for a career party hack and who for a time
worked for a media communications company; or like current Australian Prime Minister
Scott Morrison
who worked in marketing executive roles in which his most outstanding qualities were his
sheer ineptitude and flouting procurement guidelines.
From Nikita Khrushchev onwards, all General Secretaries with the exceptions of Yuri
Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko (neither of whom lasted long as leaders) had some personal
or family connection with the Ukrainian SSR. This may not have been coincidence: it may
suggest that there was a network of individuals selecting future leaders for promotion based
on close personal career connections.
Until recently most people in the most senior
levels of the Communist Party of China , from whom China's leaders are drawn, had
technical, engineering or scientific backgrounds. Current members are now drawn from most
walks of life though several of them have worked in factories or done manual labour at some
point in their working lives.
As a south east asian myself, I do think the east asians really aren't the way forward,
not until Korea is united, Vietnam and China rid themselves of "to be rich is to be glorious"
Dengists, Japan free of LDP and American sock puppetry. I'm also VERY wary of chinese
reactionaries who speak of Confucianism.
Maybe the grass is always greener on the other side, but I look favorably to the slavs and
their culture, and of course the shining beacon that was the USSR and the 2nd world until
1991 fucks everything up.
Taoism nowadays is basically superstitions. The historical taoist practiced by the ancient
and medieval chinese political class is basically free market libertarianism "just let the
market regulates itself bruh".
There's a reason that most of the greatest chinese emperors practice legalism (Qin Shi
Huang, Liu Bang, Han Wudi), which is direct government intervention in all matters,
especially in market and infrastructure, while the Taoist-leaned dynasty (i.e. the Song)
resulted in mysticism and the take-over of China by the khitdan and then mongols.
In the West, "Taoism" and "Buddhism" are rebranded as some kind of new age exotic
philosophies, but in Asia proper, Taoism is kookery and Buddhism is militarist/nationalist
state religion, see Myanmar and Thailand.
I see you qualify your comment by specifying Hong Kong Chinese. They most certainly are
not Mainlanders and have a culture polluted by British Imperialism that's closer to the
Gangsterism of Chiang Kai-shek than Mao's Collectivism.
You may recall the book and video Affluenza that does a good job of explaining how
traditional conservative mores are assaulted and trampled by affluent modernity. Such
outcomes aren't restricted to North America but are global thanks to human similarity.
If one were to develop a moral equivalency chart evaluating all global cultures and major
sub-cultures, you'd see a majestic hodge-podge with very little uniformity, which also
relates to the very uneven state of human development in all its facets. The great task of
humanity over the next several centuries is to peacefully level out those disparities. But as
I wrote on the Shia thread, the remaining Imperialist nations are a very large impediment in
attaining that goal and need to be removed so humanity can evolve.
There is no reason to speculate. Chinese culture, history, stories, have the answers.
The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, for example, has:
3 brothers who are put forwards as "godly". There is a celebrated image of the three of
them making the vow of brotherhood in an orchard. The leader, Liu Bei, is a prince of the
declining dynasty. He basically constantly virtue signals, but basically mostly does as the
rest, which is fight, kill, and grab other people's territories. His two other brothers
include a psycho drunk and a supremely self satisfied other. They look good next to a
character like Cao Cao;
the intelligentsia are basically bunch of self satisfied gurus of varying degrees of
competence that compete with devising deception schemes against other kingdoms.
the military is hardcore, brutal. also stuck on formations, aesthetics, which can be a
weakness.
the general population are docile cattle.
What the world hasn't seen for 2 centuries is the famous Chinese arrogance that was their
reputation until they truly pooped the pooch of their country with the arrival of Jews and
Europeans.
A certain fragrance of superstition and sentimentality also is always present, at various
degrees.
Obsequious to superiors, inhuman to inferiors. This is what you can expect from a world
order with Chinese characteristics.
Lurking Dragon 66
Obsequious to superiors, inhuman to inferiors. This is what you can expect from a world order
with Chinese characteristics.
Well, this is what we are seeing from our western "partners" as was bestowed upon the
globe by so many self righteous defenders of human rights, democracy and the "white man's
burden"
See for an example Halliburton's mercenaries, ISIS and other creepy creatures invented and
bestowed upon civilisation by people that believe that if you are not jewish, you are not
human and, therefore, can be dispensed at will if of no use to the chosen ones.
Yes, the western hippie generation is very fueled by drugs and new age philosophies. But
note that these rebranded exotic religions do not resemble the native ones.
For example in Asia proper, you have actual deities to worship in Taoism, and it's not
just a philosophy waxing about the Dao like in the west. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daode_Tianzun
And Taoist priests are still an actual thing, and you can hire them to check Feng Shui and
even exorcism.
Still, it's superstitions and money making schemes, and I wouldn't put much trust in
them.
Obsequious to superiors, inhuman to inferiors. This is what you can expect from a world
order with Chinese characteristics.
Posted by: LurkingDragon | Mar 6 2021 1:17 utc | 66
That sounds pretty much like every job I have had here in the USA all of my life. (Except
the union jobs.) There is a reason they hate unions, especially ones that have not been
domesticated yet.)
Hong Kong culture is very different from the culture of Mainland China, thanks in no small
part to HK having once been a link between China and the rest of the world for a long time
and becoming very wealthy as a manufacturing and financial services centre as a result. HK
people are very materialistic and status-conscious, and look down on other Chinese (to say
nothing of what they think of other Asians and other non-white people) who do not speak HK
Cantonese. The only people HK people respect are English-speaking white British and
Americans.
My parents visited HK back in the 1990s and my mother tried speaking Taishanese (our
native language: it is related to Cantonese and is spoken just west of the Pearl River delta
not far from Macau, in Guangdong province) to shop assistants. They ignored her and it was
only when she switched to English that their attitude changed dramatically and fell over one
another to help.
Before the 1980s, huge numbers of Cantonese people living in English-speaking countries
were actually Taishanese speakers. My parents visited San Francisco's Chinatown in 1988 and
nearly everyone they came across spoke Taishanese. It was the dominant language there.
My dad's second (and current) wife is Chinese. He met her online in the late 90's, and she
moved with her young son to Wisconsin and married him around 2000.
I think my dad was looking for a docile women after his previous marriage and girlfriends,
and on the surface, Xue Lin seemed docile...in reality she is not docile, but subtle, a
characteristic I found true of her, her son and the Chinese people I have met thru them.
Nobody ever got my dad to work as hard or be as frugal as she!
They came over with money and bailed my dad out of a tax mess. She still owns apartment
buildings in China. Both are very hard working, smart and frugal, but not materialistic.
Jake (her son) and I ended up being pretty close. He received an MBA from the University
of Wisconsin and worked in the natural gas business in Texas before moving back to China
where I've had the pleasure of visiting him.
My impression of China and the Chinese is largely positive, the extreme work ethic can be
a bother given I am a pothead hippy slacker. There is a lot of optimism and energy there, it
makes the USA feel like a barbaric backwater country whose best days are past.
@66
Sounds like projection. You have nicely described my experience in the USA! Aside from my
union jobs, it has been kiss up and kick down...even self-employed.
"A certain fragrance of superstition and sentimentality also is always present, at various
degrees." Growing up in a small, conservative religious town, this is a great description of
my experience.
I will say, the general American population isn't docile, but are herded about like cattle
none the less. I'd also say the Chinese aren't so much docile as they are subtle, which I
believe is far more effective than rowdy but dumb.
The stereotype of the Chinese as the greedy merchant in SE Asia comes from the colonial
era. Western colonization of China created a Chinese comprador elite who was allowed many
commercial privileges within the Mainland (as middlemen) but also in the SE Asian region. As
every Latin American well know, comprador elites are the worst of the worst. No wonder the
peoples of Indonesia, Philippines etc. etc. see the Chinese as a negative force in their
countries.
The same is true for the stereotype of the Chinese as a mafioso in Latin America: the
Chinese who emigrated to Latin America are mainly triad and hyper-capitalists from Taiwan or
pre-communist China (who may or may not have indirectly come from Taiwan in later
decades).
The same is true for the stereotype of the Chinese as the arrogant, pro-laissez faire
upper middle class individualist in Canada, USA, Australia and Western Europe in the modern
times. They are most tourists and/or a selected bunch of upper middle class Chinese who are
lured into real estate schemes in those countries (Australia, Vancouver etc.).
As we can see, peoples make up stereotypes of other peoples based on small and heavily
skewed samples. That's why we have statistics, and they tell us the Chinese are one of the
most if not the most down-to-Earth, non-religious, socialist and tolerant peoples of the
world today.
In the end, it's all about money. And the US has an army that costs more than can be
plundered from the countries it occupies.
The US military costs about a trillion every year. There are no countries left to be
conquered by the US where that kind of treasure can be looted.
"... Clinton hollowed out his own country in order to completely remove all constraints (financial, mediatic, military). He doesn't get called out for it nearly enough in my opinion. ..."
"... Clinton was a particular type of low-class, sybaritic evil but he didn't have a strong USSR to contend with. Instead he had the drunken traitor Yeltsin dance for him like a bedraggled starving bear. ..."
"So when was this golden age? Under Reagan? Well, this is when the dismantling of the
inner core of the empire began."
Beg to differ. Reagan understood how to administer the US empire. He knew the risks of
overstretching it. He made the promise to the Soviets not to encroach on their sphere of
influence. He defended the high interest rates which strengthened the USD and which kept the
banking sector in check.
All of that went to hell with Bill Clinton:
He broke Reagan's promise and expanded NATO eastwards, he dismantled the Glass Steagall act
which led to a malignant hypergrowth of the banking sector, and he was the who introduced the
telecommunications act in 1996 which allowed for the concentration of corporate media in the
hands of the few.
Bill Clinton basically turned the empire into a rapacious and uncontrollable animal.
(Funny how noone here is talking about imprisoning him )
There is a silver lining to Bill C's blood-soaked administration. It was while he was in
power, that the Russians finally awoke from their 1990s stupor. They began to understand the
mortal danger they were facing, and they patriotically chose Putin to lead them in 1999.
– Reagan was a disgusting Russophobe and Serbophobe who proclaimed 10th April (the
founding of the Independent State of Croatia) a national holiday in California as governor.
Not surprising given that his was the most RC government ever – he also colluded with
the Polish anti-Christ to destroy the USSR. In the process he encouraged the German Nazis
(see visit to Bitburg) who then destroyed Yugoslavia.
– He brought the world to the brink of a nuclear holocaust that was prevented by a
vigilant Russian officer (in 1983?).
– He turbo-charged the power of corporations and decimated social structures and the
rights of the working class (the Americans are paying for this now).
This is not to say that the scumbag Clinton was good – after all he was trained at
Georgetown – that seminary for American murderers.
Thanks for this Ken. Good to know who Reagan really was!
To get back to your point about the "dismantling of the empire" Reagan, for all his
personal awfulness and recklessness (and subversiveness) was still more restrained than
Clinton. Clinton hollowed out his own country in order to completely remove all
constraints (financial, mediatic, military). He doesn't get called out for it nearly enough
in my opinion. I guess it's personal, after what he did to us.
Clinton was a particular type of low-class, sybaritic evil but he didn't have a strong
USSR to contend with. Instead he had the drunken traitor Yeltsin dance for him like a
bedraggled starving bear. Never again!
The "patriotism" of the previous establishment was bound up with their economic interests.
Once the USA dropped protectionism, the allure of cheap foreign labor (via immigration or
outsourcing) became too much for them and they abandoned the interests of their fellow
Americans to follow the profits.
Thanks for the Tralfamidor perspective. Those of us here on earth know that the US was
never a democracy and always existed as a mechanism for exploitation of everyone else by an
oligarchy.
The USSR was collapsed by traitors as a function of the US imperial drive to destroy them
economically, not because the people were enraged at the "hostile elite". The US henchmen in
the Kingdom in Riyadh pitched in to break the Soviet economy by destroying the Soviet
capacity to obtain foreign exchange.
High treason, where, what? Did I miss something then ? I think not. The Soviet Union was
doomed,
virtually bankrupt, its population queuing for almost everything, DDR likewise and Poland
too, I have seen it in all three places. Oh, you could get everything if you had dollars!
Poland 1975: 1 kg of Russian Caviar and 4 bottles of the best Crimean Champagne :$10 !
Russia: Brand new Makarow, 9 mm, and 100 shots $20 including nice shoulder holster too in
leather $30
But ordinary people did not have $, only the nomenclature had $. A totally corrupt and failed
system in all the Eastern block. I was there then, saw it, and I have not forgotten.
So it was high time for change, and yes it would be tough, but the eastern people are tough
people ( and hospitable, very indeed)so they stood it out.
Abe, take a trip to Russia and speak to some older people, so you may stop posting
nonsense!
Him and his underlings, along with its successor Yeltsin (died too soon, unfortunately)
are directly responsible for millions of dead and destroyed lives in Russia in the `90-ties.
But I sense you are from countries that now grow unhealthy and pathological hate towards
Russian people, so as far you are concerned, it was great period, right?
Blame the Soviets for the economy of places ravaged by war and sabotaged by the West?
Remember the Eastern Front suffered the majority of action. Russia itself suffered the worst
and had to rebuild more than anybody, whereas USA factories easily re-supplied Western
Europe.
Eastern Europeans better guard against being played by the West into fighting Russia
again. They allied with Western-financed Hitler the last time. So, I'm a little worried
they'll be conned again.
It is curious that in one of the articles MoA wrote that, in his opinion (which I share),
there are now two superpowers - the United States and Russia, while China is only on the way
to this.
But Chinese journalists think differently - for example, in this article (very controversial,
btw) the author asks the question "Russia has the potential to become a superpower,
what are the factors preventing it from doing this?" At the same time, apparently, the
journalist believes that the current superpowers are China and the United States, while
"something prevents" Russia from becoming such.
Funny.
Just one quote from the article:
The distance between Russia and the superpower is still very large, and not only because of
the country's "internal problems" - the United States is also constraining and restraining
Russia by all means. It is not easy to become a superpower.
"If you talk to older people in Russia they'll tell you how deeply they despise the
"marked one" as they call him."
I know there are multiple perspectives when assessing Gorbachev's legacy, but I also
encountered that reaction often during my time there by old and young alike. It was a
surprise to me as I had assumed he would be universally accepted in a positive light as he is
in the west.
Asking them why they felt that way, a common response was that he had been too trusting of
the US promises, which ushered in the looting and manipulation of the 90's. Many mentioned
Baker's promise to Gorbachev that if East Germany went to the west, NATO would not move "one
inch to the east", and Gorbachev's failure to get that in writing. (Not to say the US would
have honored it even then, of course, but at least some proof to show the west's
duplicity).
vk@8 "The USSR could've reformed and opened up like China did, and would be in a much better
situation than what really happened (Yeltsin's neoliberal genocide)."
This is nonsense. That's exactly what Gorbachev did. The relative stagnation of the USSR
turned into an economic catastrophe under Gorbachev who dismantled a still-functional
economy. Yeltsin's neoliberalism was a continuation of Gorbachev's economics. Yeltsin's
revolution was not to impose a new policy but to smash the opposition to the new policy, to
carry it out ruthlessly, to concentrate the theft of public property in Great Russian hands.
China's opening up was deliberately fostered by the western powers as a way of separating the
socialist powers. There was never going to be any such opening up with Europe, not for the
USSR. There wasn't in NEP in the Twenties. This absurd counterfactual misreads what happened
with the capitalist roaders in China.
There also seems to be some nonsense lurking about how the Cultural Revolution was a
gigantic catastrophe. Of course, though no one cares to notice, if this was true, then India
would have had all those years to race ahead of China, not being cursed with such a
nightmare. In truth, the Cultural Revolution brought many benefits to the countryside in
particular, and still progressed the economy as a whole. Then after the murderous Deng took
over, there wasn't any magical Great Leap Forward on IOUs to Imperialism as he promised. For
years and years, the wonders of reform and opening up delivered not much faster (at all?)
than the previous system. Not even the notorious Southern Tour was so miraculous. The failure
to deliver on his overblown promises is why the students at Tien An Men square were so
worried about getting good jobs commensurate with their higher elite status, reaffirmed by
Deng. Only after decades did the economic conjuncture finally lead to rapid growth...but at a
tremendous social cost still denied by too many. The iron rice bowl was broken long before
the privilege of working for a capitalist firm started to really pay.
Summers' second big problem is the scandal that led to his ouster at Harvard, which was NOT
his infamous "women suck at elite math and sciences" remarks. The university has conveniently
let that be assumed to be the proximate cause.
In fact, it was Summers' long-standing relationship with and protection of Andrei Shleifer,
a Harvard economics professor, who was at the heart of a corruption scandal where he used his
influential role on a Harvard contract advising on Russian privatization to enrich himself and
his wife, his chief lieutenant Jonathan Hay, and other cronies. The US government sued Harvard
for breach of contract and Shleifer and Hay for fraud and won. This section comes from a
terrifically well reported account in Institutional
Investor by David McClintick :
The judge determined that Shleifer and Hay were subject to the conflict-of-interest rules
and had tried to circumvent them; that Shleifer engaged in apparent self-dealing; that Hay
attempted to "launder" $400,000 through his father and girlfriend; that Hay knew the claims
he caused to be submitted to AID were false; and that Shleifer and Hay conspired to defraud
the U.S. government by submitting false claims.
On August 3, 2005, the parties announced a settlement under which Harvard was required to
pay $26.5 million to the U.S. government, Shleifer $2 million and Hay between $1 million and
$2 million, depending on his earnings over the next decade. Shleifer was barred from
participating in any AID project for two years and Hay for five years. Shleifer and Zimmerman
were required by terms of the settlement to take out a $2 million mortgage on their Newton
house. None of the defendants acknowledged any liability under the settlement. (Forum
Financial also settled its lawsuit against Harvard, Shleifer and Hay under undisclosed
terms.
And while Harvard can't be held singularly responsible for the plutocratic land-grab in
Russia, the fact that its project leaders decided to feed at the trough sure didn't help:
Reinventing Russia was never going to be easy, but Harvard botched a historic opportunity.
The failure to reform Russia's legal system, one of the aid program's chief goals, left a
vacuum that has yet to be filled and impedes the country's ability to confront economic and
financial challenges today.
And while Summers was not responsible for Shleifer getting the contract, he was a booster
and later protector of Shleifer:
Summers wasn't president of Harvard when Shleifer's mission to Moscow was coming apart.
But as a Harvard economics professor in the 1980s, a World Bank and Treasury official in the
1990s, and Harvard's president since 2001, Summers was positioned uniquely to influence
Shleifer's career path, to shape US aid to Russia and Shleifer's role in it and even to
shield Shleifer after the scandal broke. Though Summers, as Harvard president, recused
himself from the school's handling of the case, he made a point of taking aside Jeremy
Knowles, then the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences, and asking him to protect
Shleifer.
And the protection Shleifer got was considerable:
Knowles tells Institutional Investor that he does not remember Summers' approaching him
about Shleifer However, not long after Summers says he intervened on the professor's behalf,
Knowles promoted Shleifer from professor of economics to a named chair, the Whipple V.N.
Jones professorship.
Shleifer's legal position changed on June 28, 2004, when Judge Woodlock ruled that he and
Hay had conspired to defraud the U.S. government and had violated conflict-of-interest
regulations. Still, there was no indication that the Summers administration had initiated
disciplinary proceedings. To the contrary, efforts were seemingly made to divert attention
from the growing scandal. The message from the top at Harvard was, "No problem -- Andrei
Shleifer is a star," says one senior Harvard figure
One instance was a meeting early in the academic year that began in September 2004, less
than two months after the federal court formally adjudicated Shleifer's liability for
conspiring to defraud the U.S. government. A faculty member asked [Dean] Kirby why Harvard
should defend a professor who had been found liable for conspiring to commit fraud. The
second confrontation came early in the current academic year when another professor asked
Kirby why Harvard should pay a settlement of $26.5 million and legal fees estimated at
between $10 million and $15 million for legal violations by a single professor and his
employee, about which it was unaware. On both occasions Kirby is said to have turned red in
the face and angrily cut off discussion.
On at least one other occasion, Summers himself told members of the faculty of arts and
sciences that the millions of dollars that Harvard paid in damages did not come from the
budget of the faculty of arts and sciences, but didn't say where the money came from. Those
listening inferred he meant that the matter shouldn't be of concern to the faculty and that
they shouldn't raise it, a curious notion, given that Shleifer was one of their own
Shleifer has never acknowledged doing anything wrong. Summers has said nothing. And so far
as is known, there has been no internal investigation or sanction. "An observer trying to
make sense of the University's position on Shleifer, Ogletree and Tribe is driven to an
unhappy conclusion. Defiance seems to be a better way to escape institutional opprobrium than
confession and apology. . . . And most of all being a close personal friend of the president
probably does one no harm."
And that's before we get to Summers' role in the ouster of Brooksley Born over credit
default swaps and in supporting the passage of Gramm–Leach–Bliley and the repeal of
Glass Steagall (admittedly so shot full of holes at that point as to be close to a dead letter,
but still necessary to allow Traveler and Citigroup to merge). Yet Summers has refused to
recant any of these actions .
is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for
Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic 22 Dec, 2020 12:08 Joe
Biden, set to be the oldest-ever US president, is actually on the younger side of people
currently running the American political establishment, who show no sign of wanting to ever
step aside for another generation.
It is often overlooked that Donald Trump currently holds the distinction of being the
oldest-ever US president, being 70 at the time of his inauguration. Biden will take that trophy
as well if he's inaugurated in January 2021, having turned 78 last month. Even so, he is
actually younger than the current leaders of the House and the Senate!
Though all major power brokers in Washington are older than the "gerontocracy" that
ruled the Soviet Union in the 1970s and the 1980s, you won't hear the US mainstream media make
the comparison, as it wouldn't fit their Narrative.
Sure, there has been some carefully calibrated talk about the "cognitive decline" of
Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is 87. But Feinstein is from an overwhelmingly Democrat state and
she can be easily replaced at the same time as Kamala Harris, Biden's running mate who still
hasn't resigned her Senate seat.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) is 80, and has raised eyebrows herself with the
whole "Good Morning. Sunday Morning" glitch-in-the-Matrix behavior during a TV
appearance in September.
Way back in 2018 , Pelosi
insisted that any talk about wanting someone younger in the leadership position was
"sexist," and went on to ruthlessly crush any opposition to her getting the gavel
– and the power that went with it – inside the party. In the same interview, Pelosi
blanked out on the name of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), calling him
"whatshisname."
Born several months ahead of Biden in 1942, McConnell is 78 himself. He had a bout with
polio when very young, and though successfully treated, he's had difficulty climbing stairs all
his life. While he hasn't shown any signs of cognitive decline, his political choices as of
late have certainly caused some Republicans to wonder if he's truly the legislative genius his
supporters make him out to be.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) is "only" 70, but has actually been
in Congress longer than McConnell, if one counts his 18 years in the House before he got
elected to the Senate in 1998.
Only House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, 55, technically qualifies as a member of
'Generation X' rather than a Baby Boomer. Nor does he have any Cold War political baggage like
the rest, having been in the House since only 2006. If the Republicans somehow win the House
majority in 2022, he might gain more influence – but that's speculation at this point, on
both counts.
Meanwhile, the young activist House members who came in with 2018's "Blue Wave," such
as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), are being kept in check by the old guard. Just last
week, AOC was denied a spot on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, thwarting her plans to
push for her "Green New Deal" proposal.
Compare this state of US politics with the notorious "gerontocracy" of the Soviet
Union. Three aging Soviet leaders died in quick succession between 1982 and 1985, prompting
then-US president Ronald Reagan to say "How am I supposed to get anyplace with the Russians
if they keep dying on me?" Yet Reagan was 74 at the time, older than all three.
Leonid Brezhnev was 54 when he took over the Communist Party in 1964. For the sake of
political stability, he remained a figurehead after his 1975 stroke and "ruled" the USSR
until his death in 1982, as no one in the party could agree on who ought to succeed him. His
18-year tenure was later dubbed the "Brezhnev stagnation."
Former KGB chief Yuri Andropov, part of a triumvirate running things for the better part of
Brezhnev's latter years, died himself at the age of 70 in 1984. He had led the Soviet Union for
less than 16 months. Konstantin Chernenko, 73, took over from Andropov – and died in
March 1985, after only 13 months in charge. His successor, Mikhail Gorbachev, was 54 at the
time, two years younger than Kamala Harris is now.
In one of those strange intricacies of the American political system, Harris went from
getting zero delegates in the Democrats' nomination process and dropping out before the first
primary to being widely expected to take over from Biden sooner rather than later. One might
say her relative youth and being a 'Woman Of Color' – an identity politics feature
increasingly important to the Democrats – might spell the end of the Boomer
dominance.
The thing to keep in mind, however, is that the "young reformer" Gorbachev managed to
run the Soviet Union into the ground within five short years. In 1991, the old guard tried a
military coup against him. Though Gorbachev survived the coup, the Soviet Union didn't. By the
end of that year, the USSR had "dissolved," breaking up along Communist-drawn boundaries
into independent and quasi-independent states.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
UKCitizen 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 08:34 AM
Not only American politics but much of USA public life too. I believe one facet of rule by a
gerontocracy is maintenance of the status quo; another is less control over younger and more
vigorous members of society. The two come together in the rise of Silicon Valley and
dominance of USA affairs by corporate interests. But nothing lasts forever and there are long
cycles too. Little will change in the short term but I predict at least four years of more
serious decline in America. The turning point will be final disillusionment with liberal-left
politics (see K/r theory) and the arrival of some younger leaders, not yet known.
Liberal-leftism will fail eventually for the simple reason it is founded in utopian like
fantasies, disconnection with the real life (however harsh,and probably because it is harsh)
but above all an attempt to spread finite resources veneer thin and remove any effort to get
them (free everything and equality for all). America will come round eventually but it will
be painful and will require it to revise much of its political structure to becoming a true
democracy, which even I have realised it isn't, and probably only has been fleetingly since
its founding. K/r theory is magnificently expounded in the 'The Evolutionary Psychology
Behind Politics' and long cycles in 'Biohistory'. The former rings true on just about every
page.
KarlthePoet UKCitizen 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 11:35 AM
America is collapsing because its foundation is solidly built on lies. The US government and
Wall Street are ultimately being controlled by the Jewish Banking Cartel. It cannot be
denied. Take the Federal Reserve away and America collapses overnight. Trillions upon
Trillions of dollars that are being printed out of thin air are keeping the failed system
afloat, for now. A massive global economic collapse is imminent. Just watch. Happy Holidays
Thomas74 17 hours ago 23 Dec, 2020 03:46 AM
There are clear parallels between the USSR and USA. The question is whether the leadership in
the USA's leader class has the same self-awareness that arose at the top of the USSR in its
last years. Also whether the American people will tolerate the economic hardship that the
former Soviet peoples endured in the transition. Is this what we're seeing now with the
coronavirus situation? A gradual taking down of expectations in the West behind the
smokescreen of a virus?
Anubis64 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 12:24 PM
Dear Nebojsa, So what? Andropov would have made a first-class statesman (give or take his
infatuation with technocracy). Brezhnev was not only a hero but a capable statesman whose era
is remembered with nostalgia. Let us focus on the fact that Russia's responses to the blows
coming hard and fast are rather passive and lacking any historical vision. It is not age but
will that matters.
Anubis64 Anubis64 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 12:53 PM
Then, a young scoundrel was brought in by the shady Yakovlev character and destroyed the
greatest country in the world in less than a decade. May the same happen to the insufferable
Americans.
Krieger 1 hour ago 23 Dec, 2020 08:34 PM
I think this is mostly apples and oranges. In the USSR, the "old guard" were patriots who
wanted to preserve their country. The "young reformers" were traitors who wanted to destroy
their own country to benefit their Western masters and personally enrich themselves. In the
USA, on the other hand, both the young and old politicians are totally corrupt and want to
maintain the status quo, which is slowly destroying the country from within.
Mira Golub 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 10:17 AM
America is ruled by mobster clans, the puppets are indeed resemble walking dead. Russian
imbecile liberal pro Western 2% 'opposition' though are getting their jollies by calling
Putin who is 68 'grandpa'. Bunch of degenerates.
Marek Weglinski 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 08:25 AM
Maybe it's a telltale that the Soviet-like demise for the US is near. Hopefully the American
empire will not come to a SUPERNOVA-like ending (inflicting great damage to the rest of the
world), before turning itself into a dwarf.
Ohhho Marek Weglinski 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 11:37 AM
The Evil empire will implode and take the rest of the world down with it, that's the problem!
USSR had it's own economic system pretty much isolated from the Western world, and when that
system collapsed the effect was felt all around the satellite countries for years!
Now Sachs, an economist parroting syllogistic science falsehoods, now pontificates about
matters, once again, that he has a tenuous grasp of ... at best. For a compelling
counter-argument to Sachs' scientific schlock see:
There are now much stronger arguments to believe that both Harvard mafia players and Browder
were puppets of certain intelligence agencies.
Notable quotes:
"... Just how much this changed is partly witnessed in the life of bill browder - a person well known to most here... so, clearly russia made changes to try to protect itself from the encouraged kleptocracy that was in full swing in the early 1990s ..."
"... You mention Bill Browder. He is the grandson of Earl Browder, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA from 1930-1945. It is now freely admitted that Earl was always in the employ of the FBI. Bill simply continues the family business, which is Get Russia. The odds that Bill is an independent actor and is not working for .gov are same as odds that Easter Bunny is real. ..."
@ 26 eric... thanks... unfortunately it seems michael hudson hasn't really commented on
russia in any significant way unless one goes back 5 years or so... i wonder how things have
changed since?? here is a link to the articles that top up using russia as the search term -
https://michael-hudson.com/?s=russia
i enjoyed the paul craig roberts - michael hudson article from 2019 on pcr's website...
again, i am not informed enough to make an informed comment on pcr's conclusions from march
of 2019... he and however much of the article hudson contributed - might be exactly right,
especially in the conclusions of the 3rd to last paragraph in the article.. i don't know...
thanks for the ongoing conversation..
@ Jen | Oct 24 2020 23:04 utc | 29 / 31.. thanks jen.. i haven't been to marks website in
a long time! i recall moscow exile.. is he still posting their?? regarding central banks and
nabiullina the head of russias central bank... i am not sure how many know this but the
position of being the head of a central bank in any country is not a position that is decided
upon by the country itself, or at least not in any democratic way... and the country is
supposed to not get involved in the politics of it either as i understand it... instead these
people are suggested in some other way - not elected - and while they do have to work with
the political leadership - they can't be gotten rid of easily as i understand it.. i think a
lot of this has to do with the way the international institutions work and how if a country
wants to be a part of this same international system of money, they need to accept the
structure as it is opaquely set up as... thus the central banks are under specific guidelines
that they have to follow that comes from somewhere outside the actual country.... i would
love someone to correct me on all this, but it is my present understanding of how this
particular system works... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank
As for what happened in Russia during the breaking up of the USSR and the transition of
Russia during the 1990's - one could argue the agenda of the Harvard plan for Russia was to
exploit russia for it's resource rich territory and install people like Yletsin who would
happily go along with this madness..
Just how much this changed is partly witnessed in the life of bill browder - a person
well known to most here... so, clearly russia made changes to try to protect itself from the
encouraged kleptocracy that was in full swing in the early 1990s ... just how much they
have managed to ween themselves off private finance - i have no idea... it sounds like they
are in the same boat as the rest of the planet in being beholden to private finance....
Of course private verses public finance is a confusing topic that keeps on getting
revisited here at moa and for good reason... i don't really know how all this interfaces with
everything else.. i appreciate erics particular vantage and am curious to hear of others
viewpoint as well.. thanks jen.. i have some other comments to read now on this topic from
H.Schmatz @ 28
You mention Bill Browder. He is the grandson of Earl Browder, General Secretary of the
Communist Party USA from 1930-1945. It is now freely admitted that Earl was always in the
employ of the FBI. Bill simply continues the family business, which is Get Russia. The odds
that Bill is an independent actor and is not working for .gov are same as odds that Easter
Bunny is real.
@ old hippie... yes, i was aware of that - thanks.. if you haven't seen it yet - the movie
the Russian guy made on Browder is quite good - worth the watch, but i think you have to pay
for it now.. there was a time where you could watch it for free... yes indeed, the son worked
or works for the same folks as the father did...here is a link to the movie.. http://magnitskyact.com/
here is an interesting link that i found just looking for a link to the movie... if you
haven't watched the movie, this is a good start and covers it from a particular angle.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOx78CBq0Ck
Earl Browder was an interesting dude who led an interesting life..
I have not yet read the whole transcript of Putin´s long intervention in the Valdai
Discussion Club, and thus, I do not know how deep he went about last frenzy on "regime
change" intends in the post-Soviet space, but in case he did not put it clear enough,
background of the recent explosions of regime change intends in countries surrounding Russia
( Spoiler: it was all there in a 2019 Reand Corporation file...)
"... Political collapse: obviously there wasn't really a functional government at all for a period of time in the nineties. Lots of American consultants running around and privatizing things in a fashion that created a lot of incredibly corrupt, super-rich oligarchs who then fled with their money, a lot of them. ..."
Welcome back to Turning Hard Times into Good Times. I'm your host Jay Taylor. I'm really
pleased to have with me once again Dmitry Orlov.
Dmitry was born and grew up in Leningrad, but has lived in the United States. He moved
here in the mid-seventies. He has since gone back to Russia, where he is living now.
But Dmitry was an eyewitness to the Soviet collapse over several extended visits to his
Russian homeland between the eighties and mid-nineties. He is an engineer who has contributed
to fields as diverse as high-energy Physics and Internet Security, as well as a leading Peak
Oil theorist. He is the author of Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Example and American
Prospects (2008) and The Five Stages of Collapse: Survivors' Toolkit (2013).
Welcome, Dmitry, and thank you so much for joining us again.
A: Great to be on your program again, Jay.
Q: It's really good to hear your voice. I know we had you on [the program] back in 2014.
It's been a long time -- way too long, as far as I'm concerned. In that discussion we talked
about the five stages of collapse that you observed in the fall of the USSR. Could you review
them really quickly, and compare them to what you are seeing, what you have witnessed and
observed in the United States as you lived here, and of course in your post now in
Russia.
A: Yes. The five stages of collapse as I defined them were financial, commercial,
political, social and cultural. I observed that the first three, in Russia. The finance
collapsed because the Soviet Union basically ran out of money. Commercial collapse because
industry, Soviet industry, fell apart because it was distributed among fifteen Soviet
socialist republics, and when the Soviet Union fell apart all of the supply chains broke
down.
Political collapse: obviously there wasn't really a functional government at all for a
period of time in the nineties. Lots of American consultants running around and privatizing
things in a fashion that created a lot of incredibly corrupt, super-rich oligarchs who then
fled with their money, a lot of them.
Surprisingly, social and cultural collapse didn't really get very far until Russia started
regaining its health. Some of the other Soviet socialist republics are in the throes of
full-on social and cultural collapse, but Russia avoided this fate.....
The goal of this movement is ending nation states to end their influence, laws and
regulations, and thus try to dynamite, through sowing divide ( and in this they are helped by
alleged opponent Soros and his network of franchises mastering regime change, color
revolutions
Blunt coups d´etat and lately "peaceful transitions of power", being both, Soros and
the NRx, connected to the CIA...)countries with which make what they call "The Mosaic" of
regions resulting, at the head of which there will be a corporation CEO and their stakeholders
in a hierarchical autocratic order. These people think that Democracy simply does not work and
thus must be finished, and that there are people ( white, of course ) who have developed a
higher IQ ( at this poin
t I guess some of you have noticed this creed sound very familiar to you, from our neighbors
here by the side at SST, where "james" and Pat lately love each other so much...) and must rule
over the rest.
To achieve their goals, these people, as geeks from Silicon Valley, are willing to cross the
human frontier to transhumanism so as to enhance their human capabilities to submit the
rest...
Wondering why this topic have never been treated at MoA...nor at the Valdai Discussion
Club...
The Alt-Right and the Europe of the Regions. According to Wikipedia, Steve Bannon is inspired
by the theorist Curtis Yarvin ( https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilustration_oscura),
who states that countries should be divided into feudal areas in the hands of corporations
(Patchwork).
Russia itself did not sell out. It was the idiotic drunkard Yeltsin, who was surrounded by
the Jewish Oligarchs who positioned themselves to take over state industrial assets in
cahoots with financial assistance from abroad and who happened to despise the Narod, the
Russian people. When Putin took over he made deals with some of these parasites, but threw
out the worst ones and gradually was able to restore the nation and its pride.
Yes, but main reason Neocons hate Russia is that Putin imprisoned and or dispossessed many
of the criminal Jewish oligarchs that had robbed Russia blind under Yeltsin.
Their ransacking of the country was stopped by Putin.
Hence, the hatred.
His support for the Russian Orthodox faith also does not sit well with the Neocons.
As Putin has said, the US is no longer agreement capable. As b. outlines. the US
elites no longer follow the rule of law. This is even true within the US. The US inherited
the role formerly played by the British Empire after WW2.
The national security apparatus of both the US and the Soviet Union kept the Cold War
going. Notice how soon after JFK was assassinated Khrushchev was deposed. Gorbachev rightly
stopped the Soviets superpower regime. As Dmitri Orlov points out - Empire hollowed out the
Soviet Union and he sees it doing the same to the US.
Instead of bringing Russia into the Western liberal democracies (with the threat of
major nuclear war now drastically reduced) the now Anglo-Zionist Empire just looted it.
The life expectancy of Russians fell 7 years in a decade until rescued by Putin.
It can now be seen that the Nixon-Kissinger opening up to China was not to gain access to
its large market potential but to gain access to hundreds of millions of cheap, disciplined,
and educated workers. The elites starting in the 70s became greedier. Jet travel,electronic
communication, and computers allowed the outsourcing of manufacture.
The spread of air conditioning allowed even the too hot south to be a location. First in
the US as the factories began their march through the non union southern states onto Mexico.
Management from the north could now live in air conditioned houses, drive air conditioned
cars and work in air conditioned offices.
The 70s oil inflation led to stagnation as the unionized labor were powerful enough to get
cost of living raises. With the globalization of labor union power in the US has been
destroyed. As Eric X Li points out China's one party rule actually changes policies easier
than the Western democracies.
So China's government hasn't joined in with the West in just creating wealth for the top
1% and debt for the real economy.
As b. pointed out, the Anglo Zionist policies created the mutual benefit partnership of
Russia and China. The Chinese belt and road initiative appears to be intent on creating a
large trading zone that could benefit those involved. The US is just using sanctions and the
military to turn sovereign functioning countries that don't go along with it into failed
states and their infrastructure turned to rubble
A very good article. A better title would be "How neoliberalism collapsed" Any religious doctrine sonner or later collased
under the weight of corruption of its prisets and unrealistic assumptions about the society. Neoliberalism in no expection as in
heart it is secular religion based on deification of markets.
He does not discuss the role of Harvard Mafiosi in destruction of Russian (and other xUSSR republics) economy in 1990th, mass
looting, empowerment of people (with pensioners experiencing WWII level of starvation) and creation of mafia capitalism on post
Soviet state. But the point he made about the process are right. Yeltsin mafia, like Yeltsin himself, were the product of USA and
GB machinations
Notable quotes:
"... If the US (and the UK, if as usual we tag along) approach the relationship with Beijing with anything like the combination of arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which western elites managed the period after the Cold War, then we risk losing the competition and endangering the world. ..."
"... One of the most malign effects of western victory in 1989-91 was to drown out or marginalise criticism of what was already a deeply flawed western social and economic model. In the competition with the USSR, it was above all the visible superiority of the western model that eventually destroyed Soviet communism from within. ..."
"... These beliefs interacted to produce a dominant atmosphere of "there is no alternative," which made it impossible and often in effect forbidden to conduct a proper public debate on the merits of the big western presumptions, policies or plans of the era ..."
"... This was a sentiment I encountered again and again (if not often so frankly expressed) in western establishment institutions in that era: in economic journals if it was suggested that rapid privatisation in the former USSR would lead to massive corruption, social resentment and political reaction; in security circles, if anyone dared to question the logic of Nato expansion ..."
"... Accompanying this overwhelmingly dominant political and economic ideology was an American geopolitical vision equally grandiose in ambition and equally blind to the lessons of history. This was summed up in the memorandum on "Defence Planning Guidance 1994-1999," drawn up in April 1992 for the Bush Senior administration by Under-Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and subsequently leaked to the media ..."
"... By claiming for the US the right of unilateral intervention anywhere in the world and denying other major powers a greater role in their regions, this strategy essentially extended the Monroe Doctrine (which effectively defined the "western hemisphere" as the US sphere of influence) to the entire planet: an ambition greater than that of any previous power. The British Empire at its height knew that it could never intervene unilaterally on the continent of Europe or in Central America. The most megalomaniac of European rulers understood that other great powers with influence in their own areas of the world would always exist. ..."
"... "A stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on some minimal moral values" ..."
"... Many liberals gave the impression of complete indifference to the resulting immiseration of the Russian population in these years. At a meeting of the Carnegie Endowment in Washington that I attended later, former Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar boasted to an applauding US audience of how he had destroyed the Russian military industrial complex. The fact that this also destroyed the livelihoods of tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians was not mentioned. ..."
"... This attitude was fed by contempt on the part of the educated classes of Moscow and St Petersburg for ordinary Russians, who were dubbed Homo Sovieticus and treated as an inferior species whose loathsome culture was preventing the liberal elites from taking their rightful place among the "civilised" nations of the west. This frame of mind was reminiscent of the traditional attitude of white elites in Latin America towards the Indio and Mestizo majorities in their countries. ..."
"... I vividly remember one Russian liberal journalist state his desire to fire machine guns into crowds of elderly Russians who joined Communist demonstrations to protest about the collapse of their pensions. The response of the western journalists present was that this was perhaps a little bit excessive, but to be excused since the basic sentiment was correct. ..."
"... If the post-Cold War world order was a form of US imperialism, it now looks like an empire in which rot in the over-extended periphery has spread to the core. The economic and social patterns of 1990s Russia and Ukraine have come back to haunt the west, though so far thank God in milder form. The massive looting of Russian state property and the systematic evasion of taxes by Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs was only possible with the help of western banks, which transferred the proceeds to the west and the Caribbean. This crime was euphemised in the western discourse (naturally including the Economist ) as "capital flight." ..."
"... The indifference of Russian elites to the suffering of the Russian population has found a milder echo in the neglect of former industrial regions across Britain, Western Europe and the US that did so much to produce the votes for Brexit, for Trump and for populist nationalist parties in Europe. The catastrophic plunge in Russian male life expectancy in the 1990s has found its echo in the unprecedented decline in white working-class male life expectancy in the US. ..."
"... Perhaps the greatest lesson of the period after the last Cold War is that in the end, a stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on some minimal moral values. ..."
"... Those analysing the connection between Russia and Trump's administration have looked in the wrong place. The explanation of Trump's success is not that Putin somehow mesmerised American voters in 2016. It is that populations abandoned by their elites are liable to extreme political responses; and that societies whose economic elites have turned ethics into a joke should not be surprised if their political leaders too become scoundrels. ..."
A s the US prepares to plunge into a new cold war with China in which its chances do not
look good, it's an appropriate time to examine how we went so badly wrong after "victory" in
the last Cold War. Looking back 30 years from the grim perspective of 2020, it is a challenge
even for those who were adults at the time to remember just how triumphant the west appeared in
the wake of the collapse of Soviet communism and the break-up of the USSR itself.
Today, of the rich fruits promised by that great victory, only wretched fragments remain.
The much-vaunted "peace dividend," savings from military spending, was squandered. The
opportunity to use the resources freed up to spread prosperity and deal with urgent social
problems was wasted, and -- even worse -- the US military budget is today higher than ever.
Attempts to mitigate the apocalyptic threat of climate change have fallen far short of what the
scientific consensus deems to be urgently necessary. The chance to solve the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and stabilise the Middle East was thrown away even before 9/11 and
the disastrous US response. The lauded "new world order" of international harmony and
co-operation -- heralded by the elder George Bush after the first Gulf War -- is a tragic joke.
Britain's European dream has been destroyed, and geopolitical stability on the European
continent has been lost due chiefly to new and mostly unnecessary tension with Moscow. The one
previously solid-seeming achievement, the democratisation of Eastern Europe, is looking
questionable, as Poland and Hungary (see Samira Shackle, p20) sink into semi-authoritarian
nationalism.
Russia after the Cold War was a shambles and today it remains a weak economy with a limited
role on the world stage, concerned mainly with retaining some of its traditional areas of
influence. China is a vastly more formidable competitor. If the US (and the UK, if as usual we
tag along) approach the relationship with Beijing with anything like the combination of
arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which
western elites managed the period after the Cold War, then we risk losing the competition and
endangering the world.
One of the most malign effects of western victory in 1989-91 was to drown out or marginalise
criticism of what was already a deeply flawed western social and economic model. In the
competition with the USSR, it was above all the visible superiority of the western model that
eventually destroyed Soviet communism from within. Today, the superiority of the western model
to the Chinese model is not nearly so evident to most of the world's population; and it is on
successful western domestic reform that victory in the competition with China will depend.
Hubris
Western triumph and western failure were deeply intertwined. The very completeness of the
western victory both obscured its nature and legitimised all the western policies of the day,
including ones that had nothing to do with the victory over the USSR, and some that proved
utterly disastrous.
As Alexander Zevin has written of the house journal of Anglo-American elites, the
revolutions in Eastern Europe "turbocharged the neoliberal dynamic at the Economist ,
and seemed to stamp it with an almost providential seal." In retrospect, the magazine's 1990s
covers have a tragicomic appearance, reflecting a degree of faith in the rightness and
righteousness of neoliberal capitalism more appropriate to a religious cult.
These beliefs interacted to produce a dominant atmosphere of "there is no alternative,"
which made it impossible and often in effect forbidden to conduct a proper public debate on the
merits of the big western presumptions, policies or plans of the era. As a German official told
me when I expressed some doubt about the wisdom of rapid EU enlargement, "In my ministry we are
not even allowed to think about that."
This was a sentiment I encountered again and again (if not often so frankly expressed) in
western establishment institutions in that era: in economic journals if it was suggested that
rapid privatisation in the former USSR would lead to massive corruption, social resentment and
political reaction; in security circles, if anyone dared to question the logic of Nato
expansion; and almost anywhere if it was pointed out that the looting of former Soviet
republics was being assiduously encouraged and profited from by western banks, and regarded
with benign indifference by western governments.
The atmosphere of the time is (nowadays notoriously) summed up in Francis Fukuyama's The
End of History , which essentially predicted that western liberal capitalist democracy
would now be the only valid and successful economic and political model for all time. In fact,
what victory in the Cold War ended was not history but the study of history by western
elites.
"The US claiming the right of unilateral intervention anywhere in the world was an
ambition greater than that of any previous power"
A curious feature of 1990s capitalist utopian thought was that it misunderstood the
essential nature of capitalism, as revealed by its real (as opposed to faith-based) history.
One is tempted to say that Fukuyama should have paid more attention to Karl Marx and a famous
passage in The Communist Manifesto :
"The bourgeoisie [ie capitalism] cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the
instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole
relations of society All fixed, fast-frozen relations with their train of ancient and venerable
prejudices and opinions, are swept away; all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can
ossify the bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market drawn from under the
feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old established national industries
have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed "
Then again, Marx himself made exactly the same mistake in his portrayal of a permanent
socialist utopia after the overthrow of capitalism. The point is that utopias, being perfect,
are unchanging, whereas continuous and radical change, driven by technological development, is
at the heart of capitalism -- and, according to Marx, of the whole course of human history. Of
course, those who believed in a permanently successful US "Goldilocks economy" -- not too hot,
and not too cold -- also managed to forget 300 years of periodic capitalist economic
crises.
Though much mocked at the time, Fukuyama's vision came to dominate western thinking. This
was summed up in the universally employed but absurd phrases "Getting to Denmark" (as if Russia
and China were ever going to resemble Denmark) and "The path to democracy and the free
market" (my italics), which became the mantra of the new and lucrative academic-bureaucratic
field of "transitionology." Absurd, because the merest glance at modern history reveals
multiple different "paths" to -- and away from -- democracy and capitalism, not to mention
myriad routes that have veered towards one at the same time as swerving away from the
other.
Accompanying this overwhelmingly dominant political and economic ideology was an American
geopolitical vision equally grandiose in ambition and equally blind to the lessons of history.
This was summed up in the memorandum on "Defence Planning Guidance 1994-1999," drawn up in
April 1992 for the Bush Senior administration by Under-Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and subsequently leaked to the media. Its central message was:
"The US must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds
the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or
pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests We must maintain the
mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global
role "
By claiming for the US the right of unilateral intervention anywhere in the world and
denying other major powers a greater role in their regions, this strategy essentially extended
the Monroe Doctrine (which effectively defined the "western hemisphere" as the US sphere of
influence) to the entire planet: an ambition greater than that of any previous power. The
British Empire at its height knew that it could never intervene unilaterally on the continent
of Europe or in Central America. The most megalomaniac of European rulers understood that other
great powers with influence in their own areas of the world would always exist.
While that 1992 Washington paper spoke of the "legitimate interests" of other states, it
clearly implied that it would be Washington that would define what interests were legitimate,
and how they could be pursued. And once again, though never formally adopted, this "doctrine"
became in effect the standard operating procedure of subsequent administrations. In the early
2000s, when its influence reached its most dangerous height, military and security elites would
couch it in the terms of "full spectrum dominance." As the younger President Bush declared in
his State of the Union address in January 2002, which put the US on the road to the invasion of
Iraq: "By the grace of God, America won the Cold War A world once divided into two armed camps
now recognises one sole and pre-eminent power, the United States of America."
Nemesis
Triumphalism led US policymakers, and their transatlantic followers, to forget one cardinal
truth about geopolitical and military power: that in the end it is not global and absolute, but
local and relative. It is the amount of force or influence a state wants to bring to bear in a
particular place and on a -particular issue, relative to the power that a rival state is
willing and able to bring to bear. The truth of this has been shown repeatedly over the past
generation. For all America's overwhelming superiority on paper, it has turned out that many
countries have greater strength than the US in particular places: Russia in Georgia and
Ukraine, Russia and Iran in Syria, China in the South China Sea, and even Pakistan in southern
Afghanistan.
American over-confidence, accepted by many Europeans and many Britons especially, left the
US in a severely weakened condition to conduct what should have been clear as far back as the
1990s to be the great competition of the future -- that between Washington and Beijing.
On the one hand, American moves to extend Nato to the Baltics and then (abortively) on to
Ukraine and Georgia, and to abolish Russian influence and destroy Russian allies in the Middle
East, inevitably produced a fierce and largely successful Russian nationalist reaction. Within
Russia, the US threat to its national interests helped to consolidate and legitimise Putin's
control. Internationally, it ensured that Russia would swallow its deep-seated fears of China
and become a valuable partner of Beijing.
On the other hand, the benign and neglectful way in which Washington regarded the rise of
China in the generation after the Cold War (for example, the blithe decision to allow China to
join the World Trade Organisation) was also rooted in ideological arrogance. Western
triumphalism meant that most of the US elites were convinced that as a result of economic
growth, the Chinese Communist state would either democratise or be overthrown; and that China
would eventually have to adopt the western version of economics or fail economically. This was
coupled with the belief that good relations with China could be predicated on China accepting a
so-called "rules-based" international order in which the US set the rules while also being free
to break them whenever it wished; something that nobody with the slightest knowledge of Chinese
history should
have believed.
Throughout, the US establishment discourse (Democrat as much as Republican) has sought to
legitimise American global hegemony by invoking the promotion of liberal democracy. At the same
time, the supposedly intrinsic connection between economic change, democracy and peace was
rationalised by cheerleaders such as the New York Times 's indefatigable Thomas
Friedman, who advanced the (always absurd, and now flatly and repeatedly falsified) "Golden
Arches theory of Conflict
Prevention." This vulgarised version of Democratic Peace Theory pointed out that two countries
with McDonald's franchises had never been to war. The humble and greasy American burger was
turned into a world-historical symbol of the buoyant modern middle classes with too much to
lose to countenance war.
Various equally hollow theories postulated cast-iron connections between free markets and
guaranteed property rights on the one hand, and universal political rights and freedoms on the
other, despite the fact that even within the west, much of political history can be
characterised as the fraught and complex brokering of accommodations between these two sets of
things.
And indeed, since the 1990s democracy has not advanced in the world as a whole, and belief
in the US promotion of democracy has been discredited by US patronage of the authoritarian and
semi-authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, India and elsewhere. Of the predominantly
Middle Eastern and South Asian students whom I teach at Georgetown University in Qatar, not one
-- even among the liberals -- believes that the US is sincerely committed to spreading
democracy; and, given their own regions' recent history, there is absolutely no reason why they
should believe this.
The one great triumph of democratisation coupled with free market reform was -- or appeared
to be -- in the former communist states of Central and Eastern Europe, and this success was
endlessly cited as the model for political and economic reform across
the globe.
But the portrayal of East European reform in the west failed to recognise the central role
of local nationalism. Once again, to talk of this at the time was to find oneself in effect
excluded from polite society, because to do so called into question the self-evident
superiority and universal appeal of liberal reform. The overwhelming belief of western
establishments was that nationalism was a superstition that was fast losing its hold on people
who, given the choice, could everywhere be relied on to act like rational consumers, rather
than citizens rooted in one particular land.
The more excitable technocrats imagined that nation state itself (except the US of course)
was destined to wither away. This was also the picture reflected back to western observers and
analysts by liberal reformers across the region, who whether or not they were genuinely
convinced of this, knew what their western sponsors wanted to hear. Western economic and
cultural hegemony produced a sort of mirror game, a copulation of illusions in which local
informants provided false images to the west, which then reflected them back to the east, and
so on.
Always the nation
Yet one did not have to travel far outside the centres of Eastern European cities to find
large parts of populations outraged by the moral and cultural changes ordained by the EU, the
collapse of social services, and the (western-indulged) seizure of public property by former
communist elites. So why did Eastern Europeans swallow the whole western liberal package of the
time? They did so precisely because of their nationalism, which persuaded them that if they did
not pay the cultural and economic price of entry into the EU and Nato, they would sooner or
later fall back under the dreaded hegemony of Moscow. For them, unwanted reform was the price
that the nation had to pay for US protection. Not surprisingly, once membership of these
institutions was secured, a powerful populist and nationalist backlash set in.
Western blindness to the power of nationalism has had several bad consequences for western
policy, and the cohesion of "the west." In Eastern Europe, it would in time lead to the
politically almost insane decision of the EU to try to order the local peoples, with their
deeply-rooted ethnic nationalism and bitter memories of outside dictation, to accept large
numbers of Muslim refugees. The backlash then became conjoined with the populist reactions in
Western Europe, which led to Brexit and the sharp decline of centrist parties across the
EU.
More widely, this blindness to the power of nationalism led the US grossly to underestimate
the power of nationalist sentiment in Russia, China and Iran, and contributed to the US attempt
to use "democratisation" as a means to overthrow their regimes. All that this has succeeded in
doing is to help the regimes concerned turn nationalist sentiment against local liberals, by
accusing them of being US stooges.
"A stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on
some minimal moral values"
Russian liberals in the 1990s were mostly not really US agents as such, but the collapse of
Communism led some to a blind adulation of everything western and to identify unconditionally
with US policies. In terms of public image, this made them look like western lackeys; in terms
of policy, it led to the adoption of the economic "shock therapy" policies advocated by the
west. Combined with monstrous corruption and the horribly disruptive collapse of the Soviet
single market, this had a shattering effect on Russian industry and the living standards of
ordinary Russians.
Many liberals gave the impression of complete indifference to the resulting immiseration of
the Russian population in these years. At a meeting of the Carnegie Endowment in Washington
that I attended later, former Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar boasted to an applauding US audience
of how he had destroyed the Russian military industrial complex. The fact that this also
destroyed the livelihoods of tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians was not mentioned.
This attitude was fed by contempt on the part of the educated classes of Moscow and St
Petersburg for ordinary Russians, who were dubbed Homo Sovieticus and treated as an
inferior species whose loathsome culture was preventing the liberal elites from taking their
rightful place among the "civilised" nations of the west. This frame of mind was reminiscent of
the traditional attitude of white elites in Latin America towards the Indio and Mestizo
majorities in their countries.
I vividly remember one Russian liberal journalist state his desire to fire machine guns into
crowds of elderly Russians who joined Communist demonstrations to protest about the collapse of
their pensions. The response of the western journalists present was that this was perhaps a
little bit excessive, but to be excused since the basic sentiment was correct.
The Russian liberals of the 1990s were crazy to reveal this contempt to the people whose
votes they needed to win. So too was Hillary Clinton, with her disdain for the "basket of
deplorables" in the 2016 election, much of the Remain camp in the years leading up to Brexit,
and indeed the European elites in the way they rammed through the Maastricht Treaty and the
euro in the 1990s.
If the post-Cold War world order was a form of US imperialism, it now looks like an empire
in which rot in the over-extended periphery has spread to the core. The economic and social
patterns of 1990s Russia and Ukraine have come back to haunt the west, though so far thank God
in milder form. The massive looting of Russian state property and the systematic evasion of
taxes by Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs was only possible with the help of western banks,
which transferred the proceeds to the west and the Caribbean. This crime was euphemised in the
western discourse (naturally including the Economist ) as "capital flight."
Peter Mandelson qualified his famous remark that the Blair government was "intensely relaxed
about people becoming filthy rich" with the words "as long as they pay their taxes." The whole
point, however, about the filthy Russian, Ukrainian, Nigerian, Pakistani and other money that
flowed to and through London was not just that so much of it was stolen, but that it was
escaping taxation, thereby harming the populations at home twice over. The infamous euphemism
"light-touch regulation" was in effect a charter
for this.
In a bitter form of poetic justice, however, "light-touch regulation" paved the way for the
2008 economic crisis in the west itself, and western economic elites too (especially in the US)
would also seize this opportunity to move their money into tax havens. This has done serious
damage to state revenues, and to the fundamental faith of ordinary people in the west that the
rich are truly subject to the same laws as them.
The indifference of Russian elites to the suffering of the Russian population has found a
milder echo in the neglect of former industrial regions across Britain, Western Europe and the
US that did so much to produce the votes for Brexit, for Trump and for populist nationalist
parties in Europe. The catastrophic plunge in Russian male life expectancy in the 1990s has
found its echo in the unprecedented decline in white working-class male life expectancy in the
US.
Perhaps the greatest lesson of the period after the last Cold War is that in the end, a
stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on some minimal moral values. To say this
to western economists, businessmen and financial journalists in the 1990s was to receive the
kindly contempt usually accorded to religious cranks. The only value recognised was shareholder
value, a currency in which the crimes of the Russian oligarchs could be excused because their
stolen companies had "added value." Any concern about duty to the Russian people as a whole, or
the fact that tolerance of these crimes would make it grotesque to demand honesty of policemen
or civil servants, were dismissed as irrelevant sentimentality.
Bringing it all back home
We in the west are living with the consequences of a generation of such attitudes. Western
financial elites have mostly not engaged in outright illegality; but then again, they usually
haven't needed to, since governments have made it easy for them to abide by the letter of the
law while tearing its spirit to pieces. We are belatedly recognising that, as Franklin Foer
wrote in the Atlantic last year: "New York, Los Angeles and Miami have joined London as
the world's most desired destinations for laundered money. This boom has enriched the American
elites who have enabled it -- and it has degraded the nation's political and social mores in
the process. While everyone else was heralding an emergent globalist world that would take on
the best values of America, [Richard] Palmer [a former CIA station chief in Moscow] had
glimpsed the dire risk of the opposite: that the values of the kleptocrats would become
America's own. This grim vision is now nearing fruition."
Those analysing the connection between Russia and Trump's administration have looked in the
wrong place. The explanation of Trump's success is not that Putin somehow mesmerised American
voters in 2016. It is that populations abandoned by their elites are liable to extreme
political responses; and that societies whose economic elites have turned ethics into a joke
should not be surprised if their political leaders too become scoundrels.
@onebornfree
w.britannica.com/topic/commonwealth-political-science">https://www.britannica.com/topic/commonwealth-political-science
What is labelled socialism today is nowhere near what the original socialists would consider
socialism, which is closer to the co-operative movement and anarchy than communism.
On the other hand, Marxism (communism) is about complete state control and was
international in scope. One (of many) reason for the breakdown of the USSR, was that it was,
in fact, becoming socialistic in many countries, starting with Hungary in 1956 then
Czechoslovakia in 1968 becoming nationalist. Even Russia was becoming more nationalistic.
@Druid
unknown in Russia 1917. It wasn't really understood. In contrast Neo-Bolshevism USA 2020 has
the prior example of Bolshevism Russia 1917 to learn from and check the mechanism.
– The Russian population 1917 held some arms (which were immediately made illegal
– retention carrying the death penalty). But nothing at all like the vast armoury
presently held by the US public.
– The Bolsheviks successful subverted the demoralized and badly organized Russian
Imperial Army (at least in Petrograd where it mattered). The US military is in a much better
state, and is maybe not so attracted by SJW/BLM/Antifa (middle and lower ranks).
@onebornfree
w.britannica.com/topic/commonwealth-political-science">https://www.britannica.com/topic/commonwealth-political-science
What is labelled socialism today is nowhere near what the original socialists would consider
socialism, which is closer to the co-operative movement and anarchy than communism.
On the other hand, Marxism (communism) is about complete state control and was
international in scope. One (of many) reason for the breakdown of the USSR, was that it was,
in fact, becoming socialistic in many countries, starting with Hungary in 1956 then
Czechoslovakia in 1968 becoming nationalist. Even Russia was becoming more nationalistic.
@Druid
unknown in Russia 1917. It wasn't really understood. In contrast Neo-Bolshevism USA 2020 has
the prior example of Bolshevism Russia 1917 to learn from and check the mechanism.
– The Russian population 1917 held some arms (which were immediately made illegal
– retention carrying the death penalty). But nothing at all like the vast armoury
presently held by the US public.
– The Bolsheviks successful subverted the demoralized and badly organized Russian
Imperial Army (at least in Petrograd where it mattered). The US military is in a much better
state, and is maybe not so attracted by SJW/BLM/Antifa (middle and lower ranks).
"... The U.S. has spent a century or more trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences. ..."
"... The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal, nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. ..."
"... To the point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so? ..."
"... Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business. ..."
"... Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers, including former Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin, Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world. ..."
"... Under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the ' Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to have played a role in the murder of Che Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered. ..."
"... To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,' adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind. ..."
"... Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War. ..."
"... the U.S. had indicated its intention to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be taken in good faith. ..."
"... Following the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them. In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former Baltic states were brought under NATO's control . ..."
"... The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC) in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here . The economic and military annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2 . The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis on its payroll in 1948. ..."
"... That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges ..."
"... Its near instantaneous adoption by bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?' ..."
"... Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this move. ..."
The political success of Russiagate lies in the vanishing of American history in favor of a
façade of liberal virtue. Posed as a response to the election of Donald Trump, a
straight line can be drawn from efforts to undermine the decommissioning of the American war
economy in 1946 to the CIA's alliance with Ukrainian fascists in 2014. In 1945 the NSC
(National Security Council) issued a series of directives that gave logic and direction to the
CIA's actions during the Cold War. That these persist despite the 'fall of communism' suggests
that it was always just a placeholder in the pursuit of other objectives.
The first Cold War was an imperial business enterprise to keep the Generals, bureaucrats,
and war materiel suppliers in power and their bank accounts flush after WWII. Likewise, the
American side of the nuclear arms race left former
Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA to put their paranoid fantasies forward as
assessments of Russian military capabilities. Why, of all people, would former Nazi officers be
put in charge military intelligence if accurate assessments were the goal? The Nazis hated the
Soviets more than the Americans did.
The ideological binaries of Russiagate -- for or against Donald Trump, for or against
neoliberal, petrostate Russia, define the boundaries of acceptable discourse to the benefit of
deeply nefarious interests. The U.S. has spent a century or more
trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR
in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to
loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed
NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a
negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a
reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences.
The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria
Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal,
nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have
used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists
subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. Furthermore, Steinem's
aggressive ignorance of the actual history of the CIA illustrates the liberal propensity to
conflate bourgeois dress and attitude with an imagined
gentility . To the
point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not
employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so?
On the American left, Russiagate is treated as a case of bad reporting, of official outlets
for government propaganda serially reporting facts and events that were subsequently disproved.
However, some fair portion of the American bourgeois, the PMC that acts in supporting roles for
capital, believes every word of it. Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American
fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time
that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the
Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly
fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business.
Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers,
including former
Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human
beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin,
Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the
Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's
overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear
weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated
into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world.
By the time that (Senator) John F. Kennedy claimed a U.S. 'missile gap' with the Soviets in
1958, the CIA was providing estimates of Soviet ICBMs (Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles),
that were
wildly inflated -- most likely provided to it by the Gehlen Organization. Once satellite
and U2 reconnaissance estimates became available, the CIA lowered its own to 120 Soviet ICBMs
when the actual number
was four . On the one hand, the Soviets really did have a nuclear weapons program. On the
other, it was a tiny fraction of what was being claimed. Bad reporting, unerringly on the side
of larger military budgets, appears to be the constant.
Under the
Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially
disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the '
Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to
labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in
political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to
have played a role in the murder of Che
Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi
concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered.
The historical sequence in the U.S. was WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, to an economy that
was heavily dependent on war production. The threatened decommissioning of the war economy in
1946 was first met with an
honest assessment of Soviet intentions -- the Soviets were moving infrastructure back into
Soviet territory as quickly as was practicable, then to the military budget-friendly claim that
they were putting resources in place to invade Europe. The result of the shift was that the
American Generals kept their power and the war industry kept producing materiel and weapons. By
1948 these weapons had come to include atomic bombs.
To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward
the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly
traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and
are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,'
adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear
arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons
non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind.
What ties the Gehlen Organization to CIA estimates of Soviet nuclear weapons from 1948
– 1958 is 1) the Gehlen Organization was central to the CIA's intelligence operations
vis-à-vis the Soviets, 2) the CIA had limited alternatives to gather information on the
Soviets outside of the Gehlen Organization and 3) the senior leadership of the U.S. military
had
long demonstrated that it approved of exaggerating foreign threats when doing so enhanced
their power and added to their budgets. Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former
Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive
Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War.
Where this gets interesting is that American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg was working for the Rand
Corporation in the late 1950s and early 1960s when estimates of Soviet ICBMs were being put
forward. JFK had run (in 1960) on a platform that included closing the Soviet – U.S. '
missile
gap .' The USAF (U.S. Air Force), charged with delivering nuclear missiles to their
targets, was estimating that the Soviets had 1,000 ICBMs. Mr. Ellsberg, who had limited
security clearance through his employment at Rand, was leaked the known number of Soviet ICBMs.
The Air Force was saying 1,000 Soviet ICBMs when the number confirmed by reconnaissance
satellites was four.
By 1962, the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the CIA had shifted nominal control of the
Gehlen Organization to the BND, for whom Gehlen continued to work. Based on ongoing satellite
reconnaissance data, the CIA was busy lowering its estimates of Soviet nuclear capabilities.
Benjamin Schwarz, writing
for The Atlantic in 2013, provided an account, apparently informed by the CIA's lowered
estimates, where he placed the whole of the Soviet nuclear weapons program (in 1962) at roughly
one-ninth the size of the U.S. effort. However, given Ellsberg's known count of four Soviet
ICBMs at the time of the missile crisis, even Schwarz's ratio of 1:9 seems to overstate Soviet
capabilities.
Further per Schwarz's reporting, the Jupiter nuclear missiles that the U.S. had placed in
Italy prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis only made sense as first-strike weapons. This
interpretation is corroborated by Daniel Ellsberg , who argues
that the American plan was always to initiate the use of nuclear weapons (first strike). This
made JFK's posture of equally matched contestants in a geopolitical game of nuclear chicken
utterly unhinged. Should this be less than clear, because the U.S. had indicated its intention
to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing
Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be
taken in good faith.
The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 was met with a promised reduction in U.S. military
spending and an end to the Cold War, neither of which ultimately materialized. Following the
election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was
repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them.
In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging
the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then
unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former
Baltic
states were brought under NATO's control .
The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of
fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically
elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing
the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC)
in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here .
The economic and military
annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2
. The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan
to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace
the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated
former Nazis on its payroll in 1948.
That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security
Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks
volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges.
Its near instantaneous adoption by
bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That
liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by
unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of
historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers
employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?'
The Nazi War
Crimes Disclosure Act came about in part because Nazi hunters kept coming across Nazi war
criminals living in the U.S. who told them they had been brought here and given employment by
the CIA, CIC, or some other division of the Federal government. If the people in these agencies
thought that doing so was justified, why the secrecy? And if it wasn't justified, why was it
done? Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical
ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the
upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this
move.Cue the Sex
Pistols .
Which was not a wild decade: this is was the decade of the brutal economic rape of the West
under the disguise of "shock therapy" and will help and active participation of "Harvard mafia."
A special breed of ruthless economic hitmen decended on Russia with the full support of Western
intelligence services. A classic example here is Mr. Browder.
By securing victory in a
national vote on constitutional changes , Vladimir Putin could now remain president of
Russia until 2036 if he chooses to stand again. After 20 years in power, the narrative of
Russia's chaotic 1990s remains core to Putin's legitimacy as the leader who
restored stability .
Although the decade still
divides public opinion , what's not in doubt is that it was a dangerous and
exciting period. The ambiguity of the 90s is summed up by the then-popular Russian word,
bespredel , the title of a 1989 prison drama meaning anarchic freedom and
unaccountable authority.
... ... ...
The social impact was immense. Life expectancy fell, with up to five million excess adult deaths in
Russia in 1991-2001, birth rates
collapsed and both of these trends were compounded by widespread crime and
trafficking . These negative effects were concentrated in periods of economic crisis in
1991-94 and 1998-99.
Sharply rising inequality and the emergence of a new wealthy class, including some leading
reformers, meant that the term "democrat" had become a term
of abuse as early as 1992 .
Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
program to arm and finance the mujahideen (jihadists) in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, prior
to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of its client, the Democratic
Republic of Afghanistan. The mujahideen were also supported by Britain's MI6, who conducted
separate covert actions. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups
that were favored by the regime of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in neighboring Pakistan, rather than
other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the
Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet
intervention.[1]
Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever
undertaken.[2] Funding officially began with $695,000 in 1979,[3][4] was increased dramatically
to $20–$30 million per year in 1980, and rose to $630 million per year in 1987,[1][5][6]
described as the "biggest bequest to any Third World insurgency."[7] Funding continued (albeit
reduced) after the 1989 Soviet withdrawal as the mujahideen continued to battle the forces of
President Mohammad Najibullah's army during the Afghan Civil War (1989–1992).[8]
"... What Catan established is that, at the time his helicopter was blown out of the sky, Curtis, lawyer both to the Menatep oligarchs and Berezovsky, had started 'singing sweetly' to what was the the National Criminal Intelligence Service. ..."
"... And what he was telling them about the activities of Khodorkovsky and his associates would have been 'music to the ears' of Putin and his associates. ..."
"... Ironically, she inadvertently demonstrates a crucial element in this story – the extent to which not only British, but American, intelligence/foreign policy/law enforcement agencies 'got into bed' with the members of the 'semibankirshchina' of the 'Nineties who refused to accept the terms Putin offered. ..."
"... A prescient early analysis of Putin, which brings out that the notion that his KGB background meant that he wanted conflict with the West is BS, is the 2002 paper 'Vladimir Putin & Russia's Special Services.' ..."
"... It was published by the 'Conflict Studies Research Centre', which was what the old 'Soviet Studies Research Centre', which did 'open source' analysis for the British military at Sandhurst became, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
From the description of the evolution the thinking of Christopher Steele by his co-conspirators Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch:
'When the Soviet Union finally collapsed, the suffocating surveillance of Western diplomats and suspected intelligence officers
suddenly ceased – which for a brief moment seemed like a possible harbinger of a new, less authoritarian future for Russia. But
the surveillance started again within days. The intrusive tails and petty harassment were indistinguishable from Soviet practices
and have continued to this day. To Steele, that told him all he needed to know about the new Russia: The new boss was the same
as the old boss.'
This was, apparently, the figure who MI6 judged fit to head their Russia Desk, and whose analyses were regarded as serious
among people in the State Department, CIA, FBI, DOJ etc. LOL.
As to Simpson and Fritsch, they were supposed to be serious journalists. LOL again.
A curious thing is that Tom Catan once was.
He wrote a good long investigative piece in the 'Financial Times', back in 2004, about the death of Stephen Curtis, one of
the fourteen mysterious incidents in the U.K., which according to Heidi Blake of 'BuzzFeed', American intelligence agencies have
evidence establishing that they were the work of the Russian 'special services.'
(As, according to the 'Sky' report you and Colonel Lang discussed, the supposed attempt to assassinate Sergei and Yulia Skripal
is supposed to be.)
What Catan established is that, at the time his helicopter was blown out of the sky, Curtis, lawyer both to the Menatep
oligarchs and Berezovsky, had started 'singing sweetly' to what was the the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
And what he was telling them about the activities of Khodorkovsky and his associates would have been 'music to the ears'
of Putin and his associates.
As with the deaths of Berezovsky and Patarkatsishvili, which also feature in Ms. Blake's farragos, at the precise time they
died, it was precisely Putin and his associates who had the strongest possible interest in keeping them alive.
Ironically, she inadvertently demonstrates a crucial element in this story – the extent to which not only British, but
American, intelligence/foreign policy/law enforcement agencies 'got into bed' with the members of the 'semibankirshchina' of the
'Nineties who refused to accept the terms Putin offered.
Unfortunately, I cannot provide a link to the Catan article, as it is no longer available on the web, and when I put my old
link into the 'Wayback Machine' version, I was told it was infected with a Trojan.
But I can send you a copy, if you are interested.
Leith,
Of course, no ancestry – be it Lithuanian, or Polish, or Ukrainian, or whatever – 'automatically' produces bias.
A prescient early analysis of Putin, which brings out that the notion that his KGB background meant that he wanted conflict
with the West is BS, is the 2002 paper 'Vladimir Putin & Russia's Special Services.'
It was published by the 'Conflict Studies Research Centre', which was what the old 'Soviet Studies Research Centre', which
did 'open source' analysis for the British military at Sandhurst became, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The actual name of 'Gordon Bennett', who wrote it, is Henry Plater-Zyberk. They were a great, and very distinguished, Polish-Lithuanian
noble family.
In quite a long experience of refugees to these islands from the disasters of twentieth-century European history, and their
descendants, I have found that sometimes the history is taken as a subject of reflection and becomes a source of insight and understanding
not granted to those with more fortunate backgrounds.
At other times, however, people become locked in a trauma, out of which they cannot escape.
davidhabakkuk says: May
25, 2020 at 12:22 pm The kind of view of the end of the Cold War which underpins
Billingslea's notion that the United States can spend Russia and China into 'oblivion' is
that championed by people who totally failed to anticipate what happened in the Soviet
Union in the 'Eighties, and have not seen this fact as reason for rethinking the
assumptions that caused them to get things so radically wrong.
The extent of the incompetence involved is vividly apparent in the collection of
documents from the American and Soviet sides published by the 'National Security Archive'
in January 2017, under the title 'The Last Superpower Summits.'
Particularly revealing, to my mind, is Document 12, the transcript of the closed-door
testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee by the top three CIA analysts of the Soviet
Union, Doug MacEachin, Robert Blackwell, and Paul Ericson, at the precise moment, in
December 1988, when Gorbachev announced his 500,000 troop cut at the U.N.
The editors comment:
'And MacEachin offers a true confession in an extraordinary passage that demonstrates
how prior assumptions about Soviet behavior, rather than actual intelligence data points,
actually drove intelligence findings: "Now, we spend megadollars studying political
instability in various places around the world, but we never really looked at the Soviet
Union as a political entity in which there were factors building which could lead to the
kind of – at least the initiation of political transformation that we seem to see. It
does not exist to my knowledge. Moreover, had it existed inside the government, we never
would have been able to publish it anyway, quite frankly. And had we done so, people would
have been calling for my head. And I wouldn't have published it. In all honesty, had we
said a week ago that Gorbachev might come to the UN and offer a unilateral cut of 500,000
in the military, we would have been told we were crazy. We had a difficult enough time
getting air space for the prospect of some unilateral cuts of 50 to 60,000."
Actually, it was quite possible to do much better, without spending 'megadollars', if
one simply went to the Chatham House Library and/or the London Library and looked at what
competent analysts, like those working for the Foreign Policy Studies Program then run by
the late, great John Steinbruner at Brookings – a very different place then from
now.
Among those he employed were two of the best former intelligence analysts of Soviet
military strategy: Ambassador Raymond Garthoff and Commander Michael MccGwire, R.N., to
give them their titles when in government service.
These has devoted a great deal of effort to explaining that Professor Richard Pipes of
Harvard, a key influence in creating the 'groupthink' MacEachin described, had missed a
crucial transition away from nuclear war planning to conventional 'deep operations' in the
late 'Sixties and 'Seventies.
Inturn, this led Garthoff and MccGwire to grasp that the Gorbachev-era 'new thinkers'
had decided that the conventional 'deep operations' posture in turn needed to be abandoned.
For a summary of the latter's arguments, see article entitled 'Rethinking War: The Soviets
and European Security', published in the Spring 1988 edition of the 'Brookings Review',
available on the 'Unz Review' site.
Also associated with Brookings at the time was the Duke University Sovietologist Jerry
Hough, who had read his way through the writings of academics in the institutes associated
with the Academy of Sciences on development economics, and talked extensively to many of
their authors.
In the 'Conclusion' to his 1986 study, 'The Struggle for the Third World: Soviet Debates
and American Options', Hough wrote:
'Or what is one to say about the argument – now very widely accepted – among
Soviet economists – that countries with "capitalist-oriented" economies in the third
world have a natural tendency to grow more rapidly than countries with a "socialist
orientation" because well-rounded development seems to be dependent on foreign investment
and integration into the world market? A quarter of a century ago, let alone in the Stalin
period, it was just as widely accepted that integration into the capitalist world economy
doomed a third world country to slow, deformed growth and that foreign investment exploited
a local economy.'
One thing one could say is that this recognition that fundamental premises of the
Marxist-Leninist view of the world had turned out wrong was simple an acknowledgement of
the ways that the world had changed. And that view of the world had defined the political
framework in which Soviet contingency planning for war had developed.
Central to this had been the premise of a 'natural' teleology of history towards
socialism, with the risk of war in the international system arising from the attempts of
the 'imperialist' powers to resist this.
So there were profound pressures, which really were not simply created by the Reagan
military build-up and SDI, for radical changes in the Soviet security posture. Questions
were obviously raised, however, as to whether these – together with radical domestic
reform – would defuse Western hostility.
Fascinating here is Document 11, a memo to Gorbachev from a key advisor, Georgy Arbatov,
the director of the 'Institute for U.S.A. and Canada' from the previous June. This sets the
plan for the 500,000 troop reduction in the context both of the wider conception of
liquidating the capability for large-scale offensive operations described MccGwire, and
also of the perceived importance of breaking the 'image of the enemy' in the West.
While both Gorbachev, and Arbatov, were widely perceived in the West as engaged in a
particularly dangerous 'active measures' campaign, it is striking how closely the thinking
set out in the memo echoes that the latter had articulated the previous December in a
letter to the 'New York Times', in response to a column by William Safire.
Headlined 'It Takes Two to Make a Cold War', it expresses key assumptions underlying the
'new thinking.' Two crucial paragraphs:
'If the Soviet Union should accept the proposed rules of the game and devotedly continue
the cold war, then, of course, sooner or later, the whole thing would end in a calamity.
But at least Mr. Safire's plan would work. The only problem I see here is that the Soviet
Union will not pick up the challenge and accept the proposed rules of the game. And then
Americans would find themselves in exactly the same position Mr. Safire and his ilk, as he
himself writes, are finding themselves in now: history would pass them by, and years from
now they would be "regarded as foot-draggers and sourpusses," because almost no one in the
world is willing to play the games of the American right. Least of all, the Soviet
Union.
'And here we have a "secret weapon" that will work almost regardless of the American
response e would deprive America of The Enemy. And how would you justify without it the
military expenditures that bleed the American economy white, a policy that draws America
into dangerous adventures overseas and drives wedges between the United States and its
allies, not to mention the loss of American influence on neutral countries? Wouldn't such a
policy in the absence of The Enemy put America in the position of an outcast in the
international community?'
There was however another question which was raised by the patent bankrupcy of
Marxism-Leninism, which bore very directly upon what Arbatov, in his memorandum to
Gorbachev.
If one accepted that Soviet-style economics had led to a dead end, and that integration
into the U.S. dominated global economic order was the road to successful development,
questions obviously arose about not simply about how far, and how rapidly, one should
attempt to dismantle not simply the command economy.
But they also arose about whether it was prudent to dismantle the authoritarian
political system with which it was associated, at the same time.
In a lecture given in 2010, entitled 'The Cold War: A View from Russia', the historian
Vladimir O. Pechatnov, himself a product of Arbatov's institute, would provide a vivid
picture of the disillusion felt by 'liberalising' intellectuals within the Soviet
apparatus, like himself.
However, he also made the – rather interesting – suggestion that, had logic
of central arguments by George F. Kennan, the figure generally, if in my own view somewhat
misleadingly, regarded as the principal architect of post-war American strategy, actually
pointed rather decisively away from the assumption that a rapid dismantling of the
authoritarian system was wise.
And Pechatnov pointed to the very ambivalent implications of the view of the latent
instability of Soviet society expressed in Kennan's famous July 1947 'X-article':
'So, if Communist Party is incapacitated, the Soviet Russia, I quote, "would almost
overnight turn from one of the mightiest into one of the weakest and miserable nations of
the world "). Had Gorbachev read Kennan and realized this causal connection (as Deng and
his colleagues most definitely had), he might have thought twice before abruptly
terminating the Communist monopoly on power.'
What is involved here is a rather fundamental fact – that in their more optimistic
assumptions, people like Arbatov and Gorbachev turned out to be simply wrong.
Crucially, rather than marginalising people like Pipes, and Safire, and Billingslea, an
effect of the retreat and collapse of Soviet power was to convince a very substantial part
of what had been the 'Peace Movement' coalition that their erstwhile opponents had been
vindicated.
However, the enthusiasm of people like Billingslea for a retry of the supposed
successful 'Reagan recipe' brings another irony.
As to SDI, it was well-known at the time that it could easily be countered, at
relatively low cost, with 'asymetric' measures.
This is well brought out in Garthoff's discussion in his 2001 Memoir 'A Journey through
the Cold War: A Memoir of Containment and Coexistence' (see p. 356.) For a more recent
discussion, in the light of declassified materials, which reaches the same conclusion, see
a piece in the 'Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' by Pavel Podvig from April 2013,
entitled 'Shooting down the Star Wars myth' at
And if one bothers to follow the way that arguments have been developing outside the
'bubble' in which most inhabitants of Washington D.C., and London exist, it is evident that
people in Moscow, and Beijing, have thought about the lessons of this history. Those who
think that they are going to be suckered into an arms race that the United States can win
are quite patently delusional.
VK #2
Yet you are fooled by the phony Socialism of "Red" China, which is really Neoliberalism in
disguise (I highly doubt Marx, Lenin, Stalin, or even the confused, Pro-U$ Mao would believe
Sweatshops, Stock Exchanges, and Billionaires represents the Socialist model of production).
I agree with you that Bernie Sanders is a gutless fraud and faux Socialist (he's merely a
Centre-Left Social Democrat yet he portrayed his movement as some sort of "Revolution", LOL),
who sadly represents the best you would ever get in the White House, in the sense that at
least he wouldn't have started any new wars, wouldn't have given any tax cuts to corporations
and the wealthy, and wouldn't have outsourced any more jobs in new free trade agreements
(these are the reasons I would have held my nose and voted for him if he had been nominated,
despite my much more Leftist beliefs).
However, I believe it smells of intense hypocrisy to call out Bernie Sanders as faux
Socialism (he is), while simultaneously bowing at the alter of Xi Jinping thought, which
along with being yet another form of faux Socialism like Bernies Social Democracy, isn't just
due to the naivety of believing that the phony Liberal Democratic process (in Marxist terms
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie), can actually achieve meaningful reforms for the Working
class and not just pacify them. In reality, it represents something much more devious, a
country that had a Communist Revolution and established a Planned Socialist economic system,
yet decided to sell out its citizens for an alliance with the U$ and massive wealth for the
Communist Party leadership, who proceeded to turn their formerly Socialist country into a
Neoliberal, Neocolonial, Sweatshop, that by giving 15 Trillion dollars in surplus value to
Wall Street is one of the biggest sponsors of U$ Imperialism (remember, according to Lenin
Imperialism is not just launching Wars against small countries, but includes when Western
Corporation exploit third world populations for massive super profits through resource
extraction and cheap labor sweatshops). In reality their are only two countries today (Cuba
and North Korea) that are in the Socialist mode of production according to the
Marxist-Leninist definition, sadly their used to be many more (the USSR, the other Eastern
Bloc countries, Maoist China, etc.) which all succumb to Capitalist counterrevolution (the
USSR and the other Eastern Bloc countries etc.), or the ruling Communist Party embracing such
extreme revisionism that over time they basically restored the Capitalist mode of production
and Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in all but name only. The reason for both of these
tragic events was the fact that due to a long-term revisionist trend after the death of
Stalin and Maos ridiculous Sino-Soviet split, the leadership of these countries became
corrupted by the desire for the U$-style "Good life" of mass consumerism and hedonistic
materialism (not Dialectical Materialism), thus proving that the real threat to Socialism is
the Neoliberal culture of decedent consumerism which corrupt the leadership and enchants the
masses of nations around the world.
"... Deanna Spingola's articles are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the person or organization must not charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included. ..."
In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer program using an investment strategy to bring
about the economic destruction of the Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the ruble,
funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union.
Those resources would subsequently be turned over to international bankers and corporations. On November 1, 2001, the second operative
in the Bush regime, President George W. Bush, issued Executive Order 13233 on the basis of "national security" and concealed the
records of past presidents, especially his father's spurious activities during 1990 and 1991. Consequently, those records are no
longer accessible to the public. [1] The Russian
coup plot was discussed in June 1991 when Yeltsin visited with Bush in conjunction with his visit to the United States. On that same
visit, Yeltsin met discreetly with Gerald Corrigan, the chairman of the New York Federal Reserve.
[2]
Because of numerous Presidential Executive Orders, the ethically questionable Project Hammer was deemed legal. Many of Reagan's
executive orders were actually authored by Vice President Bush or his legal associates, and it is possible that Project Hammer was
created by Reagan's CIA Director, William Casey, who had directed OSS operations through Alan Dulles in Europe during World War II.
Prior to his OSS affiliation, Casey worked for the Board of Economic Warfare which allegedly targeted "Hitler's economic jugular."
[3] Allen Dulles, brother of John Foster Dulles,
was the Director of the CIA (1953-1961). He was a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented
the Rockefeller Empire and other mammoth trusts, corporations and cartels.
Project Hammer was staffed with CIA operatives and others associated with the National Security apparatus. Covert channels were
already in place as a result of other illegal Bush activities. Thus, it was a given (1) that the project would use secret, illegal
funds for unapproved covert operations, and (2) that the American public and Congress would not be informed about the illegal actions
perpetrated in foreign countries. The first objective was allegedly to crush Communism, a growing political philosophy and social
movement that was initially funded by the usual group of international bankers who now supported their demise. To this end, the "Vulcans,"
under George H. W. Bush, waged war against the Soviet Union.
[4]
The Return of the Vulcans
In their reincarnation in the administration of George W. Bush, the Vulcans functioned as a supposedly benign group, led by Council
of Foreign Relations (CFR) member Condoleezza Rice, who attempted to augment and compensate for the Bush's lack of experience and
education concerning foreign policy during his presidential campaign. Rice had been President George H. W. Bush's Soviet and East
European Affairs Advisor in the National Security Council during the Soviet Union's dissolution and during the German reunification
(July 1, 1990). The resurrected Vulcan group included Richard Armitage, Robert Blackwill, Stephen Hadley, Richard Perle, Rabbi Dov
S. Zakheim, Robert Zoellick and Paul Wolfowitz. Other key campaign figures included Dick Cheney, George P. Shultz and Colin Powell,
all influential but not actually a part of the Vulcan Group. All of these people, associated with the George H. W. Bush administration,
returned to powerful, strategic positions in George W. Bush's administration.
Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz have been accused of being agents for the Israeli government. Investigations by Congress and
the FBI have substantiated those allegations. Zakheim and his family were heavily involved in Yeshivat Sha'alvim, an educational
organization in which students are taught to render absolute commitment to the State of Israel.
[5]
Many of these individuals were also members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) which was established in the spring
of 1997 with the intention of promoting American Global leadership at any cost. The chairman and co-founder was William Kristol,
son of Irving Kristol (CFR), considered the godfather of neo-conservatism which promotes the ideas of Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss,
a noted Zionist and professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Kristol's co-founder was Robert W. Kagan (CFR).
Kristol is also the editor and co-founder, along with John Podhoretz, of the Weekly Standard Magazine , established September
17, 1995 and owned by Rupert Murdoch until August 2009. This "conservative" magazine is edited by William Kristol and Fred Barnes
and promotes Middle East warfare and a huge military budget, a mentality that infects the most popular "conservative" talk show radio
hosts. Kristol is a trustee for the Manhattan Institute which was founded by CIA Director William Casey and was staffed with former
CIA officers.
The Vulcans had almost limitless financing from a cache known by several names – the Black Eagle Trust, the Marcos gold, Yamashita's
Gold, the Golden Lily Treasure, or the Durham Trust. Japan, under Emperor Hirohito, appointed a brother, Prince Chichibu, to head
Golden Lily, established in November 1937 before Japan's infamous Rape of Nanking , to accompany and follow the military. The Golden
Lily operation carried out massive plunder throughout Asia and included an army of jewelers, financial experts and smelters.
[6] The Japanese were allegedly very organized
and methodical. After the Allied blockade, Golden Lily headquarters were moved from Singapore to Manila where 175 storage sites were
built by slave laborers and POWs. Billions of dollars worth of gold and other plundered treasures were stockpiled in these underground
caverns, some of which were dis covered by the notorious Cold Warrior, Edward G. Lansdale who directed the recovery of some of the
vaults. Truman and subsequent presidents, without congressional knowledge, have used those resources to finance the CIA's chaotic
clandestine activities throughout the world. Much of the Middle East chaos is financed by those pillaged funds. A tiny portion of
that treasure was the source of Ferdinand Marcos' vast wealth. Marcos worked with the CIA for decades using Golden Lily funds to
bribe nations to support the Vietnam War. In return, Marcos was allowed to sell over $1 trillion in gold through Australian brokers.
[7]
In July 1944, the leaders of forty-four nations met at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to plan the post-war economy and to discuss
organizing a global political action fund which would use the Black Eagle Trust ostensibly to fight communism, bribe political leaders,
enhance the treasuries of U.S. allies, and manipulate elections in foreign countries and other unconstitutional covert operations.
Certainly, those politicos who managed the funds also received financial benefits. This trust was headed by Secretary of War Henry
Stimson, assisted by John J. McCloy (later head of the World Bank) and Robert Lovett (later Secretary of Defense) and consultant
Robert B. Anderson (later Secretary of the Treasury).
[8] Anderson later operated the Commercial Exchange
Bank of Anguilla in the British West Indies and was convicted of running illegal offshore banking operations and tax evasion. Investors
lost about $4.4 million. Consequently, he was sent to prison for a token amount of time, one month. He was also under house arrest
for five years. He could have received a ten-year sentence but Judge Palmieri considered Anderson's "distinguished service" to the
country in the "top levels of Government." [9]
Between 1945 and 1947 huge quantities of gold and platinum were deposited in prominent banks throughout the world. These deposits
came to be known as the Black Eagle Trust. Swiss banks, because of their neutrality, were pivotal in maintaining these funds. These
funds were allocated to fighting communism and paying bribes and fixing elections in places like Italy, Greece, and Japan.
[10] Stimson and McCloy, both retired from government
service, continued their involvement in the management of the Black Eagle Trust. Robert B. Anderson, who toured the treasure sites
with Douglas MacArthur, set up the Black Eagle Trust and later became a member of Eisenhower's cabinet.
[11] In order to maintain secrecy about the
Trust, Washington officials insisted that the Japanese did not plunder the countries they invaded. Japanese officials who wanted
to divulge the facts were imprisoned or murdered in a way that made it look like suicide, a common CIA tactic.
[12] The Germans paid reparations to thousands
of victims while the Japanese paid next to nothing. Military leaders who opposed foreign policies that embraced exploitation of third
world countries were suicided or died from mysterious causes, which includes individuals such as George S. Patton, Smedley D. Butler
and James V. Forrestal.
The Vulcan's effort to crush Communism and end the Cold War was largely funded by that Japanese plunder. The Vulcans were resurrected
when George W. Bush was installed as president in 2000, facilitated by election maneuvers, probably lots of payoffs, and Jeb Bush's
purge of Florida voters. They conducted other illegal operations, like securities fraud and money laundering. This entailed murder
and false imprisonment to prevent penitent participants from divulging the activities of the group. During the process of accomplishing
the main objective of destroying the Soviet Union, the operatives made massive profits. In September 1991, George H. W. Bush and
Alan Greenspan, both Pilgrims Society members, financed $240
billion in illegal bonds to economically decimate the Soviet Union and bring Soviet oil and gas resources under the control of Western
investors, backed by the Black Eagle Trust and supported later by Putin who for the right price purged certain oligarchs. The $240
billion in illegal bonds were apparently replaced with Treasury notes backed by U.S. taxpayers.
[13] To conceal the clearance of $240 billion
in securities, the Federal Reserve, within two months, increased the money supply to pre-9/11 numbers which resulted in the American
taxpayer refinancing the $240 billion. [14]
The Takeover of Russia's Oil Industry
BP Amoco became the largest foreign direct investor in Russia in 1997 when it paid a half-billion dollars to buy a 10 percent
stake in the Russian oil conglomerate Sidanko. Then in 1999, Tyumen Oil bought Sidanko's prize unit, Chernogorneft which allegedly
made BP Amoco's investment worthless. Tyumen offered to cooperate with BP Amoco on the development of Chernogorneft but BP Amoco
was not interested. [15] In October 1998, Halliburton
Energy Services had entered into an agreement with Moscow-based Tyumen Oil Company (TNK). Their efforts were focused on the four
western Siberia fields, the first one being the Samotlorskoye field.
[16] TNK has proven oil reserves of 4.3 billion
barrels and possibly as many as 6.1 billion barrels, with crude oil production and refining capabilities of 420,000 barrels/day and
230,000 barrels/day, respectively. TNK markets gasoline through 400 retail outlets.
[17] In 2002 Halliburton and Sibneft, Russia's
fifth largest crude oil producer, signed an agreement. Sibneft will use Halliburton's new technologies to improve well construction
and processing while Halliburton directs all project management.
[18]
Tyumenskaya Neftyanaya Kompaniya (Tyumen Oil Company) was established in 1995 by government decree. It is now TNK-BP, the leading
Russian oil company and ranks among the top ten privately owned oil companies worldwide in terms of crude oil production. The company,
formed in 2003, resulted from the merger of BP's Russian oil and gas assets and the oil and gas assets of Alfa, Access/Renova group
(AAR). BP and AAR each own fifty percent of TNK-BP. The shareholders of TNK-BP own almost fifty percent of Slavneft, a vertically
integrated Russian oil company. [19] This transaction
was the biggest in Russian corporate history and was managed by Vladimir Lechtman, the Moscow partner for Jones Day, a global law
firm with thirty offices and 2,200 lawyers worldwide. TNK-BP, Russia's second-largest oil company employs almost 100,000 people and
operates in Samotlor. [20]
Reportedly, Putin was financially rewarded by the collaborators and was happy to purge some annoying industrialists who stood
in the way. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was the manager of Yukos, the company that he built into Russia's second-largest oil company after
acquiring it for $168 million when his Bank MENATEP, the first privately owned but notoriously corrupt bank since 1917 and wiped
out in August 1998, purchased it through a controversial government privatization auction in 1995. MENATEP was named as a defendant
in the Avisma lawsuit which was filed on August 19, 1999.
[21] The bank may have facilitated the large-scale
theft of Soviet Treasury funds before and following the USSR's collapse in 1991.
[22] His company had borrowed hundreds of millions
of dollars from western banks. [23] He was arrested
on October 25, 2003 and sentenced in June 2005 to eight years on fraud and tax evasion charges. He was allegedly targeted as a political
enemy by President Vladimir Putin who went after other big business owners who apparently made money by acquiring states assets.
Yukos was sold piecemeal to pay off $28 billion in back tax charges. Yukos was seized and given to Rosneft.
[24]
When Khodorkovsky was arrested, his secretive business arrangement with the Rothschild family was exposed as Jacob Rothschild
assumed Khodorkovsky's 26% control of Yukos while Khodorkovsky's directorial seat on the Yukos board went to Edgar Ortiz, a former
Halliburton vice president during Dick Cheney's reign as CEO at Halliburton. Cheney, as President and CEO of Halliburton, automatically
had an association with the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) .
[25] In November 1997, Dick Cheney, in anticipation
of imminent events, had appointed Edgar Ortiz as president of Halliburton Energy Services, their global division.
[26]
The Yukos Oil Company merged with the smaller Sibneft Oil Company on October 3, 2003 which created Russia's largest oil and gas
business and the world's fourth-largest private oil company.
[27] On May 11, 2007 Halliburton announced they
had made an agreement with the Tyumen State Oil and Gas University to open a new employee-training center in Russia to grow their
business in that country and in the surrounding region. They are currently training students from five countries, Kazakhstan, the
Netherlands, Norway, Russia and the United Kingdom.
[28] Halliburton was awarded a $33 million contract
by TNK-BP to provide oil field services to develop the Ust-Vakh field in Western Siberia.
[29]
September 11 – Black Op Cover-up
Three top securities brokers had offices in the World Trade Center, Cantor Fitzgerald, Euro Brokers and Garbon
Inter Capital. Flight 11 struck just under the floors where Cantor Fitzgerald was located. Cantor Fitzgerald, with possible
connections to the U.S. Intelligence apparatus, was America's biggest securities broker and apparently the main target. Within
minutes, an explosion in the North Tower's vacant 23 rd floor, right under the offices of the FBI and Garbon Inter
Capital on the 25 th floor caused a huge fire from the 22 nd through the 25 th floors. At
the same time, there was an explosion in the basement of the North Tower.
[30] A vault in the North Tower basement
held less than $1 billion in gold, much of which was reportedly moved before 9/11. However, the government had hundreds of
billions of dollars of securities which were summarily destroyed. The Federal Reserve, untouched by the crisis at its downtown
offices (as they had everything backed up to a remote location), assumed emergency powers that afternoon. The $240 billion
in securities were electronically cleared.
[31] Then, at 9:03, Flight 175 slammed into the 78 th floor of the South Tower just below the 84 th
floor where Euro Brokers were located. [32]
Brian Clark, the manager at Euro Brokers, heard numerous explosions, apparently unrelated to what he referred to as the oxygen-starved
fire caused by the plane crash.
The September 11 attacks related to the financial improprieties during the preceding ten years which spurred at least nine federal
investigations which were initiated in 1997-1998, about the same time that Osama bin Laden, after twenty years as a CIA asset, announced
a fatwa against the U.S. The records of many of those investigations were held in the Buildings Six and Seven and on the 23
rd floor of the North Tower. Those investigations were sure to reveal the black Eagle Trust shenanigans.
[33] Building Seven, not hit by a plane, collapsed
at 5:20:33 p.m. but was vacated as early as 9:00 when evacuees claimed to see dead bodies and sporadic fires within the building.
By 2008 and even earlier the covert securities were worth trillions. The securities used to decimate the Soviets
and end the Cold War were stored in certain broker's vaults in the World Trade Center where they were destroyed on September
11, 2001. They would have come due for settlement and clearing on September 12, 2001.
[34] The federal agency investigating
these bonds, the Office of Naval Intelligence was in the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed on September 11. Renovations
at the Pentagon were due to be completed on September 16, 2001. However, the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), the entity
that often monitors war games, was hurriedly moved. If they were monitoring the simultaneous war games that morning, they would
have realized that the games were used as a distraction from the actual assault. Whatever hit the pentagon struck the Navy
Command Center and the offices of the Chief of Naval Operations Intelligence Plot (CNO-IP).
[35] There were 125 fatalities in the
Pentagon, thirty-one percent of them were people who worked in the Naval Command Center, the location of the Office of Naval
Intelligence. Thirty-nine of the forty people who worked in the Office of Naval Intelligence died .
[36]
On September 10, 2001 Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon couldn't account for $2.3 trillion, "We are, as they say, tangled in
our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.
We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are
inaccessible or incompatible." [37] It was forgotten
the following morning. Accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts who were in the section of the Pentagon being renovated met their
unexpected deaths. The destruction of accounting facts and figures will prevent discovery of where that money went. I am quite certain
someone knows where it is. Certainly this is not merely gross incompetence but private seizure of public funds.
[38] At the time Rabbi Dov Zakheim was chief-financial
officer for the Department of Defense. [39]
In 1993, Zakheim worked for SPS International, part of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor. His firm's subsidiary,
Tridata Corporation directed the investigation of the first "terrorist" attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.
[40]
Certain National Security officials who had participated in the Cold War victory in 1991 thus comprised the collateral damage
of the Cold War. They, along with hundreds of innocent people were in the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. Their deaths
were presumably required to conceal the existence of the Black Eagle Trust, along with the numerous illegal activities it had funded
for over 50 years. This massive destruction, and the lost lives, constitutes a massive cover-up and continued lawlessness by the
brotherhood of death, Skull and Bones, and their accomplices, the Enterprise.
[41] The Enterprise was established in the 1980s
as a covert fascist Cold Warriors faction working with other groups like Halliburton's private security forces and the Moonies. Citibank
is connected to the Enterprise, along with all the CIA front banks, Nugen Hand and BCCI.
Double Dipping
Alvin B. "Buzzy" Krongard was elected Chief Executive Officer of Alexander Brown and Sons in 1991 and Chairman of the Board in
1994. Bankers Trust purchased Alexander Brown and Sons in 1997 to form BT Alex Brown. Krongard relinquished his investments in Alex
Brown to Banker's Trust as part of the merger. He became Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust where he personally interacted with wealthy
clients who were intimately linked to drug money laundering. After a year of possible networking, Krongard joined (or as Michael
Ruppert suggests, rejoined ) the CIA in 1998 where his friend, Director George Tenet, concentrated his skills on private banking
ventures within the elite moneyed community. Senate investigations verify that private banking firms frequently engage in money laundering
from illicit drugs and corporate crime operations.
[42] On January 28, 2000 the Reginald Howe and
GATA Lawsuit was filed which accused certain U.S. bullion banks of illegally dumping U.S. Treasury gold on the market. The lawsuit
named Deutsche bank Alex Brown, the U.S. Treasury, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, and Citibank, Chase, as defendants. Gerald
Corrigan was accused of having private knowledge of the scheme.
[43] Krongard became the Executive Director
of the CIA, essentially the Chief Operating Officer, and the number three man on March 16, 2001. Krongard, while at the CIA, arranged
for Blackwater's Erik Prince to get his first contract with the U.S. government, and later joined its board.
Richard Wagner, a data retrieval expert, estimated that more than $100 million in illegal transactions appeared to have rushed
through the WTC computers before and during the disaster on September 11, 2001. A Deutsche Bank employee verified that approximately
five minutes before the first plane hit the tower that the Deutsche Bank computer system in their WTC office was seized by an outside,
unknown entity. Every single file was swiftly uploaded to an unidentified locality. This employee escaped from the building, but
lost many of his friends. He knew, from his position in the company, that Alex Brown, the Deutsche Bank subsidiary participated in
insider trading. Senator Carl Levin claimed that Alex Brown was just one of twenty prominent U.S. banks associated with money laundering.
[44]
Andreas von Bülow, a Social Democratic Party member of the German parliament (1969-1994), was on the parliamentary committee on
intelligence services, a group that has access to classified information. Von Bülow was also a member of the Schalck-Golodkowski
investigation committee which investigates white-collar crime. He has estimated that inside trader profits surrounding 9/11 totaled
approximately $15 billion. Von Bülow told The Daily Telegraph "If what I say is right, the whole US government should end
up behind bars." Further, he said, "They have hidden behind a veil of secrecy and destroyed the evidence they invented the story
of 19 Muslims working within Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda in order to hide the truth of their own covert operation." He also said,
"I'm convinced that the US apparatus must have played a role and my theory is backed up by the [Washington] government's refusal
to present any proof whatsoever of what happened."
[45]
On September 26, CBS reported that the amount was more than $100 million and that seven countries were investigating the irregular
trades. Two newspapers, Reuters and the New York Times, and other mainstream media reported that the CIA regularly
monitors extraordinary trades and economic irregularities to ascertain possible criminal activities or financial assaults. In fact,
the CIA uses specialized software, PROMIS, to scrutinize trades.
[46]
Numerous researchers believe, with justification, that the transactions in the financial markets are indicative of foreknowledge
of the events of 9/11, the attacks on the twin towers and the pentagon. One of the trades, for $2.5 million, a pittance compared
to the total, went unclaimed. Alex Brown, once managed by Krongard, was the firm that placed the put options on United Airlines stock.
President Bush awarded Krongard by appointing him as CIA Executive Director in 2004.
[47]
Between September 6 and 7, 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange received purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines
and only 396 call options. If 4,000 of those options were purchased by people with foreknowledge, they would have accrued about $5
million. On September 10, the Chicago exchange received 4,516 put options on American Airlines compared to 748 calls. The implications
are that some insiders might profit by about $4 million. These two incidents were wholly irregular and at least six times higher
than normal. [48]
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Company, who occupied floors 43-46, 56, 59-74 of the World Trade Center, Tower 2, saw 2,157 of its
October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday. This compares to an average of 27 contracts per day
before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000
of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at
least $1.2 million. The U.S. government never again mentioned the trade irregularities after October 12, 2001.
[49] Catastrophic events serve two purposes
for the top criminal element in society – the perpetrators seize resources while their legislative accomplices impose burdensome
restrictions on the citizens to make them more submissive and silent.
[1] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E.P. Heidner, pp. 4-5 [2] Ibid, p. 20 [3] Ibid, pp. 4-5 [4] Ibid [5] September 11 Commission Report by E. P.
Heidner, 2008, p. 108 [6] Gold Warriors, America's Secret Recovery
of Yamashita's Gold by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave, Verso Publishing, 2003, pp. 32-43 [7] Ibid, pp. 318 [8] Ibid, pp. 14-15 [9] Ex-Treasury Chief Gets 1-Month Term in
Bank Fraud Case by Frank J. Prial, New York Times, June 28, 1987 [10] Gold Warriors, America's Secret Recovery
of Yamashita's Gold by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave, Verso Publishing, 2003, p. 5 [11] Ibid, p. 98 [12] Ibid, p. 102 [13] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E. P. Heidner, pp. 4-6 [14] Ibid, p. 29 [15] Tyumen Oil of Russia Seeks Links to
Old Foes After Winning Fight By Neela Banerjee, New York Times, December 2, 1999 [16] Halliburton Energy Services Enters Into
Alliance Agreement With Tyumen Oil Company, Press Release, October 15, 1998,
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1998/hesnws_101598.jsp [17] Ibid [18] Halliburton Press Release, Halliburton
And Russian Oil Company Sibneft Sign Framework Agreement, February 7, 2002,
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2002/corpnws_020702.jsp [19] TNK-BP, Our company,
http://www.tnk-bp.com/company/ [20] Russia's largest field is far from depleted
By Jerome R. Corsi, Word Net Daily, November 04, 2005,
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47219 [21] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E.P. Heidner, p. 28 [22] Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, Source Watch,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mikhail_B._Khodorkovsky [23] Russia's Ruling Robbers by Mark Ames,
Consortium News, March 11, 1999, http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/c031199a.html [24] "Sovest" Group Campaign for Granting
Political Prisoner Status to Mikhail Khodorkovsky, February 7, 2008 [25] Halliburton Man to Sub for Khodorkovsky,
Simon Ostrovsky, Moscow Times, April 30, 2004 as noted in the September 11 Commission Report, p. 233; See also Arrested Oil Tycoon
Passed Shares to Banker, Washington Times, November 2, 2003 [26] Halliburton Press Release, Ortiz Named
President Of Halliburton Energy Services, November 19, 1997,
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1997/hesnws_111997.jsp [27] Russia: Yukos-Sibneft union forms world's
No. 4 oil producer, Global Finance, Jun 2003, http://mikhail_khodorkovsky_society.blogspot.com/ [28] Halliburton Opens Russia Training Center,
International Business Times, May 11, 2007,
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20070511/halliburton-training.htm [29] Halliburton gets Russia work, Oil Daily,
January 26, 2006, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5579583_ITM [30] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E. P. Heidner, p. 2 [31] Ibid, p. 29 [32] Ibid, pp. 2 [33] Ibid, p. 28-29 [34] "Sioux City, Iowa, July 25, 2005 TomFlocco.com
, According to leaked documents from an intelligence file obtained through a military source in the Office of Naval Intelligence
(ONI), on or about September 12, 1991 non-performing and unauthorized gold-backed debt instruments were used to purchase ten-year
"Brady" bonds. The bonds in turn were illegally employed as collateral to borrow $240 billion--120 in Japanese Yen and 120 in
Deutsch Marks--exchanged for U.S. currency under false pretenses; or counterfeit and unlawful conversion of collateral against which
an unlimited amount of money could be created in derivatives and debt instruments " from Cash payoffs, bonds and murder linked to
White House 9/11 finance, Tom Flocco, tomflocco.com [35] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E.P. Heidner, p. 45 [36] Ibid, p. 2 [37] Rumsfeld's comments were on the Department
of defense web site but have been understandably removed,
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.ht [38] The War On Waste Defense Department
Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds -- $2.3 Trillion,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml [39] September 11 Commission Report by E.
P. Heidner, 2008, p. 108 [40] Following Zakheim and Pentagon Trillions
to Israel and 9-11By Jerry Mazza, July 31, 2006, http://www.rense.com/general75/latest.htm [41] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E. P. Heidner, p. 6 [42] Crossing the Rubicon, the Decline of
the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert, New Society Publishers, Canada, 2004, p. 56 [43] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E. P. Heidner, p. 28 [44] Crossing the Rubicon, the Decline of
the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert, New Society Publishers, Canada, 2004, pp. 243-247 [45] USA staged 9/11 Attacks, German best-seller
by Kate Connolly, National Post & London Telegraph, November 20, 2003 [46] Crossing the Rubicon, the Decline of
the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert, New Society Publishers, Canada, 2004, pp. 243-247 [47] Ibid, pp. 243-247 [48] Ibid, pp. 243-247 [49] Ibid, pp. 243-247
Comments: deannaATspingola.email
To avoid attracting spam email robots, email addresses on this site are written with AT in place of the usual symbol. Replace AT
with the correct symbol to get a valid address.
Deanna Spingola's articles are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the person or organization must
not charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and full credit given. Deanna's web site address must
also be included.
This shouldn't have been too much of a surprise, as neoliberal policies had already wreaked
havoc around the world. Looking back at the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the economist Joseph
Stiglitz
comments that "excessively rapid financial and capital market liberalization was probably
the single most important cause of the crisis"; he also notes that after the crisis, the
International Monetary Fund's policies "exacerbated the downturns."
Neoliberals pushed swift privatization in Russia after the Cold War, alongside a restrictive
monetary policy. The result was a growing barter economy, low exports, and asset-stripping, as
burgeoning oligarchs bought up state enterprises and then moved their money out of the
country.
... ... ...
Rising economic inequality and the creation of monopolistic megacorporations also threaten
democracy. In study after study, political scientists have shown that the U.S. government is
highly responsive to the policy preferences of the wealthiest people, corporations, and trade
associations -- and that it is largely unresponsive to the views of ordinary people. The
wealthiest people, corporations, and their interest groups participate more in politics, spend
more on politics, and lobby governments more. Leading political scientists have declared that
the U.S. is no longer best characterized as a democracy or a republic but as an oligarchy -- a
government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.
The neoliberal embrace of individualism and opposition to "the collective society," as
Margaret Thatcher put it, also had perverse consequences for social and political life. Humans
are social animals. But neoliberalism rejects both the medieval approach of having fixed social
classes based on wealth and power and the modern approach of having a single, shared civic
identity based on participation in a democratic community. The problem is that amid
neoliberalism's individualistic rat race, people still need to find meaning somewhere in their
lives. And so there has been a retreat to tribalism and identity groups, with civic
associations replaced by religious, ethnic, or other cultural affiliations.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been
important to politics. But neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised two
interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity groups
can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity.
Self-government requires uniting through our commonalities and aspiring to achieve a shared
future. When individuals fall back onto clans, tribes, and us-versus-them identities, the
political community gets fragmented. It becomes harder for people to see each other as part of
that same shared future. Demagogues rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and
religious antagonism, which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's
war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of everything, thus
indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for a
free and democratic society.
The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield
to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class
politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which
individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means
is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus
claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in
politics and the economy. Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it
gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization,
liberalization, and austerity. Of course, the result is to leave in place political and
economic structures that harm the very groups that inclusionary neoliberals claim to
support.
The foreign policy adventures of the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists haven't
fared much better than economic policy or cultural politics. The U.S. and its coalition
partners have been bogged down in the war in Afghanistan for 18 years and counting. Neither
Afghanistan nor Iraq is a liberal democracy, nor did the attempt to establish democracy in Iraq
lead to a domino effect that swept the Middle East and reformed its governments for the better.
Instead, power in Iraq has shifted from American occupiers to sectarian militias, to the Iraqi
government, to Islamic State terrorists, and back to the Iraqi government -- and more than
100,000 Iraqis are dead. Or take the liberal internationalist 2011 intervention in Libya. The
result was not a peaceful transition to stable democracy but instead civil war and instability,
with thousands dead as the country splintered and portions were overrun by terrorist groups. On
the grounds of democracy promotion, it is hard to say these interventions were a success. And
for those motivated to expand human rights around the world, it is hard to justify these wars
as humanitarian victories -- on the civilian death count alone.
So what happened following the dissolution of the Soviet Union?
The United States dispatched a cabal of cutthroat economists to Moscow to assist in the
"shock therapy" campaign that collapsed the social safety net, savaged pensions, increased
unemployment, homelessness, poverty, and alcoholism by many orders of magnitude,
accelerated the slide to privatization that fueled a generation of voracious oligarchs, and
sent the real economy plunging into an excruciating long-term depression.
Basically the NWO mafia saw that there was an opportunity to loot the place and they did
it – gaining ownership – and stripping everything of value out of the place.
If the US public had the sense to realize it, it's the same as is currently happening to
them.
At the same time Washington's agents were busy looting Moscow, NATO was moving its
troops, armored divisions and missile sites closer to Russia's border in clear violation of
promises that were made to Mikhail Gorbachev not to move its military "one inch east".
Yeah, yeah . . . This reminds me of that line from Animal House: "Face it Kent, you fucked
up. You trusted us."
This was small beer in term's of betrayals the Russians have endured. What I've always
liked about them is that they aren't bellyachers, like the Iranians are at the moment.
Ignore Western Media on Putin. He remains The Indispensable Man for Russia so he isn't
going anywhere for the moment. I'm sure he'd love to become the Russian version of Deng but
that's going to take a lot of preparatory work for him to get there.
@Huxley Very true and this idea that man sets himself at the top of the creation is
exactly the philosophy of "Human Rights", the Masonic model imposed through the UN to the
whole world.
This ideology was launched by Freemasonry during the "Enlightenment", in the 18th century. It
produced the Masonic French Revolution, the Masonic US republic and later the concept of
"democracy".
Published in 1899 by Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany: Liberalism is a sin. This is from a Catholic
priest, but we all share the same enemy. http://www.liberalismisasin.com/
@9/11 Inside job What cult of personality? There isn't one. People mostly like the
decisions he makes, not because he makes them, but because they agree with them.
As to Chabad Lubavitch, Putin is a politician – he mingles with Christians, Jews and
Muslims. As evil as Chabad Lubavitch is, Putin also mingles with the Saudi Barbarians. It's
hardly proof they control him.
Go find something real, you are making a fool of yourself spreading baseless propaganda.
Next you will tell us about the $583 trillion he has stashed away, so he can use it,
secretly, after he retires from his life-long dictatorship.
Yalensis, earlier you said that Russia should restore communism to remove poverty.
How did that work the last time in 1917-1991? The Soviet Union collapsed and historical
Russia was split into many different parts.
I expect that if Russia would experiment communism the second time the outcome would be
another split of Russia. This time it would be the North Caucasus, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan
and possible Siberia and the Far East breaking away from Moscow.
And why is that? Because communism doesn't work, period. It has been tried several times
in many different parts of the world, and it has always failed.
The basics are simple. Once private ownership is banned people stop caring. Motivation to
work hard is gone If you are deprived of the possibility to make money and own private
property.
Say what you want about America but there is a good reason why basically all the greatest
companies in the world are American, or at least from countries that have practiced
capitalism for centuries: Microsoft, Apple, Exxon, Shell, Amazon, Intel, Ford, Mercedez Benz,
Toyota, Samsung etc.
You can compare how a middle class American and a middle class Soviet citizen lived in the
1980s. While a typical middle class American lived in a big house in a suburb with two cars
in the household, a typical Soviet middle class citizen lived in a "kommunalka" apartment
where many families had to share the same bathroom and kitchen and a Soviet citizen had to
work a certain amount of years before being allowed a right to own his or her own car,
usually a Soviet made Lada. Most of the Soviet citizens never had a chance to get their own
car but instead of to rely on public transport.
I know you are going to say that China is a good example that communism can work. But
there is one problem: China is not really a communist country anymore. Actually the rise of
China began at the same moment when Deng Xiaoping allowed private property and private
enterprise. The horrendous communist policies of Mao Tse Tung killed tens of millions of
Chinese people before that. Allowing people to work for their own well being was that made
China what it is today (China is still a poor country compared to the West, but at least
hundreds of millions of people are not starving anymore as was the case during Mao's
rule).
If Russia ever restored communism again it would be the end of Russia.
a typical Soviet middle class citizen lived in a "kommunalka" apartment
Really?
I lived in a modern, built in the 1970s block in Voronezh in 1989.: 3 large rooms, largish
kitchen, bathroom and toilet, 2 balconies , 11th floor.
I live in a similar flat now, but on the 3rd floor, built 1976, central Administrative
District, Taganskiy precinct, Moskva.
The only thing communal about those 2 dwellings is the central heating, which is turned on
in October and turned off in May.
In England, during my childhood I lived in a slum street built in the 1850s: no central
heating, no hot water, no bathroom, no toilet. The toilet was in the yard at the back. The
dewelling had 2 downstairs rooms and 2 upstairs room, a so-called "two-up, two-down". I lived
there until 1960.
Wilson St. in my home town, 1969
My hometown is situated in the first capitalist country in the world.
God that picture brings back memories – we lived in similar property in Birmingham
until 1978. My family came over from Ireland in the 1960s and these type of houses were
common place for working class families.
You can still find them in the midlands and the north, although they have been modernised
to include bathrooms.
Capitalism and economic Nirvana are known to be one in the same in the minds of morons.
"Indications of this failure of capitalism are everywhere. Stagnation of investment
punctuated by bubbles of financial expansion, which then inevitably burst, now characterizes
the so-called free market.4 Soaring inequality in income and wealth has its counterpart in
the declining material circumstances of a majority of the population. Real wages for most
workers in the United States have barely budged in forty years despite steadily rising
productivity.5 Work intensity has increased, while work and safety protections on the job
have been systematically jettisoned. Unemployment data has become more and more meaningless
due to a new institutionalized underemployment in the form of contract labor in the gig
economy.6 Unions have been reduced to mere shadows of their former glory as capitalism has
asserted totalitarian control over workplaces. With the demise of Soviet-type societies,
social democracy in Europe has perished in the new atmosphere of "liberated capitalism."7
The capture of the surplus value produced by overexploited populations in the poorest
regions of the world, via the global labor arbitrage instituted by multinational
corporations, is leading to an unprecedented amassing of financial wealth at the center of
the world economy and relative poverty in the periphery.8 Around $21 trillion of offshore
funds are currently lodged in tax havens on islands mostly in the Caribbean, constituting
"the fortified refuge of Big Finance."9 Technologically driven monopolies resulting from the
global-communications revolution, together with the rise to dominance of Wall Street-based
financial capital geared to speculative asset creation, have further contributed to the
riches of today's "1 percent." Forty-two billionaires now enjoy as much wealth as half the
world's population, while the three richest men in the United States -- Jeff Bezos, Bill
Gates, and Warren Buffett -- have more wealth than half the U.S. population.10 In every
region of the world, inequality has increased sharply in recent decades.11 The gap in per
capita income and wealth between the richest and poorest nations, which has been the dominant
trend for centuries, is rapidly widening once again.12 More than 60 percent of the world's
employed population, some two billion people, now work in the impoverished informal sector,
forming a massive global proletariat. The global reserve army of labor is some 70 percent
larger than the active labor army of formally employed workers.
Adequate health care, housing, education, and clean water and air are increasingly out of
reach for large sections of the population, even in wealthy countries in North America and
Europe, while transportation is becoming more difficult in the United States and many other
countries due to irrationally high levels of dependency on the automobile and disinvestment
in public transportation. Urban structures are more and more characterized by gentrification
and segregation, with cities becoming the playthings of the well-to-do while marginalized
populations are shunted aside. About half a million people, most of them children, are
homeless on any given night in the United States.14 New York City is experiencing a major rat
infestation, attributed to warming temperatures, mirroring trends around the world."
Comrade Karl, the vast majority of poverty in this world is in capitalist countries. Latin
America and Africa will toss your silly assertions in the trash bin of history.
And saying China is not communist is equivalent to saying the US is not capitalist. I
leave it to your to figure out what the foregoing means.
There is a lot of talk here and in comment sections at forums about how the American Empire
is going to collapse soon due to its blunders and Russia and China gaining military
superiority over it. This kind of talk is a type of magical thinking and has no basis in
reality. The United States' most potent weapon isn't military, it's economic, and through it
the US government controls the world. That weapon is the US Dollar and ever since Nixon took
it off the gold standard it has been used to further the Empire's imperial hold on the global
economy. The economist Michael Hudson in an article called A Note To China (link at
bottom) explains how this works:
The U.S. strategy is to control your economy in order to force you to sell your most
profitable industrial sectors to US investors, to force you to invest in your industry only
by borrowing from the United States.
So the question is, how do China, Russia, Iran and other countries break free of this
U.S. dollarization strategy?
There are a lot of articles on alt.media sites about how China and Russia are
de-dollarizing their economies in order to resist, and eventually end, the US domination of
the global economy that is preventing them from maintaining independent economic policies
that benefit their citizens rather than global elites and US central bankers.
Russia managed to put a stop to overt US economic imperialism after the looting spree in
the post-Soviet 1990s decimated Russia's ability to provide for its citizens and degraded the
country's ability to maintain economic independence. But it still ultimately got caught in
the neoliberal trap. Hudson again:
Yet Russia did not have enough foreign exchange to pay domestic ruble-wages or to pay for
domestic goods and services. But neoliberal advisors convinced Russia to back all Ruble
money or domestic currency credit it created by backing it with U.S. dollars. Obtaining
these dollars involved paying enormous interest to the United States for this needless
backing. There was no need for such backing. At the end of this road the United States
convinced Russia to sell off its raw materials, its nickel mines, its electric utilities,
its oil reserves, and ultimately tried to pry Crimea away from Russia.
China, Hudson argues, by accepting the advice of American and IMF/World Bank economic
"experts" and through Chinese students schooled in American universities in American
neoliberal theory is in great danger of falling into the same trap.
The U.S. has discovered that it does not have to militarily invade China. It does not have
to conquer China. It does not have to use military weapons, because it has the intellectual
weapon of financialization, convincing you that you need to do this in order to have a
balanced economy. So, when China sends its students to the United States, especially when
it sends central bankers and planners to the United States to study (and be recruited),
they are told by the U.S. "Do as we say, not as we have done."
He concludes that:
The neoliberal plan is not to make you independent, and not to help you grow except to the
extent that your growth will be paid to US investors or used to finance U.S. military
spending around the world to encircle you and trying to destabilize you in Sichuan to try
to pry China apart.
Look at what the United States has done in Russia, and at what the International
Monetary Fund in Europe has done to Greece, Latvia and the Baltic states. It is a dress
rehearsal for what U.S. diplomacy would like to do to you, if it can convince you to follow
the neoliberal US economic policy of financialization and privatization.
De-dollarization is the alternative to privatization and financialization.
Loosening the Empire's hold on economic and geopolitical affairs and moving to a
multipolar world order is a tough slog and the Empire will use everything it can to stop this
from happening. But at the moment even countries under American sanctions and surrounded by
its armies, with the possible exception of Iran, aren't really fighting back. That's a bitter
pill for many to swallow but wishful thinking isn't going to change the world. After all, the
new world has to be imagined before it can appear and right now it's still global capitalism
all the way down.
The article in full, and Hudson's work generally, is well worth reading. He is one of only
a few genuinely anti-imperialist economists and he is able to explain in layman's terms
exactly how the US-centric global economy is a massive scam designed to benefit US empire at
the rest of the world's expense.
I was thinking about
winston2's comment in the previous thread. A good way for China and Russia to respond is
to go after those in the MIC; the CEO, lobbyists, financiers, etc... If they follow the money
and take them out, I suspect we all would see a dramatic turn of events. No need to publicize
their early retirement. Make it messy and public but not to the point of taking out
innocents.
Yes, Michael Hudson is excellent, mostly because he's rare economist, that is, one who
begins from the premise that the 'economy' is a set of historically-situated and specific
modes of exchange and forms of human relations. Aristotle located what we call the economy in
ethics and politics; we follow the fairytales of neo-classical economics and global capital
by imagining that it has some scientific autonomy from human social relations. Marx was right
in following Aristotle's insight by critiquing the very idea of an autonomous economy, which
the chief ideological fiction of late capitalism. Sam Chambers and Ellen Meiksens-Wood are
also excellent critics of this obstacle to reimagining a viable alternative to the economy as
it is propagated by the US neoliberal global apparatus.
Inkan1969 , Jan 16 2020 22:34 utc |
42S , Jan 16 2020 22:37 utc |
43
@Daniel #36:
The United States' most potent weapon isn't military, it's economic, and through it the US
government controls the world. That weapon is the US Dollar and ever since Nixon took it
off the gold standard it has been used to further the Empire's imperial hold on the global
economy.
But at the moment even countries under American sanctions and surrounded by its armies,
with the possible exception of Iran, aren't really fighting back.
Exclude me from this squad. I's always from the opinion that the USA would collapse
slowly, i.e. degenerate/decay. I won't repeat my arguments again here so as to spare people
who already know me the repetition.
However, consider this: when 2008 broke out, some people thought the USA would finally
collapse. It didn't - in great part, because the USG also thought it could collapse, so it
acted quickly and decisively. But it cost a lot: the USA fell from its "sole superpower"
status, and, for the first time since 1929, the American people had to fell in the flesh the
side effects of capitalism. It marked the end of the End of History, and the realization -
mainly by Russia and China - that the Americans were not invincible and immortals. It may
have marked the beginning of the multipolar era.
--//--
The world (bar China) never recovered from 2008. Indeed, world debt has grown to another
record high:
The world governments - specially the governments from the USA, Japan and Europe -
absorbed private debt (through purchase of rotten papers and through QE) so the system could
be saved. But this debt didn't disappear, instead, it became public debt. What's worse:
private debt has already spiked up, and already is higher than pre-2008 levels. The Too Big
To Fail philosophy of the central banks only bought them time.
--//--
Extending my previous link (from the previous Open Thread) about money laundering:
The global TV subscription streaming company, Netflix made $1.2bn in profits in 2018, of
which $430m was shifted into tax havens, reports Tax Watch UK.
The estimated revenue from UK subscribers was about $860m, but most of this was booked
offshore in a tax haven Dutch subsidiary. Netflix claims its UK parent company got only
$48m in revenue. When the costs of Netflix UK productions were put against this, Netflix
was able to avoid paying any tax at all to the UK government. Indeed, it received tax
reliefs for productions in the UK from the government.
A simple question requires a simple answer. Russia's defence expenditure in PPP terms is
probably in excess of $180 billion per year which buys a shedload of "capable military
equipment".
It should be noted that the point Hudson's trying to make in his "Note to China" is to warn
China of what if faces by using historical examples. As S points out @43, Russia's Ruble is
very sound and its dollar and T-Bill holdings are extremely low. The message to China and the
entire SCO community is to cease supporting the Outlaw US Empire's military by supporting its
balance of payments by buying T-Bills. The sooner the SCO community, or just the core
nations, can produce a new currency for use in trade, the sooner a crisis can be created
within the Outlaw US Empire--essentially by turning the "intellectual weapon of
financialization" against the global rogue nation foe.
This Jewish Vulture Capitalism is the way our Jewish Oligarchs act all over the world.
Russia was pillaged by them in the 1990s. Putin ended their reign of terror. This is the main
reason Putin is so demonized in the Zion Vulture ruled West.
A few enlightened industrialists, such as Henry Ford, even went so far as to make the
improvement of the lives of workers a priority, and to warn the people against the growing
financial power of the international Jew.
Ford's warnings were prophetic. We are living in the second great Gilded Age in America,
but the new Jewish oligarchs of the 21st century differ from their predecessors in several
important ways. For one, they mostly built their fortunes through parasitic–rather
than productive–sources of wealth, such as usury or real estate speculation.
The consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union!
26th of December is the anniversary of the collapse of the USSR.
Russia/Russian Soviet Socialist Republic
30,000 Medium to large scale factories in 1990 (before the collapse). That number is
reduced down to 5000.
GDP of 1996 was 63.1% of the 1991 GDP keep in mind that the economy of the USSR in 1991
was worse off than before the Perestroika period, thus the GDP of 1996 would be even
smaller compared to the pre-collapse era GDP of the USSR.
Number of hospitals has halved from 10700 to 5400.
Similarly, the number of schools has dropped from almost 70,000 to 42,600.
In just 17 years, from 2000-2017 26700,000,000,000 rubles have been illegally stolen
from the people outside of Russia.
At least Russia is number one at some things like first at the number of
Millionaires.
In terms of billionaires they are in 4th place.
22,000,000 Russians are in poverty
86% of Russians struggle to buy the most basic things
23,000 towns, villages and cities have been abandoned in the last 20 years
Because of Capitalism and the massive hit we took after the collapse of the USSR
including the horrible living conditions and poverty that broke out the Russian population
lost 30 Million in terms of demographics(More than in ww2)
Kazakhstan(Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic)
only from 1981-1986 - 400 enterprises/factories were built, in 1983 we had more than 9
million cattle, 36 million sheep and supplied meat to almost all Soviet Republics.
engineering and metalworking enterprises/factories fell from 2000 to 100
machine building in the total industrial production fell from 16% to 3% (mostly oil and
gas now)
light industry - 15% fell to 0.6%, from 1990-2006 (all products are imported)
refined 18 million tons of oil, this number fell to 13.7 million tons (+ imported from
Russia)
education expenditure 8% fell to 3% = shortage of qualified personnel + it's not always
free.
Free medical care will soon be abolished too
GDP of 1996 was only 69.3% of the 1991 Soviet GDP, keep in mind that the economy of the
USSR in 1991 was worse off than before the Perestroika period, thus the GDP of 1996 would
be even smaller compared to the pre-collapse era GDP of the USSR.
Ukraine/Ukrainian SSR.
Ukraine seemed like it would become the next European power. It had 3 military districts
left over from the USSR with the best weaponry in the world including 700,000 troops as well as
a nuclear arsenal of 3000 that made it the 3rd strongest country in the whole world after the
US and Russia. By the time of the war in the Donbass the number of military personnel dropped
down to 168,000 while selling huge quantities of Soviet weaponry.
Scientists within the country reduced from 313 079(1990) down to 94,274 in (2017).
Doctors within the country reduced from 227 thousand (1991) down to 187 thousand in
(2016).
nursing staff halved since the collapse of the USSR
Electricity generation, billion kWh per year fell from 238 (1980) down to 167 (2000)
Stone mining(Coal thousand tons per year) 197 100 (1980) down to 81 100 (2000)
Steel production (thousand tons per year) around 48 000 (1980) down to 31 767 (2000)
Production of tractors (thousand pieces) around 130, 000 (1980) down to 4000 (2000)
Production of mineral fertilizers (thousand tons per year) around 4 850 (1991) down to 1
554 (2000)
Grain Harvest (million tons per year) dropped from 51 (1990) down to 25,7 (2000)
Around 250 planes a year were being built, that number dropped to 1-2 a year after
Capitalism.
The Ukranian GDP of 1996 was only 47.2% of the 1991 Ukranian SSR GDP, keep in mind that
the economy of the USSR in 1991 was worse off than before the Perestroika period, thus the
GDP of 1996 would be even smaller compared to the pre-collapse era GDP of the USSR.
The destruction of democracy
The 1991 referendum of keeping the USSR in one way or the other gained a 78% positive
vote. However, this was thrown out of the window and the USSR was torn apart
nonetheless.
In 1993 when the Parliament ie (Supreme Soveit) tried to remove Yeltsin, he ordered
tanks to drive into Moscow and shoot the Parliament building. Crowds of Soviet Citizens
tried to stop the attack, but were unsuccessful. Over 100 of comrades died that day.
https://images.app.goo.gl/eqRAJBrvyDRBRFUR9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjBmtkW3Tl8&t=423s (live footage from the day).
This allowed Yeltsin to change the constitution and increase his own power while selling
Russia off to Western capital.
Consequences for the Soviet people
We lost our democracy.
We lost our right to free education, which used to be the best in the world.
We lost our right to free healthcare, which used to be the best in the world.
We lost our right to not be homeless.
We lost our right to not be jobeless.
According to the UN Human Development Index -- which measures levels of life expectancy.
Commenting on the situation in the former Soviet Union after capitalist restoration, Fabre
stated, "We have catastrophic falls in several countries, which often are republics of the
former Soviet Union, where poverty is actually increasing. In fact poverty has tripled in the
whole region".
To sum it up for the Soviet people - "98 Russian billionaires hold more wealth than Russians
combined savings" or 200 Russian oligarchs have 485 billion USD most of which come from post
Soviet factories that used to be owned by the workers but were sold off at extremely low
prices.
Effects on the rest of the world
The USSR had connections with China, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Eastern Germany,
Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Birma,
India, Indonesia, Mongolia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Mali,
Ghana, Sudan, Ethiopia, Yemen, Somalia, Congo, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, Madagascar. As
the USSR was collapsing/collapsed Socialism and Socialist organisations in all of these
countries would fall apart too leaving them at the grasp of the capitalists.
Cuba had huge economic problems as it was dependant on the USSR.
DPRK had a huge famine in the 90's due to the collapse of the USSR.
Many Socialist nations around the world reverted back to the first stage of
Socialism.
Civil wars within the USSR
Many love to say that "the USSR's collapse was bloodless".
This is a list of all the civil wars between Soviet countries and peoples:
Tajikistan Civil War - 50,000 dead
2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic riots - 2000 dead
Tajikistan Insurgency - 200 dead
East Prigorodny Conflict - 550 dead
First Chechen War - around 60,000 dead
War of Dagestan - 300 dead
Second Chechen War - around 80,000 dead
War in Ingushetia - 900 dead
insurgency in the North Caucasus - 4200 dead
Nagorno-Karabakh War - 33,000 dead
1991–1992 South Ossetian War - 1000 dead
Georgian Civil War - 20,000 deaths
Russo-Georgian War - 500 dead
Transnistria War - 1500 dead
Euromaidan - 200 dead
Russo-Ukrainian War - 15,000 dead
Overall - roughly 270,000 Soviet citizens have died from direct causes of the war.
Millions and millions have been displaced and have been thrown into poverty.
Conclusion
The Soviet Union was once the leader in all aspects of life, guaranteeing a tomorrow for all
of its citizens where they would not fear losing a job, being homeless, being hungry, unabling
to afford medical care. The Soviet Union produced its own planes, cars, hydroelectric dams,
nuclear power stations, rockets while the workers used to own the means of production. In 1991,
they took away our freedom while selling off all that my people have worked for, the
consequences of which will be felt around the world until Capitalism finally falls.
It's funny that the westerners/pro-westerns were always scared of a "Big Brother" scenario
but they never realised there was 2 opposites in their time, one keeping another from
becoming the "Big Brother" Now they're cheerful at the "Big Brother" - the USA level 1
The Soviet Union may've been a bit top-down for my liking, but its fall was undoubtedly a
tragedy and one of the worst losses of life outside of war in the 20th century. level 1
The illegal dissolution of the USSR was the greatest tragedy of the past 50 years, perhaps
of the last century. The movement for our liberation will recover, but it has cost us decades
of progress and hundreds of thousands of lives. Rest in peace to our champion. level 1
It is a well researched article, thank you for posting it. Looking forward to other
analysis around international states' affairs and their link to current CIS countries level
2
Bourgeois scum has stolen the meaning of democracy, you seriously think that voting once
every 4 year for one particular rich fuck and his coterie of rich fucks to be exalted is the
sole measure and implementation of democracy? level 3
Its not just that, can you remove a manager from his position for example? Of course you
can't, you will have to deal with him for years while you can lose your job with a snap of
his finger. In the USSR, managers and everyone in the hierarchy was elected, thus you could
remove your manager or whoever by popular vote. level 3 Comment deleted by user
5 days ago level 4
Rule number 3, u/bolshevikshqiptar already warned you.
Proof or don't say anything. Im from the USSR and people voted in my country, my uncle was
the ex mayor of his town elected by the people. level 4
Democracy ? Where is democracy in Russia? Kazakhstan? Belarus? Shooting the Parliament
building is democracy isn't it? Go educate yourself and read my post about Soviet democracy,
maybe it will change your mind. Forced labor? Now you complain that having a job is
guaranteed? level 2
true but the oligarchs still standing and the capitalist took advantage of it -> making
it worser for the people imo. level 3 Comment deleted by user
5 days ago level 4
The USSR was no workers' paradise. For all its formal allegiance to Marx and Engels, it was a
militantly hierarchical class society ruled by a tyrannical state. After World War Two, it
held brutal military power over Eastern Europe and East Germany. Still, Soviet-era Russia
created an urban and industrialized society with real civilizational accomplishments
(including cradle-to-grave health-care, housing, and food security and an impressive
educational system and cultural apparatus) outside capitalism. It pursued an independent path
to modernity without a capitalist class, devoid of a bourgeoisie, in the name of socialism.
It therefore posed a political and ideological challenge to U.S-led Western capitalism
– and to Washington's related plans for the Third World periphery, which was supposed
to subordinate its developmental path to the needs of the rich nations (the U.S., Western
Europe, and honorarily white Japan) of the world-capitalist core.
Honest U.S. Cold Warriors knew that it was the political threat of "communism" – its
appeal to poor nations and people (including the lower and working classes within rich/core
states) – and not any serious military danger that constituted the true "Soviet
menace." Contrary to U.S. "containment" doctrine after World War II, the ruling Soviet
bureaucracy was concerned above all with keeping an iron grip on its internal and regional
empire, not global expansion and "world revolution." It did, however "deter the worst of
Western violence" (Noam Chomsky) by providing military and other assistance to Third World
targets of U.S. and Western attack (including China, Korea, Indonesia, Egypt, Syria, Cuba,
Vietnam, and Laos). Along the way, it provided an example of independent development outside
and against the capitalist world system advanced by the superpower headquartered in
Washington.
To make matters worse from Washington's "Open Door" perspective, the Soviet Empire kept a
vast swath of the world's natural and human resources walled off from profitable exploitation
by global capital.
All of this was more than enough to mark the Soviet Union as global public enemy number
one for the post-WWII U.S. power elite, which had truly planet-wide imperial ambitions,
unlike Moscow.
The Soviet deterrent and alternative to U.S.-led capitalism-imperialism collapsed once and
for all in the early 1990s. Washington celebrated with unchallenged invasions of Panama and
Iraq. The blood-drenched U.S. President George H.W. Bush exulted that "what we say goes" in a
newly unipolar, post-Soviet world. Russia reverted to not-so "free market" capitalism under
U.S.-led Western financial supervision and in accord with the savage austerity and inequality
imposed by the neoliberal "Washington consensus." Chomsky got it right in 1991. "With the
collapse of Soviet tyranny," he wrote, "much of the region can be expected to return to its
traditional [subordinate] status, with the former high echelons of the bureaucracy playing
the role of the Third World elites that enrich themselves while serving the interests of
foreign investors." The consequences were disastrous for many millions of ordinary
Russians.
@Kevin #18
"Can anyone recommend a good book on the privatization of state assets of the former USSR?
Particularly one that focuses on how mid-level technocrats, often of a persecuted minority,
were able to get the capital to purchase these assets."
PUTIN from Chris
Hutchins is a good read that also describes the rise of the oligarchs and how Putin dealt
with them. Like one oligarch made a small fortune selling the first western cars in the
country and how they bought up cheap shares from the Yeltsin privatisation scheme. Privatized
companies changed ownership under threats or even at gunpoint. The oligarchs were simple
mobsters at the time. That is about what i vaguely remember reading the book a few years back
but there is a lot more detail.
TG #29
Replacement level fertility" is the total fertility rate -- the average number of children
born per woman -- at which a population exactly replaces itself from one generation to the
next, without migration. This rate is roughly 2.1 children per woman for most countries,
although it may modestly vary with mortality rates'
Russia 1.61 children born/woman (2018 est.)
Canada 1.6 children born/woman (2018 est.)
Japan 1.42 children born/woman (2018 est.)
Italy 1.45 children born/woman (2018 est.)
France 2.06 children born/woman (2018 est.)
@Kevin #18
I would suggest looking at articles in the Exile: www.exile.ru
Unfortunately, these are no longer free.
The short story: the most successful "privatizations" involved getting control of a bank,
then using the bank's deposits to buy up companies.
The most successful scheme was getting control of a bank which was partly used by the Russian
government for payments; I recall one example where one bank was used to clear funds paid for
state enterprises - so the "privatizers" were literally pushing money out for assets and
getting them back.
Further down the scale - there was all manner of chicanery including kidnapping, extortion,
murder and what not.
The problem with books published in English is that you're almost guaranteed to run into
thinly disguised agitprop ranging from the usual American and British academics taking the
national security dime, to Khodorkovsky and the other O.G. Jewish oligarchs attempting to
whitewash history: Gusinski, Berezofsky, etc.
Try this: Wheel of Fortune: The Battle for Oil and Power in Russia – May 15,
2017
by Thane Gustafson
A review @ Amazon:
Thane masterfully succeeded in uncovering the fundamental drivers of the Russian oil
industry and its interdependency with the political complex through a comprehensive and
convincing historical analysis, with plenty of meaningful insights and endearing anecdotes.
Rooted in Soviet legacy and having gone through the 90s bust-boom roller coaster and 2000s
state reconsolidation the industry is a unique globally isolated eco system, and, with
Russia as a whole, is at a crossroads. A must read for any decision maker in the O&G
business.
Just a quick take, the separation of the Russian government/ruling elites from Russian
culture suggests foreign influence as in Russia's elites looking to the West and aping
Western ideas – think of Peter the Great or Gorbachev. That was a betrayal of Russian
values and a historical mistake of immense proportions. Russia is learning to how to minimize
the core values of the West – greed, deception and narcissism.
China has done a better job than Russia in that regard but on the other hand it has a
vastly different history and enjoyed more isolation from Western meddling if not outright
invasions.
I would make a distinction here. Mastering Western technology is not necessarily the same
thing as "aping Western ideas". Also would distinguish between Peter the Great who won some
remarkable geopolitical victories for Russia (think Poltava); vs Gorbachov, who completely
betrayed Russia. To the extent he even left Russia vulnerable to American nuclear attack for
a window of 2 whole hours, or more.
As I showed in
this old post .
Gorby in phone conversation to George W. Bush Daddy:
"And now concerning Russia – this is the second most important theme of our
conversations. In front of me, on the table, lies the Decree of the President of the USSR,
concerning my resignation. I am hereby also relieving myself of the duties of the
Commander-in-Chief and handing over my responsibilities for employing nuclear weapons ,
to the President of the Russian Federation. In other words, I continue to manage these
affairs right up until the completion of the constitutional process. I can assure you, that
everything is under strict control. The moment I announce my resignation, these orders will
become effective. There will not be any kind of dispute about this. You can spend your
Christmas evening in complete peace of mind."
In other words, Gorby not only left the Soviet Union completely vulnerable to nuclear
attack for a period of 2 hours or so; but even announced that fact to their greatest enemy.
What kind of national leader does something like that? The only reason any Russians are even
around today, is because George Bush Daddy was either too kind, or too dull-witted to take
advantage of that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
"... To use Krushchev's granddaugher as a source was also a very low blow: she's herself an op-ed "journalist" coopted by the western MSM (I remember reading her pieces when she worked for the Asia Times, and she's for sure not a specialist/expert). ..."
"... It's also false when the NYT stated Russia is some kind of last refuge for oligarchs, mafiosos and terrorists in the world. No, this refuge's name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. ..."
"... The USA is also the last refuge of Latin American dictators. More than 3,000 enemies of the State from Latin American countries live in Florida under officially recognized political asylum. Many of them are ex-generals and bankers. ..."
"... There's also a macabre message in the headline of the NYT article: that it is weird, from the American point of view, that Russia was somehow able to survive the absolute destruction that should have happened with its Shock Therapy during the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The author indeed seems genuinely puzzled as to why didn't Russia degenerate to a Third World banana republic after the capitalist charge on the newly founded nation sponsored by the USA; after all, it worked in Latin America and many other countries. I've already discussed it here many times, and I stand by my hypothesis: Russia is still able to rest on the laurels of the good ol' Soviet Union. That windfall will soon end, so Putin must think a viable succession scheme and viabilize the five-year plans. ..."
The worst thing about the NYT piece is that it is not in the "Opinion" section, but right
in the Front Page, as if it were genuine investigative journalism.
To use Krushchev's granddaugher as a source was also a very low blow: she's herself
an op-ed "journalist" coopted by the western MSM (I remember reading her pieces when she
worked for the Asia Times, and she's for sure not a specialist/expert).
I disagree with b about the "hidden economy" thing. Every capitalist country has a
hidden economy; the USA, for example, has by far the largest shadow banking system in the
world, which could easily rise its GDP by 50%. Italy recently considered including the
mafia business in the GDP calculation so they could officially get out of recession. Having
20-30% of your economy "hidden", therefore, is not an excuse for the Russian Federation for
the dire state of its own people.
The NYT is also wrong when it infers Yeltsin was "fixing" the Soviet economy by making
it take the bitter pill. The Soviet economy begun to unravel precisely because of
Gorbachev's Perestroika - which was the policy designed precisely to reform the system in
the first place. Yeltsin made things even worse - far worse than a linear extrapolation
even from the Gorbachev era. Indeed, that's why he was toppled in the first place.
It's also false when the NYT stated Russia is some kind of last refuge for
oligarchs, mafiosos and terrorists in the world. No, this refuge's name is the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Thanks to its inumerous tax havens (of
which the Cayman Islands are, by far, the largest), many traffickers, terrorists and
oligarchs are able to roam freely around the world, with their money laundered. Many of
them even buy residence in London and a British Green Card, so they can also enjoy the
protections the Crown gives to its subjects. In their free time, they also buy some English
football clubs, but that's another story. Switzerland also enjoy many of the perks of being
a tax haven.
The USA is also the last refuge of Latin American dictators. More than 3,000 enemies
of the State from Latin American countries live in Florida under officially recognized
political asylum. Many of them are ex-generals and bankers.
Indeed, Russia is considered a "not free" nation precisely because this kind of
financial promiscuity doesn't exist on a systemic-cultural level. Freedom, for the
liberals, is nothing more nothing less than being able to freely purchase and use the
commodities you bought on the free market with a certain amount of money. Russia (but
mainly China) doesn't allow the western oligarchs to do that, so it is kind of a
disappointment to the "vital center".
There's also a macabre message in the headline of the NYT article: that it is weird,
from the American point of view, that Russia was somehow able to survive the absolute
destruction that should have happened with its Shock Therapy during the Yeltsin
era.
The author indeed seems genuinely puzzled as to why didn't Russia degenerate to a
Third World banana republic after the capitalist charge on the newly founded nation
sponsored by the USA; after all, it worked in Latin America and many other countries. I've
already discussed it here many times, and I stand by my hypothesis: Russia is still able to
rest on the laurels of the good ol' Soviet Union. That windfall will soon end, so Putin
must think a viable succession scheme and viabilize the five-year plans.
@FSD:
Agreed, but I think we are seeing a strange form of mass psychogenic illness in the West (
https://quillette.com/2018/11/02/trigger-warnings-and-mass-psychogenic-illness/),
and in the EU and US in particular. I strongly suspect that the farther an farther the mass
media push the willingly ignorant bulk of people out into a fictional and counterfactual
mental reservation, the more and more people crave distraction that, like a junkie's fix,
needs to always get bigger to reach the same effect. I turned on the TV the other day and
happened on a show called Masked Singer, which struck me as so insanely manic in its
subject and its presentation -- loud music, flashing lights, cartoonish hosts, junkie-like
pacing -- that I wondered that anyone can function anymore inside this pin-ball machine
world. It's like the entire West is having, especially in its so-called cultural nodes, a
collective manic episode with very real danger of self-harm.
Because Russia's population is relatively stable, every small uptick in economic growth
is pure profit. With a stable population, even 1% annual growth, compounded every year, can
result in substantial prosperity before too long.
But in the United States, with open-borders cheap-labor immigration pushing the
population ever higher, the numbers are different. When a population ir forced upwards, the
economic demands are even higher than the population growth itself. That's because you need
to not just grow the ongoing population, but provide massive investments in new
infrastructure. Russia is like a person who's paid off his mortgage, and can devote all
income to living and making progress. The United States is like a homeowner with a massive
mortgage and who also has to pay massive taxes to pay for more sewers and roads and energy
conservation etc.
So 1% annual sustained economic growth in Russia means Russia is making progress, while
even 3% annual economic growth in the United States means it is falling behind.
Don't believe me? From 1950 to the present, immigration increased California's
population from 10 million to about 40 million. On paper the economy boomed, but the
average person is much worse off, the quality of life has tanked, roads are choked, rents
are sky-high while wages are stagnant, air quality is down even with massive spending on
pollution controls, poverty is the worst in the nation, homelessness is booming, etc.
It's my guess Putin doesn't waste time reading the NYTs. Why should he, and for that
matter why should anyone? The Times and the other Oligarch rags should be ignored by all.
Break the chains. Focusing on God and family a young couple may try homesteading. Ignore
the rest.
The imperial lie machine sure is disgruntled that the 1990s attempt to economically and
biologically crush Russia once and for all was a failure and Russia has since been
reasserting itself. It wasn't "the end of history" after all.
That was the source of the underlying current of Russia Derangement among the US
elite classes (political, economic, media, academia, professional etc.), the many
provocations, and then the total meltdown beginning in late 2016.
Since it really seems to be a collective mental illness (I mean that literally)
afflicting a power group which is already psychotic and violent, and since it coincides
with the accelerating erosion of the US imperial position, it's looking more and more
likely that this must eventually lead to all-out war. I just can't imagine the US stepping
back, any more than I could imagine Hitler doing so.
America's obsessive bashing of Russia (and now China) is suggestive of a deep
psychological disorder.
Though the Americans and their allied apologists will insist that it is sincerely
motivated by a humanitarian concern for Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights(TM), that is
quite laughable given America's concentration camps for undocumented immigrants; its
incarceration of immigrant children in cages; or the US Prison Industrial Complex in
general, which has been called America's new Jim Crow in that it imprisons millions of
African Americans and other minorities and relegates them to a new racist caste system.
No, cut through the barrage of American Moral Supremacism and other delusions, the
United States is enraged that, despite its attempt to economically rape Russia in the 1990s
through American-promoted Free Market reforms and Neoliberal "shock therapy," Russia is
still standing and indeed resurgent.
THAT is what enrages the Americans and triggers them in rug-chewing fits of frenzy.
In Canada the cost of living outpaces wages by a considerable margin, consumer debt is the
highest in the G7, permanent homeless camps are a fixture in major cities and popping up in
smaller ones, people, including families, living in their vehicles is becoming normalized, an
ongoing opioid epidemic is still killing hundreds of people a month, etc. etc.
But the media keeps telling me unemployment is at record lows and the economy is "red hot"
and "booming" so it's all good, nothing to worry about thank God because the free and
democratic media here in the west never lies or traffics in distorted facts and
disinformation. It only prints and broadcasts The Truth and I'm really happy about that, very
relieved that everything is just fine and wonderful and all the bad things and the bad people
and the bad economies are in China, Russia and scary places like that. It's great living in a
place that's so free and awesome and knows only joy and prosperity!
If Putin was smart and freedom loving he'd get some western economic experts, from Harvard
Business School say, to help get the Russian economy booming but he's paranoid and doesn't
trust the west for some reason.
The uneasiness I feel as I stumble over the sleeping homeless people on my way to the bus
stop in the morning is irrational and foolish and was planted in my mind by Russian troll
bots on Facebook. I understand this now. Everything is wonderful here, now and always. With
Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland at the helm and a first class media dedicated to Truth
why would anyone worry or be mistrustful of our great Leaders and our Democratic
Institutions? We are the envy of the world and that makes Putin's Russia jealous and
meddlesome. I understand this now and channel all my news through an Atlantic Council Fake
News Filter plugin so all the Putinist mind warping stuff on Facebook can't affect me
anymore.
Sorry that was a long post, lol. Anyways my friend I hope you are well even though I am
sad that you still have a false paranoia about Our Western Media spreading Fake News. It's
Putin bro, not "us"! I understand this now broke lurker cover to share my insight with you so
that you too can learn to speak only Teh Truth. The Russian economy is spluttering badly and
here in Canada everything is wonderful! In Germany too! They hate our freedom and therefore
it's always bad there. The Democratic West will save the Putinist economy when Putin learns
to love and trust the West like I do (and hopefully you)! Peace out bro and much love, eh,
haha.
(Note from the Editor – Over 20 years ago, I was working for a company while endeavoring to build a church in California [preachers
need to work many times] and in the process we worked on a transaction of enormous size – $26.5 Trillion Dollars and it was deeply
involved with the CIA and our Government. It was under code name "Project Hammer" and the actual code word for the project was "EFG
Jacobi." After the deal closed the US Government froze the money. Many people don't realize that they have two sets of books, one
for the public and one for their clandestine operations around the world. We never got paid. I met Ambassador Lee Wanta (
http://eagleonetowanta.com ) about this time and since we had similar experiences
with the Government theft of funds meant for the American People, I have stayed in touch with him for many years. This article is
from http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/projecthammerreload/titlepage1.htm
written by David Guyatt who has intimate knowledge of these matters as the article will show. I kept a daily log on this for
8 years until we felt it would never pay out. Ambassador Wanta has a Court Order to release his money but powers are still refusing
to do so. We are attempting to arrange a meetingh with him and President Trump so the new Treasury Secretary can seize the funds
he has [$32.5 Trillion] which will pay off the national debt and finance the infrastructure for this country. There is a desperate
attempt in the ESTABLISHMENT, the Democrat Party, some Republicans, and the Main Streem Media to divert our attention from the true
story that you can read here and on the website of the Ambassador.)
Beginning in 1988 and lasting until approximately 1992, "
Project Hammer " was the latest
in a series of highly secretive banking practices – known as "collateral trading" programs – that are used to create, as if by magic,
huge amounts of unaccountable funds for use in specific projects.
These vast pools of unvouchered slush funds are applied to finance a wide variety of clandestine activities that include:
secret military projects
geo-political requirements
development of infrastructure projects
It is also whispered that, in the case of the Project Hammer program at least, a percentage of the proceeds generated from this
secretive activity found its way into the pockets of VIPs and well-known politicians.
Names associated with such corrupt behavior are carried on the wind; but if one listens attentively, the names
George Bush, Sr , and Jim
Baker
III are just discernible to the trained ear.
An example of the type of project on which these funds are expended is the trading programme known as "EFG Jacobi" – a predecessor
of Hammer – that I understand was used largely to finance military facilities and related operations at the
top-secret US base located at Pine Gap near
Alice Springs in central Australia.
In order to maintain the secrecy that surrounds genuine activity, these trading programmes are routinely said not to exist. Enquiries
about them are deflected and attention is instead focused on the warnings issued by government agencies about fake programmes. This,
when combined with the numerous prosecutions that occur every year over fraudulent High Yield Investment Programme transactions,
serves to create the impression that authorized programmes do not occur.
The reasons for this deflection are many, but not least is the fact that the asset bases on which these programmes usually operate
are also said not to exist – at least in the quantities that they actually do. The assets in question are large volumes of gold and
lesser amounts of platinum plundered by the Nazis and Japanese during World War II.
The fact that gold has been the one stable commodity used to back and support the issuance of currency over the decades means
that it has been subject to considerable government and central bank secrecy. It was only in 1997 that the Bank of England decided
to lift this veil of secrecy and allow the London bullion market a degree of openness. But that openness did not include coming clean
about the true amount of gold in existence, which is far larger than official figures allow.
Because of this and the extremely covert nature of related trading programmes, comprehensive details of the programmes' operations
and the financing techniques employed have remained hidden from public view. At least this was the case prior to the publication
of part one of this series,
The Project Hammer File .
1 This essay is the result
of further examination of the techniques and activity of Project Hammer, and now places additional important material into the public
domain.
Project Hammer 2
(Reloaded ) remains a high-level state secret in a number of countries including the USA. This was confirmed de facto by the
CIA in its refusal to release any relevant information following my Freedom of Information Act request in February 2001. The exemption
used by the CIA to reject my request was that relevant material is "properly classified pursuant to an Executive Order in the interest
of national defense or foreign policy".
2
Project Hammer also stands out because proceeds from the trading activity were illegally diverted by major banks. Confirmation
of this is provided by Brigadier-General
Erle Cocke in his April 2000 affidavit . In this, General Cocke was asked about the involvement of former US Treasury Secretary
Lloyd Bentsen, who was retained to investigate what had happened to (and also to recover) the missing funds.
Asked if Bentsen "had the government's interest in closing this whole problem" and if he had "ever had a discussion" with Bentsen,
Cocke replied:
Many hours just trying to find out whether any agency, any group, Federal Reserve, Treasury, CIA, FBI, security agencies, and
so forth, all of them put together, whether any of which would really like to finish. And, quite frankly, nobody stepped up to
the plate.
Cocke was then asked if "they would like to finish it", and he responded:
I think they would like to finish it, but they all back away. It is not my cup of tea, or they have spent enough time with
it and are not going to realize anything, and therefore they just quit. They don't confirm, they don't deny, they just stop.
One can conclude that the banks that diverted this money were too powerful for any agency of the US government to tackle. It also
helped that suitable and substantial "incentives" were provided to former high-level Bush (Sr) Administration figures to bring their
influence to bear quietly to ensure that action against the banks was not taken.
Although not part of the sanctioned plan for Project Hammer – which was to generate funds to pay off debts on bullion certificates
issued by certain metal trusts – the funds were siphoned off surreptitiously in order to rescue numerous major US and other banks
that by the latter half of the 1980s were tottering on the brink of bankruptcy.
3
The banks only had themselves to blame for their imminent collapse. Reckless lending to Third World nations for over a decade
or more, combined with the raw greed of senior bank executives, had caused unparalleled damage to the world's banking system. The
inability of indebted Third World nations to repay their massive debts could have been – in fact, was – foreseen, but was ignored.
The spiral of gluttony had taken prisoner the faculty of prudence and reason as bank executives, seeking their next bonus and
promotion, pleaded with sovereign nations to take loans they did not need and ultimately could not repay. Nor was it unusual for
some of the funds on loan to find their way into the private bank accounts of corrupt state officials – "diversions" that were known
about in the boardrooms of the top banks, but ignored as "business as usual".
By the end of the 1980s, big banks including Citibank, Chase Manhattan, the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC),
England's Midland Bank and many, many others were in dire straits. In all but name, they were bankrupt. The possibility of a prolonged
series of collapses of the world's top banks – a sort of "domino theory" of finance – was regarded in some quarters with palpable
fear. The entire Western banking system was rocking when it should have been rolling along nicely.
Somewhere, someone – nobody knows who (or at least no one is saying) – took the decision to bail out the banks and save the banking
system by diverting Project Hammer funds for this purpose. Those banking executives who caused the problem in the first place weren't
confronted by their mistakes or held to account by their shareholders but, instead, continued to collect their million-dollar pay
cheques, boost their bonus payments and profit shares, flick ash off their Cuban cigars, quaff bottles of expensive Cheval Blanc
and slap each other on the back in delighted relief.
One of those sighing relief was almost certainly Citibank's John Reed.
Another
one quite likely to have been cultivating a quiet exhalation was Hongkong and Shanghai Bank boss Sir William Purvis.
Meanwhile, many investors who had placed their money into Project Hammer in return for an agreed profit, as well as all those middle-men
who had worked hard for their promised commission, were relieved of their money in a twisted version of the well-known axiom, "One
man's loss is another banker's gain".
STEALING FROM THIEVES
The sanctioned purpose of Project Hammer was of a macro-economic nature, which is a nice way of saying that it was all to do with
"repatriating" the assets stolen earlier by someone else – except that when nations steal valuable assets during wartime, it's called
"plunder"; but when the victors in that war grab those same assets, they call it "recovery".
The assets in question were a vast horde of gold and lesser quantities of platinum plus not inconsiderable amounts of loose gemstones
which had been grabbed by the Nazis and the Japanese during World War II.
A large volume of this loot found its way to the Philippines where it was hidden in numerous treasure sites by the Japanese occupiers,
who planned to recover it after the war.
But it didn't quite work out the way the Japanese had planned. They lost the war, along with the Philippines – which, it seems,
they had been fairly confident of being allowed to keep in a negotiated truce with the Allies.
In their place, the OSS – the wartime forerunner of America's spy agency, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – began recovering
the bullion plundered from a dozen or so nations. This bullion formed what became known as the "Black Eagle" fund, which was part
of a secret agreement eclipsed behind the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement.
Consequently, the metal was placed under the care of OSS (and later CIA) operative Severino Garcia Santa Romana, who put it under
the control of numerous corporate entities he formed for the purpose. These entities, in turn, proceeded to establish 176 bank accounts
in 42 different countries in which to deposit these assets under private treaty agreement.
Confirmation of this came from General Cocke, after this was put to him:
"I have been advised that a chunk of the Hammer Project funds that were used to trade, to invest and reinvest, came from a
large block of assets that CIA put into the bank [Citibank]." Cocke replied: "And they pulled that several times from several
sources. Nobody is going to confirm it."
4
Santa Romana died in 1974, and following his death his former attorney and trustee was able to "acquire" considerable portions
of Santa Romana's estate by illicit means.
The lawyer was Ferdinand Marcos, who went on to become President of the Philippines and a favorite friend of the United States
until his overthrow in 1986. The acquisition of these assets helped give rise to stories of "Marcos gold" – a legend that was supplemented
by additional later recoveries of WWII gold and other loot using a Filipino Army battalion under the overall command of Marcos henchman
General Fabian Ver.
But Marcos was not the sole illegitimate beneficiary of war loot once controlled by Santa Romana.
Another was the late Baron Krupp who, I have
been told, also gained access to some of these assets. Meanwhile, it is worth mentioning that Santa Romana, prior to his death, was
apparently associated with former US President and head of the CIA,
George H. W. Bush , and "had some contact" with Jeb
Bush, the Governor of Florida.
In any event, this bullion has collectively given rise to a whole class of gold and platinum certificates issued over the decades,
mainly by top-drawer European banks.
(See the history of the Global Collateral Accounts HERE
)
The certificates bear the names of prominent, and in some cases infamous, individuals – usually heads of state – as beneficiaries.
However, these named owners were and are not the legal beneficiaries but, rather, were cat's-paws used to muddy the waters concerning
the true origin of the bullion. Nor did the banks that held the assets own them, but they could and did use them in support of their
off-balance sheet activity – to the point of irresponsibility.
It should not be forgotten that this gold and platinum hoard was stolen and that, under international law, every effort should
have been made to return it to its rightful owners – rather than secretly stash it in bank vaults for use in Cold War covert operations.
And although it can reasonably be argued that the true owners could never be traced – since the greater quantity of the bullion was
privately owned (rather than being central bank bullion) – it is clear that the ends dictated the means.
And even though numerous nations around the world were to benefit from post-war reconstruction based on the use and application
of this war booty, the price of this apparent largesse was for these nations to be moulded into Uncle Sam's image. As they say in
America's boardrooms, "There's no such thing as a free lunch".
In examining the techniques employed in setting up Project Hammer, one is struck not just by the complexity of it but also by
the way the banks and intelligence agencies involved structured things to shield themselves from responsibility (and lawsuits, no
doubt) by utilizing subterranean networks, each working at "arm's length".
Piecing these techniques and networks together has been an arduous, painstaking task, but the process has further unveiled a shadow
world of parallel finance usually only known to those initiated into it.
THE EMPIRE STATE CONNECTION
During his April 2000 deposition, just days before his death from cancer, Brigadier-General Erle Cocke, when asked about the overall
objective of Project Hammer, replied:
Well, it was mainly to bring back monies to the United States from all types of activities, both legitimately and illegitimately.
Not that they were in the smuggling business per se, but they were all in the arms business, they were all retracing dollars of
one description or another that had accumulated all through the '40s and '50s, really. And that probably is as broad a definition
as I can give you
General Cocke then added that involvement in
Project Hammer extended to:
the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agencies of all types, Pentagon in the broad sense of it and as such, the Treasury,
Federal Reserve. Nobody got out of the act, everybody wanted to get in on the act."
5
Cocke's involvement with clandestine CIA activities dates back many years. At the very least, he is known to have been involved
with the CIA's Nugan Hand Bank. For example, US Treasury records obtained by veteran journalist and author Jonathan Kwitny show Cocke
as the registered "person in charge" of Nugan Hand's Washington office.
6
Cocke also indicated in his affidavit that he was regularly contacted by the CIA for expert assistance over the years and was
usually debriefed by them following overseas travel. Despite this, a Freedom of Information Act request to the CIA made on behalf
of this writer was dismissed with the statement that "no records responsive to your request were located" – which is not entirely
the same thing as saying that no records exist.
7
It also appears that the CIA is not the only one that cares to deny knowledge of General Cocke. Another is former Citibank CEO
and Chairman John Reed, who, in a sworn affidavit dated 5 December 2000, stated he had "no knowledge of any persons named Erle Cocke,
Jr, or Barrie D. Wamboldt". Both the CIA and Citibank's John Reed hold at least one major advantage over General Cocke: they are
alive and he is dead; and while it is true that the dead can't lie, it is also true that they can't rebut anyone's testimony–sworn
or otherwise. 8
In his deposition, Cocke states that although he had never "met" John Reed, he had attempted on numerous occasions to speak with
him, but was continually rejected:
We did our best to make the normal approaches, but I can see the President of the United States with no trouble. I cannot see
Reed. 9
The "we" Cocke was referring to, besides himself, was Paul Green, a "long-time real estate lawyer in New York" with "50 years
practice", who "had done most of his real estate dealings through Citibank".
10
Green also did some of his banking business with Citibank at its Fifth Avenue, New York, branch under account FOCUS #946 963 94.
According to Cocke, Paul Green was an outside counsel for Citibank and went back,
"30-odd years with large transactions through that bank, buying and selling big buildings. He was very much involved buying
and selling the Empire State Building one time."
11
Asked if Green was involved in the purchase and sale of collateral instruments, Cocke replied:
Probably not as an individual. But he represented the clients that certainly wanted to do the same thing.
12
News in late March 2003 revealed that the Empire State Building had just been sold by casino king Donald Trump and the heirs of
shady Japanese billionaire Hideki Yokoi for US$57.5 million.
Yokoi (who, at the time, was serving a prison sentence and had secretly negotiated the transaction through a middleman) and his
partner Trump had gained ownership of the building in 1991 for US$42 million. Little is known about Yokoi's World War II activities.
The building last changed hands four decades earlier in 1961, when it was acquired by real estate tycoon Harry Helmsley from the
Prudential Insurance Company in a sale-leaseback deal. The world-renowned skyscraper was built on land owned by the
Astor family and sold to
the DuPonts in 1929.
Construction of the Empire State Building began in 1930. John Jacob Astor was one of the first Americans to become involved in
the opium trade, from which his later fortune derived. This he invested in Manhattan real estate. The architects of the Empire State
Building were Shreve, Lamb & Harmon Associates – designers of One Bankers Trust Plaza, the HQ of Bankers Trust, together with
the Credit Lyonnais building in New York City.
It is of more than passing interest that one law firm represents many of the "actors" who appear in this story. That firm is White
& Case. Amongst numerous notable achievements listed on its website background/history is its representation of the DuPont Group
in its sale of the Empire State Building in 1954 for the princely sum of US$51.5 million.
As we noted earlier, almost 40 years later, in 1991, the building sold for the less than princely sum of US$42 million. I am not
certain how the real estate investors define investment performance over the years, but an aggregate loss of US$9.5 million over
the course of 37 years doesn't usually constitute an investment accomplishment by any standard I know.
13
Meanwhile, a brief review of White & Case's client list tell us that they also represented,
the First National Bank (the forerunner of Citibank)
Seagram Company Ltd of Canada, controlled by the Bronfman family – regarded by some as the kings of the Canadian mafia
15
But White & Case's most "enduring" client is Bankers Trust Company, a J. P. Morgan-controlled bank which the law firm was "centrally
involved" in forming back in 1903.
The ancestor of all trust companies is England's Foreign & Colonial Investment Trust, which dates back to 1868 and was conceived
by one of the foremost legal minds of the day, Lord Westbury. The current Lord Westbury, Richard Bethell, will appear later in this
story.
But first, let's step through the looking glass and examine one of the early Hammer deals, which General Cocke believed:
It was one of the very early transactions, as far as I am concerned, with Hammer. I think he [Dan Hughes] is the one who expanded
Hammer in the sense that we moved from one hundred million [dollars] to a billion-type movement, and now we are doubling, about
a trillion. He is the one who enhanced it, is the best way of saying.
THE HUGHES PORTAL
Dan Hughes , Jr , the nephew of US Representative William J. Hughes from New Jersey, made a considerable fortune in
the construction business in Florida during his early working life.
By the mid-1980s, with paper assets nearing US$100 million, he became involved in collateral trading and by late 1989 entered
the realm of Project Hammer.
During the autumn of 1989, Hughes was approached by Peter Seaman, the President and Chairman of a small investment bank called
Nantucket Holding Company. Seaman had developed an arrangement with Ecoban Limited, a small merchant bank with offices in London
and New York City that specialized in emerging market-debt and the A'forfait market.
16
Seaman, using Nantucket Holding Company , concluded an agreement by which Ecoban would purchase US$100 million worth of
documentary letters of credit issued by the head offices of Citibank NA and the Chase Manhattan Bank NA. Hughes had access to these
bank credits via a US$50 billion "commitment" extended to him by the Bankers Trust Company.
To fund the purchase, Ecoban needed the support of a bank and turned to Midland Bank Aval Limited (MidAval), the forfaiting subsidiary
of Midland Bank Group International Trade Services (MiBGITS).
MidAval, once wholly owned by Midland Bank, had, shortly before commencing with the Hammer transaction, concluded a private agreement
with Sir William Purvis, Chairman of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation , wherein HSBC purchased a controlling
equity stake in MidAval. This meant that MidAval was 60% owned by HSBC and 40% owned by Midland Bank.
17
Accordingly, on 12 October 1989, MidAval issued a letter agreeing to purchase "$100 million with rolls until funds are exhausted
of documentary letters of credit"
18
An earlier MidAval letter (dated 25 September 1989) stated that they,
"irrevocably commit to purchase the above letters of credit and pay the amount agreed between you and Ecoban Limited ('the
purchase price') to Citibank NA, Lugano".
The reference to "Lugano" was deleted in later letters at the specific request of Nantucket's Peter Seaman, as detailed in his
11 October 1989, letter to Brian Fitzpatrick, the Managing Director of Ecoban Limited. Lugano was of some considerable importance
– as we shall see later – but not least because it was at Union Bank of Switzerland in Lugano where, according to Dan Hughes, the
actual trading of the Hammer programme took place.
Meanwhile, MidAval's letter was addressed to Jardine, Emett & Chandler, New England, Inc., in Boston, USA, which
acted as an agent for MidAval. On the strength of MidAval's signed and authorized letter, Jardine, Emett & Chandler issued its own
"Request for collateral instruments" under its letterhead. This letter, dated 12 October 1989, bore the reference "Midland Bank Aval
Limited for Ecoban Limited".
To close the circle, Dan Hughes had earlier instructed his attorney, Oswald (Ozzie) Howe, Jr, of the Miami law firm Mershon,
Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwoody & Cole , to cause to be issued a sight draft, dated 6 October 1989, drawn on the Southeast Bank NA,
Miami, and payable to Bankers Trust Company, for the sum of US$50,000. A further sight draft was issued in the amount of US$25,000,
at the request of Bankers Trust.
Following this sequence of events, nothing happened and no draws were made against the sight drafts issued by Southeast Bank in
favour of Bankers Trust.
But on 18 October 1989, Hughes received a time and sequence confirmation from Joan Johnson, Vice President and Operations Manager
of the Security Pacific bank in Los Angeles, which Hughes believes activated his transaction through a "back door" arrangement which
would cut him out of his commission.
19 Thereafter, Peter Seaman
point-blank and inexplicably refused to speak with Hughes again.
General Cocke was an experienced banker from a long line of bankers and was a former full-time US representative at the World
Bank.
Intimately familiar with the operational techniques of trading programmes, he was asked:
"Can you explain in a general way how it [Hammer] functioned, that it was a trade programme, for those of us that are not familiar?"
The stock way all big banks, all central banks, change within themselves and curtail their balances, build up their peaks and
then sell it.
He went on to explain that "most of it is done in a four-week program to be technically correct" and involved the trading of banking
instruments – usually known as "collateral" – that are heavily discounted and then sold off.
MAPPING THE COVERT CONNECTIONS
To appreciate the subtleties of how the diversion of this particular "portal" into Project Hammer may have occurred, it is instructive
to look at the connections and associations of the principal players.
20
Ecoban:
In addition to Ecob an Limited in London, there was the affiliated Ecoban Finance Limited that conducted business out
of an address on Third Avenue in New York City.
A one-time President and CEO of Ecoban Finance Limited in New York was Jim Demitrieus, who more recently was the President
and Chief Operating Officer of Ixnet/IPC, which was acquired by Global Crossing in June 2000.
Global Crossing was one of the US firms that recently suffered a spectacular collapse together with Worldcom, Enron and the accountancy
firm Arthur Andersen. All were subjected to a welter of media attention for what was believed to have been unparalleled insider trading
activities by senior executives.
Earlier in his career, Demitrieus,
"served as senior vice president and chief operating officer of the Commodity Division of Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., responsible
for the precious metals, energy products, foreign exchange trading subsidiary and institutional brokerage division".
Of interest here is the little known fact that Drexel, Burnham, Lambert, New York , was a recipient of gold bullion from
Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos in January 1984.
It is not clear from Mr Demitrieus's available vitae if this was the same time period he was the Senior Vice President of Drexel's
bullion business, but I am informed this is probably the case. Before that, Demitrieus "held senior-level financial positions with
Freeport-McMoRan, ITT and Arthur Andersen".
21
Significantly, Freeport-McMoRan, back when it was Freeport Sulphur , positively heaved with CIA and elite heavy-hitters
– not to mention persistent whispers of its involvement in the recovery of plundered gold stashed in Indonesia, where Freeport had
the world's largest copper mining operation.
Over the years, the Freeport senior management has included such luminaries as Augustus "Gus" Long, Chairman of Texaco, who did
"prodigious volunteer work for Columbia Presbyterian Hospital" – which has been described as a "hotbed of CIA activity".
22
Another director was Robert Lovett, who has been described as a "Cold War architect" and was once an executive at the old Wall
Street bank of Brown Brothers Harriman. He also served as an Under Secretary of State, Assistant Secretary of War and Secretary of
Defense. He was a best friend of Chase Manhattan Bank Chairman (and Warren Commission member) John J. McCloy.
The Chase Manhattan and Citibank connection to Freeport was further enhanced by the board appointment of Godfrey Rockefeller,
brother of James Stillman Rockefeller who was appointed Chairman of Citibank (then known as First National City Bank, or FNCB for
short) in 1959. (Note, too, that Chase Manhattan and Citibank are the exact same two banks that were to issue the Project Hammer
documentary letters of credit.)
Godfrey Rockefeller was a one-time trustee of the Fairfield Foundation that financed a variety of CIA "fronts". Meanwhile, Stillman's
cousin, David Rockefeller , was Chairman
of Chase Manhattan and regarded as the "goliath of American banking".
23
By a strange coincidence of fate, it was Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy who, together with Robert B. Anderson, formed Secretary
of War Henry L. Stimson's team of financial experts concerned with tracking WWII gold looted by the Axis powers.
Indeed, Lovett and McCloy were responsible for negotiating the secret agreement hidden behind the Bretton Woods Agreement
concerning the establishment of the Black Eagle trust
that was to make use of plundered WWII bullion in the postwar years.
24
Midland Bank:
When looking at MidAval's parent, Midland Bank Group International Trade Services (MiBGITS), one could do worse than read the
very informative book by former arms company chairman Gerald James, entitled In the Public Interest. James recounts numerous chilling
accounts of Her Majesty's intelligence service MI6's deep involvement with the MiBGITS special defense unit.
Included are details of Stephan Kock, who James claims to have been a former head of the Foreign Office's so-called assassination
squad, Group 13.
Another intelligence-connected individual named in James's book is Sir John Cuckney, who was a non-executive director of Midland
Bank from 1978 until 1988 and was responsible for having formed the defense unit in the first place.
Gerald James and his munitions company Astra also had dealings with, and a private account at, MidAval.
25
Kock's boss at Midland was Comte Herve de Carmoy, a Frenchman and a leading light on the
Trilateral Commission . He left Midland in
1988 to take up the position as the most senior executive of Belgium's massive transnational company, Société Générale.
portrait serre
He was replaced as head of Midland International by John Louden, a multilinguist who had an unfortunate speech impediment – leading
wags in the bank to say of him that he could stutter in seven languages. De Carmoy's departure was followed by that of both Cuckney
and Kock, after what Gerald James describes as "funny practices" relating to a loss of £100 million involving all three men.
26
Although a similar amount to the MidAval's Project Hammer transaction, this sum of £100 million cannot have been the same money
for two reasons. Firstly, the Hammer amount was in dollars and not pounds, and was discounted at approximately 4% over the prevailing
one-year interest rate (LIBOR–the London Interbank Borrowing Rate).
For US banks of the standing of Chase and Citibank, at that time a market rate of perhaps one quarter of 1% – or, at most, one
half of 1% – was applicable. Four per cent was unheard of by a very long shot indeed. Secondly, at least a year separated the two
movements of money.
Even so, there are notable connections between the MidAval CEO Ian Guild and Herve de Carmoy (who was known in the bank as "Herve
the Swerve").
Firstly, de Carmoy was Guild's overall boss.
Secondly, shortly after de Carmoy moved to Société Générale, a valued employee of MidAval (also a Frenchman, referred to
in-house by the affectionate nickname of "Froggy") left MidAval employment to take up the post of Chef du Cabinet at the specific
invitation of de Carmoy.
Thirdly, Guild and the other two senior executives, plus some other staff, left Midland in 1990 to form IndoSuez Aval Limited.
IndoSuez Bank was directly owned by Société Générale and negotiations between de Carmoy, his Chef du Cabinet – the former MidAval
employee – and the three senior MidAval executives had been ongoing for almost a year before satisfactory terms were settled.
Following the takeover of Midland Bank by HSBC, MidAval had its name changed to HSBC Forfaiting Limited. It was dissolved in February
2000. Former staff had long since scattered with the four winds. IndoSuez Aval Limited is likewise now defunct.
Note
Documents and other exhibits in support of this story are available
HERE .
2. See Project Hammer
part one, "The Project Hammer File",
HERE
3. Information about
Project Hammer has been garnered from numerous sources. Those sources that I am able to name are named in the text. The remainder
remain confidential.
4. Page 51 of General
Cocke's affidavit. One of the CIA "sources" was the slush fund controlled by Japanese Liberal Democrat Party bosses and known
as the "M-fund", after General MacArthur's economic supremo in Tokyo, General Marquat.
6. See Jonathan Kwitny's
excellent book, The Crimes of Patriots (Touchstone Books, New York, 1987), for a detailed background on the Nugan Hand Bank affair.
13. If one includes
the inflationary effect over this time period, it would reveal that the sale price is, in fact, a great deal less now than it
was almost 50 years ago, which is more than curious. Nor does the leasing agreement over this same period seem especially lucrative.
14. It is not clear
from the banking records I have viewed online, but it looks as though the Astor Trust Company was absorbed into an entity that
formed part of the Bankers Trust Company.
16. Forfaiting is
the discounting of bank-guaranteed receivables (Aval) on a non-recourse basis.
17. I use the term
"private agreement" under advice–following a recent telephone conversation with a representative of Companies House, who told
me that no change of ownership notification had been made for MidAval at that time. MidAval had first been registered as a limited
company under the shelf registration name of "Diplema Twenty Nine Limited" in June 1983. A change of name to Midland Bank Aval
Limited was formally notified to Companies House in April 1996–although the firm had been trading in the name of Midland Bank
Aval Limited from day one. Following the full buy-out of Midland Bank PLC by the HSBC Group, MidAval had its name changed to HSBC
Forfaiting Limited. The company was dissolved in February 2000.
19. Sworn and notarized
affidavit of Dan Hughes, dated December 31, 1990.
20. There are believed
to have been numerous different "portals" providing access into Project Hammer over the period of its life. The Dan Hughes transaction
was one of these–albeit a significant and "early" one, according to the testimony of General Erle Cocke.
21. Demitrieus's vitae
is drawn from that published on the Global Crossing website.
22. For details concerning
the Freeport Board of Directors, see Internet report entitled "Freeport Sulphur's Powerful Board of Directors".
23. See Phillip Zweig's
massive book, Wriston (Crown Publishers, New York, 1995) for comprehensive background on Citibank and Chase.
24. For details of
these three gentlemen's involvement in the Black Eagle Trust, see Seagrave's self-published book, Gold Warriors; details are available
on my website, under the heading of " The Seagrave Affair
"
25. I know much of
the inner workings of MidAval for the simple reason that I was the Treasurer and an Associate Director of that firm until 1991.
However, I knew nothing of the Project Hammer deal that was strictly handled by the three principal executive directors.
26. See details on
page 164 of Gerald James's book, In the Public Interest (Warner Books/Little, Brown, London, 1996).
Project Hammer Reloaded – Part 2
Part 2
MAPPING THE COVERT CONNECTIONS
Peter
Seaman:
In addition to being the President and Chairman of Nantucket Holding Company, Peter Seaman was a successful businessman
and involved in a number of other enterprises. These included an entity called Harbor Fuel Holdings Co., Inc. of Westchester
County, in which Seaman was a partner with attorney Stuart Root.
Both Root and Seaman were clients of attorney Kenneth C. Ellis. Root was a director of another firm called Bowery Advisors
Subsidiary Corporation, which was registered in Florida with a principal mailing address of Kenneth C. Ellis "care of" the
Southeast First National Bank building, located at Biscayne Boulevard, Miami. Seaman had a residence in Greenwich, Connecticut,
where, by another odd coincidence, his next-door neighbor was Citibank's John Reed.
Following his close association with Dan Hughes in setting up the MidAval Hammer deal in October 1989, Seaman thereafter
refused to speak with Hughes ever again. Whether it was guilt for diverting Hughes's commission or some other factor that caused
this extraordinary vow of silence, we shall never know. Peter Seaman died, taking all his secrets with him.
Oswald
Howe, Jr:
Dan Hughes's attorney throughout the Hammer deal and the subsequent years of investigation was Oswald (Ozzie) Howe, Jr,
of the Miami law firm of Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwoody & Cole, whose offices were located in the Southeast Bank
building at the Southeast Financial Center.
According to Dan Hughes, it was Howe who introduced him to Southeast Bank, and Howe did a lot of real estate work for the
bank. Hughes also feels that his ongoing law case would be a great deal more effective if several vital documents had not mysteriously
disappeared from Howe's office. In any event, Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwoody & Cole is now defunct, and Howe practices
law and is the senior partner for Howe, Robinson & Watkins LLP in Miami.
Southeast
Bank:
Southeast Bank NA was declared insolvent on 19 September 1991; it exists no more. Over the years it could boast some famous,
if not infamous, clients – but one suspects that such boasting was the last thing the bank's board of directors had in mind.
One such account "holder" was Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who used his henchman and former law school classmate Roberto
Benedicto to front for him.
In addition to being appointed by Marcos as the Philippines Ambassador to Japan, Benedicto was a signatory to Marcos's Credit
Suisse accounts and was clearly content to be used by Marcos as a cat's-paw to hide his money and gold bullion.
27 Benedicto died
in May 2000, following a heart attack.
Other illustrious clients of Southeast Bank over the years have included such criminal luminaries as Licio Gelli and Michele
Sindona, named by author Luigi DiFonzo in his book,
St Peter's Banker . DiFonzo reveals that US$34 million of the "lost" money of Robert Calvi's collapsed bank, the Banco
Ambrosiano, was traced to that bank's subsidiary in Nassau, where it was withdrawn and smuggled to two Miami banks, one of
these being the Southeast First National Bank (of Miami)–where it was deposited in account number 18221465.
28
Bankers Trust:
Bankers Trust International, a subsidiary of Bankers Trust, was the other Miami bank named in St Peter's Banker as having
funds stolen from Banco Ambrosiano deposited with it. According to DiFonzo, these funds were deposited into account number
001050018, which was also controlled by Licio Gelli and Michel Sindons (i.e., Michele Sindona).
In 1982, Ferdinand Marcos arranged via his right-hand man, General Fabian Ver, to transfer 50 tonnes of gold bullion to
Switzerland via two chartered 747 aircraft. These were arranged by an individual using the name Ron Lusk, who had been retained
by Ver to deliver the gold to Bankers Trust, Zurich.
29
Bankers Trust is of considerable interest for other reasons, too. Firstly, readers will recall that Dan Hughes caused two
sight drafts to be issued in favour of Bankers Trust for the collateral commitment relative to the Chase and Citibank debenture
instruments – an activity which, as we have already seen, caused General Erle Cocke to believe kicked off the Project Hammer
programme in a big way.
Secondly, the lawyers and investigators who were building a lawsuit for Dan Hughes and other clients cheated out of their
money were quietly negotiating with the Central Intelligence Agency in an attempt to settle privately and quietly out of court.
According to Dan Hughes, these negotiations were taking place with the office of Buzzy Krongard, the then No. 3 man in the
CIA hierarchy.
By profession, Krongard is a banker and formerly was the Chairman and CEO of investment bank Alex. Brown, Inc. In September
1997, Krongard engineered the merger of Alex. Brown with Bankers Trust and became the Vice Chairman of the board of directors
of Bankers Trust. A few months later, in January 1998, he was recruited as a "counsellor" to CIA boss George Tenet. In March
2001, he was promoted to Executive Director, making him the No. 2 man of the spy agency.
But the strange coincidences don't end there. South African intelligence operatives Rolf van Rooyen and Riaan Stander,
30 who are both
deeply enmeshed in the Project Hammer (
1 and
2 ) story,
were working closely with Gregory Serras, the President/CEO of the San Diego brokerage firm, Vanguard Capital.
This involved discussions for Vanguard to act on their behalf in the private placement of Argentinian government-approved
debenture instruments that formed part of a trading programme that van Rooyen and Stander had been working on. In a signed
letter, Serras – acting on behalf of his bank, Morgan Stanley & Co. – requested confirmation that the debentures in question
were "legal securities authorized and approved by the government of Argentina"
Vanguard appears to change its banking relationships from time to time. In the period that Serras was in contact with van
Rooyen, its relationship was with Morgan Stanley & Co. Today it is with the Bank of New York, Inc. – itself no stranger to
front-page scandals, such as those involving money-laundering activities for Russian crime syndicates and political figures.
31 Of interest is
the fact that Vanguard was earlier affiliated with Buzzy Krongard's old firm, Alex. Brown, which, following the takeover of
Bankers Trust by Germany's Deutsche Bank, changed its name to Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, Inc.
The fact is that when it comes to the fraternity of banking, one can often disregard the supposed rivalry that is said to
exist, because incestuous relationships are commonplace. In the past, at least, the big banks owned significant chunks of each
other's stock, whereas nowadays they just tend to merge. Take, for example, the Bank of America, whose second-largest stockholder
was J. P. Morgan. In third place was Citibank.
Meanwhile, Citibank's largest stockholder was J. P. Morgan, which in December 2000 merged with Chase Manhattan to form the
all-powerful J. P. Morgan Chase.
32 Bankers Trust
was a J. P. Morgan creation from day one.
White
& Case:
No doubt by sheer coincidence alone, the Marcos account held by Roberto Benedicto at Southeast Bank was a White & Case Trust
account (number 018-410191).
It may also have been mere coincidence that Peter Seaman's and Stuart Root's attorney, Kenneth C. Ellis – who was the registered
addressee at Southeast Bank building for the Bowery Advisors Subsidiary Corporation – is also listed on the
White & Case website as a partner of that firm, who specializes in
financial matters and who now works out of its Singapore office.
UBS,
Lugano:
One of the more flamboyant financiers of recent decades undoubtedly is the Italian, Florio Fiorini, the former finance director
of the Italian state-owned oil company, ENI. Fiorini is best known for his failed attempt to rescue Roberto Calvi's bankrupt
private bank, Banco Ambrosiano – an affair that also involved Mafia financier Michele Sindona and, of course, Licio Gelli,
the Grandmaster of the secret masonic lodge, P2, that was a parallel de facto government of Italy.
Unlike others, Fiorini spilled the beans, and he did so in two books that he wrote while in Champ-Dollon prison, Switzerland,
for "fraudulent bankruptcy". Of the many secrets he revealed, one of the most explosive was the now infamous conto protezione
(protection account), used to launder profits derived from myriad insider-dealing activities by some of the largest and
most prestigious banks and transnational corporations in Europe.
A significant slice of the profits was paid to what Fiorini amusingly described as "the starving of the parties". In plain
words, these allocations were kickbacks paid to the various political parties.
The administrator of the secret kickback account (number 633369) was a member of P2 and also a former Minister of Justice
of disgraced Prime Minister Bettino Craxi, who went by the name of Claudius Hammerings – and if one deletes the last four letters
of his name, coincidence throws up the word "Hammer".
33 Readers will
by now have guessed that the account was held at UBS, Lugano.
Fiorini's name also appears prominently in the story of the looting of MGM, the famous Hollywood film studio, by Italian
Mafia "thug" Giancarlo Paretti. The MGM affair was an event that almost brought France's state-owned bank, Credit Lyonnais,
crashing to its knees. Without intervention and an infusion of considerable sums of money from the French taxpayer, France's
once proud bank would have folded.
This is not the place to recount the MGM/Credit Lyonnais story, but it is of passing interest only to note that Credit Lyonnais
recruited attorney Charles Meeker to join MGM as president, to handle negotiations with Paretti. Prior to joining MGM, Meeker
was with the law firm of White & Case.
34 Following a warrant
issued by France, Paretti was eventually arrested and cuffed by US federal agents in a conference room in the downtown Los
Angeles office of White & Case.
Credit Lyonnais has also been deeply involved in Black Eagle gold transactions. In one transaction I am familiar with, a
large block of bullion was to be purchased by a representative operating on behalf of Credit Lyonnais Rouse Limited, London,
the precious metals trading arm of the bank.
35
It is also interesting to note that UBS, Lugano, was not only the bank of choice for those running the secret insider trading
protection account; it was also the bank of choice for former Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos. The numerous confidential
accounts he had at that bank have been dubbed the "Mother" money-laundering account for the Marcos family by Marcos gold investigator
Reiner Jacobi. 36
But the UBS connections don't end there. The Honorary Chairman of UBS (now part of the Swiss Bank Corporation Group) is
Nicholaus Senn, who was also the Chairman of the enormous transnational corporation, Compagnie Financière Richemont AG
, until his retirement in September 2002. Senn was also the senior partner of the Swiss-based international law and consultancy
firm of Senn, Christians and Letemeyer , which, coincidentally, acted for the late Baron Arndt Krupp.
In particular, Carl Letemeyer and Nicholaus Senn worked hard on behalf of the Krupp Estate in regard to the Krupp Heritage
& World Peace Foundation (Singapore), which received a legacy of US$97 billion from
Baron Krupp . This was a cash gift. According
to documents I have in my possession, Krupp's "secret" properties and businesses did not form part of this legacy. However,
the most interesting fact is that, prior to his death, Baron Arndt Krupp controlled some of the Santa Romana "Black Eagle"
fund assets. Of the $97 billion gifted, $47 billion was on deposit in account number 4 77 22 P with the Trust Department of
the Standard & Chartered Bank, London.
Indosuez:
This is one of those banks which are barely visible but consistently circle the waters of black gold and Project Hammer
– like a prowling shark with just the tip of its dorsel fin showing. For example, in one bullion transaction being negotiated
by Dr A. Konig, the Swiss representative of Rolf van Rooyen's Eastcorp Syndicate, the nominated closing bank for the transaction
was Indosuez, Lugano – where Eastcorp Holdings maintained an account.
This is in addition to the migration of some MidAval staff to Indosuez following their involvement in the Project Hammer
trading programme, as outlined earlier. With the closure of Indosuez Aval, a rump of former MidAval employees (now unfortunately
ex-Indosuez Aval as well), including MidAval's former CEO, found a new berth for their abilities. This was at Standard & Chartered
Bank in London. Standard Bank Nominees, meanwhile, is the second largest shareholder of Oppenheimer's Anglo American, with
a stake of 11.74 per cent.
37
While knowledge of the hidden connections of the Hughes "portal" into Project Hammer is vital for an understanding of how
the world of parallel finance operates, there are still deeper "rhythms" at work. An examination of these "rhythms" leads to
the companies, people and intelligence assets that sit at the heart of the so-called Anglo-American relationship.
THE KESWICK-JARDINE CONNECTION
A few days after I published part one of Project Hammer in late October 2001, I was alerted to an anonymous posting at the
Cryptome.org website of a document produced by the South African National
Intelligence Agency in 1998.
The document describes plans, then alleged to be in preparation, for a coup to occur during the 1999 South African general election.
Whilst the coup did not happen, the document is of significance because it describes members of – and entities aligned with – the
group who wished to disrupt the ruling African National Congress (ANC) political party.
38
A large part of this document outlines the alleged involvement of Executive Outcomes (EO), the British-based private security
company that is part of the Palace Group of companies. A few days prior to this document being made available, I had published charts
showing the "network" of the Palace Group that formed the London end of the associated South African intelligence group known as
the Eastcorp Syndicate.
This group was headed by Rolf van Rooyen and Riaan Stander – both South African intelligence operatives who were deeply involved
in Project Hammer. Not only were the London and South African networks closely aligned, but in some cases they also shared the same
executives. 39
One of the entities appearing on the Cryptome.org document as a member of the London network/Palace Group is Jardine Fleming of
Hong Kong, listed under "Banking and Investments". Two lines beneath appears the name Defense Systems Ltd – a division of the arms
manufacturer, Vickers.
Jardine
Fleming is also listed in the same document as a "role player", a few lines beneath the name of Tony Buckingham – the high-profile
head of Executive Outcomes. In an accompanying financial report it is revealed that EO used account number 600774426 at Jardine Fleming
Bank Limited, located at Port Moresby, Hong Kong. The account, rendered as at 15 May 1998, held a balance of US$36 million, and included
Tony Buckingham among those authorized to sign cheques on the account.
Jardine Fleming Bank Limited was established in 1970 as a joint venture between the huge transnational company, Jardine Matheson
Limited, and British merchant bank, Robert Fleming. Jardine's 50% stake in this Hong Kong bank was exchanged in 1999 for a direct
18% stake in Robert Fleming, which in April 2000 was sold to the Chase Manhattan Corporation – the holding company of what is now
the huge US bank of J. P. Morgan Chase.
But a year later, in May 2001, the magicians' musical chairs were in use again when it was announced that Jardine Fleming Bank
was to be sold by J. P. Morgan Chase to Standard Bank. The transfer of ownership occurred on 3 July 2001, with the renaming of
Jardine Fleming Bank to Standard Bank Asia Limited, but trading was under the new name of Standard Jardine Fleming Bank Limited.
Of considerable significance is the fact that, at the time that Jardine, Emett & Chandler – the firm of Boston insurance
brokers mentioned earlier – issued its letter on behalf of MidAval, seeking collateral instruments, it was owned by Jardine Matheson
Limited. Meanwhile, Jardine Resources Limited, with an address in the Isle of Man, was a business entity used by Rolf van Rooyen
for collateral trading programme and other activities. The Isle of Man also boasted a branch of Jardine Fleming Bank Limited.
Jardine Matheson Limited, originally formed over 170 years ago, created a fortune from the China opium business. Since that time
it has diversified enormously and remains the family fiefdom of the Keswick family, descendants of the firm's co-founder, William
Jardine.
The Keswick clan, in addition to having had family members awarded the chairmanship or directorship of such notable international
companies as Hongkong & Shanghai Bank , Rio Tinto Zinc and Samuel Montagu (the London merchant bank that was
part of the Midland Bank Group, itself now owned by HSBC), is also able to boast having had family members as the head of Britain's
Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and decades-long membership of the Court of the Bank of England.
Rio Tinto Zinc (RTZ) was founded in 1873 by Hugh Matheson, the co-founder of Jardine Matheson. In 1995, RTZ acquired a minority
ownership in Freeport McMoRan. Anglo American (which has long had very close ties with RTZ), together with De Beers, is the fiefdom
of the Oppenheimer family, which owns a significant piece of Lonrho. These three intertwined conglomerates dominate the precious
metals and mining world – amongst achieving other notable accomplishments. For example, the Oppenheimers' Minorco holding company
is believed to be the single largest investor in the United States.
Minorco, founded in 1981, was quick to obtain an interest in America's then biggest bank, Citibank, whose CEO, Walter Wriston,
together with Citibank's principal attorney, Robert Clare, a partner of the powerful law firm of Shearson & Sterling, both accepted
invitations to sit on the Minorco board.
40
According to the authors of the book
Dope, Inc ., the Keswick family
controls a substantial part of the world's narcotics trade and uses HSBC, the bank it is said to control, to "provide centralized
rediscounting facilities for the financing of the drugs trade".
41
How true this is remains unknown to this writer, but it is known that Li Ka-shing – the Chinese billionaire who owns a 3% stake
in Jardine Matheson Limited and has sat on the board of HSBC – has been accused of being a member of Chinese intelligence as well
as being associated with the narcotics trade.
42
Indeed, the latter allegation arose repeatedly during my investigation of Project Hammer, while the use of HSBC as an "authorized
six-point laundry" was also mentioned. Meanwhile, the description of "centralized rediscounting facilities" referenced by the authors
of Dope, Inc . is suggestive,
to this writer at least, of collateral trading techniques.
Such connections are almost endless, it seems. Take, for example, the rise to fortune of Peter Munk, Chairman of Barrick Gold
which was formed in Toronto, Canada, in 1983, with the majority stake being held by the Saudi royal family middleman and arms dealer,
Adnan Khashoggi. Khashoggi had long been associated with Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos and the so-called Marcos gold.
Indeed, so trusted was he that Marcos had him fronting for two "eclipsed" Marcos accounts – one in the name of Etablissement
Mabari with the private Swiss bank of Lombard Odier & Cie, and the other in the name of Etablissement Gladiator
at COGES Corraterie Gestion SA , Geneva.
Of interest, too, is the fact that Sir Henry Keswick is reported to have been responsible for "lifting" Munk to a new career,
although he also received patronage from Australia's now-deceased multi-billionaire businessman Sir Peter Abeles.
43
Sir Peter received considerable attention in Jonathan Kwitny's excellent book,
The
Crimes of Patriots , because of his alleged Mafia connections and close association with Bernie Houghton and Michael Hand in
the CIA drug smuggling laundry, the Nugan Hand Bank – which also arranged to ship gold bullion surreptitiously for Marcos.
At this point, it is worth reminding readers that Brigadier-General Erle Cocke – whom I referenced earlier concerning his affidavit
detailing his knowledge and involvement in Project Hammer – was reported by Kwitny to be a key player in the Nugan Hand Bank.
And Project Hammer is said to be a general continuation of Nugan Hand Bank activity.
MARITIME FINANCING
The ties that bind are kept hidden from public view.
Activities such as the one we have been discussing are made to operate on an "arms length" basis to confuse and also to ensure
deniability.
Following these subterranean and diverse threads can easily perplex the investigator, and patience and persistence are required
to arrive at the reality that is hidden behind all the smoke and mirrors. The story of Puffin Investments is a case in point.
During a number of extensive telephone interviews with the Canadian, Barrie Wamboldt, it was hinted that it would be worthwhile
to look into the activities of an Alan Shepherd and a firm of his called Puffin Investments. Readers will remember that Barrie Wamboldt
was involved with Project Hammer and had worked with General Cocke and Paul Green to recover Project Hammer funds.
Puffin Investment Company Limited, a Bahamas company, was owned by Old Harrovian Alan Shepherd, who had connections to the British
royal family resulting from generous donations he made to the Royal Windsor Horse Show, of which he was vice president.
In March 2001, Shepherd and Puffin Investments were involved in a High Court action initiated by the Financial Services Authority
– the government watchdog – for enticing investors to put up money for a "sham" investment trading programme. According to the
Sunday Express newspaper, reporting on the court case, up-front fees paid by investors on the promise of massive returns were
not repaid. 44
A week later, on 1 April 2001, the Sunday Express carried a further report detailing a lawsuit against Alan Shepherd, his American
wife Sherry and previous Conservative Party "grandee" Sir Edward du Cann, who was the former Chairman of City merchant bank Keyser
Ullman.
Sir Edward was earlier involved in Tradeswind, an arms trading company in which he was a director with Tiny Rowland of Lonrho
fame and the Egyptian, Ashraf Marwan – known as "Dr Death". Earlier in his career, du Cann served as Chairman of Lonrho, thus working
alongside board directors such as British MI6 luminary Nicholas Elliot.
45
Shepherd, his wife Sherry and du Cann were being sued for £1.25 million in a dispute involving the search for "one of the world's
most fabulous buried treasures". The treasure in question was "30 tons of gold statues, bullion, doubloons and precious stones",
stolen by Scottish pirate Captain William Thompson. The treasure was currently valued at £500 million.
The lawsuit was brought by Richard Bethell of the Bermuda-based Hart Group , who alleged that Shepherd and du Cann were
guilty of "misrepresentations" over an agreement for the provision of various "services" to Shepherd's planned treasure hunt.
One cannot help but be reminded of stories that have circulated in the past concerning gold plundered by the Japanese during WWII
and hidden in the Philippines – later to be recovered and "laundered" as treasure retrieved from Spanish galleons that had sunk while
traveling from Peru to Spain. A variation of this story is the recovery of lost "pirate treasure" – otherwise known as gold – on
the Cocos Islands.
Richard Bethell – elevated to Lord Westbury following the recent death of his father – is a former SAS and Scots Guards officer
and, like Alan Shepherd, an Old Harrovian. The Hart Group, of which he is the Chief Executive Officer, is one of a number of companies
that form the Global Marine Security Systems Company (GMSSCO).
A distinct cynic – as this writer has become – would easily conclude that a marked similarity in structure exists between GMSSCO
and Rolf van Rooyen's South African Eastcorp Syndicate that was closely allied with the London network of Executive Outcomes.
For example, companies belonging to the Eastcorp Syndicate also had a maritime and security theme.
APARTHEID'S
MISSING BILLIONS
But the similarity doesn't end there.
Lord Westbury is currently serving as Chief Executive Officer of Defense Systems Limited (DSL), which, as we have already seen,
is an integral member of the London network of the Palace Group (named so because of its close proximity to the royal family's official
London residence, Buckingham Palace).
46
Moreover, Executive Outcomes has been described as "the advance guard for major business interests engaged in a latter-day scramble
for the mineral wealth of Africa".
47
This is a particularly incisive description, and readers of the first part of this series will recall that one aspect of Project
Hammer apparently involved the disappearance of substantial quantities of gold reserves, as well as stocks of De Beers diamonds,
just prior to the takeover of the Republic of South Africa in 1994 by Nelson Mandela and the ANC. This theft has become known as
"apartheid's missing billions".
Defense Systems Limited has a client list that comes straight from the top drawer and includes oil and gas companies like British
Petroleum, Shell and British Gas of the UK and Amoco, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil and Texaco of the United States. Major mining and mineral
extraction companies such as Canada's Cambior and De Beers and Anglo American of South Africa also feature, as does the giant US
construction firm, Bechtel.
Another client is Canadian-based Ranger Oil, which by happy coincidence is the same name as an entity that forms part of the Palace
Group and which is run by arms trader Mick Ranger.
By miraculous good fortune, Mick Ranger was also a board member of Bridge SA – one of the entities formed and run by Rolf van
Rooyen and Riaan Stander. Meanwhile, Sandline, which many knowledgeable insiders believe is Executive Outcomes by another name, has
a client base that includes Rio Tinto Zinc.
DSL is now owned by Armor Holdings, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida, but is still headquartered in London. This affiliation seems,
on the face of it, to be a particularly binding one, for Armor Holdings is said to have its very own US spook-type "network".
48
The senior executives of Armor Holdings are predominantly bankers of one strain or another. Take, for example, Thomas W. Strauss,
formerly a Vice Chairman of Salomon Brothers, the Wall Street investment bank that was once minority owned by the Oppenheimers' Anglo
American and De Beers strategic holding company, Minorco.
49
Until 1993, Salomons owned the controlling interest in the Bank of New York, which, as you will recall, is the current affiliated
clearing bank of Gregory Serras's Vanguard Capital. Today, Salomons is owned by Citigroup.
50
We might also mention Armor Holdings director Burtt R. Ehrlich, whose family securities firm, Ehrlich and Boger , is owned
by Cater Allen Bank of the Channel Islands, which specializes in "offshore finance"; likewise, Nicholas Sokolow, formerly
a partner in the Wall Street firm of Coudert Brothers , and Warren B. Canders, a former Senior Vice President of Orion
Bank Ltd , a merchant bank owned by the Royal Bank of Canada.
A subsidiary of Armor Holdings is the very shadowy United States Defense Systems, Inc. (USDS), which on paper is based
in Chantilly, Virginia, although its real operating headquarters are in Manassas, Virginia.
Staff recruited by USDS are usually former military types or specialists with criminal intelligence backgrounds and possessing
surveillance skills. They are usually told they will be working in support of Department of Defense programmes and will require a
DoD security clearance.
Operations in the past have included surveillance of US citizens during Fourth of July events at Capitol Mall in DC.
51
BIN LADEN AND SAUDI ARABIAN LINKS
A Google Internet search using the search term "Armor Holdings, Inc." revealed a curious message dated September 2001 from
an aggrieved investor:
"I'm horrified to find one of my investments is in a company with links to bin Laden. Apparently it is common knowledge in
London that a senior figure in Armor, Ambrose Cary, has familial ties to bin Laden and uses those in his work.
How can it be allowed that a US company providing security to US companies, embassies and airports round the world can deal
simultaneously with this type of person? Does anyone else have further information on this?"
Unsurprisingly, no answer to the question has been posted.
52
Had this been the first bin Laden connection, it is likely I would have ignored it. However, the name had already arisen during
a deposition given by Rolf van Rooyen to German police in 1995, following his detention and questioning. At that time, he admitted
to being "involved" with a Jean Ruiz, of Saudi Finance.
53
Saudi Finance (Saudifin), headquartered in Geneva, owned a controlling interest in Banque Al Saoudi via the Paris-based holding
company, Saudi Arab Finance Corporation . Banque Al Saoudi was, according to a 1999 PBS Online Frontline story, one of the
principal international financing vehicles for the bin Laden family.
Interestingly, in 1989 – in the early stages of Project Hammer's timeline – Banque Al Saoudi would have collapsed in bankruptcy
had it not been for the timely intervention of the French central bank, the Banque de France, which shored it up prior to a partial
takeover by none other than Banque Indosuez, which decided to change its name to Banque Française pour l'Orient.
A year later, the bank merged with the Mediterranée Group. Of note is the fact that a subsidiary, Saudifin SA, was active in Panama
until 1997, when it was dissolved.
54
Moreover, the Frontline story revealed that both Banque Al Saoudi and Banque Indosuez were "instrumental" in financing a portion
of Middle East weapons contracts during the 1970s and 1980s.
Meanwhile, those who are familiar with the story of black gold will recall that Dr Ole Bay was the controller on behalf of the
CIA and US Treasury in the YAB/42 bullion transaction that involved then President Marcos of the Philippines. This transaction was
structured to use cut-outs including Navegocian Global SA and DuPont , along with other CIA conduits, to make it ostensibly
a private, non-government transaction.
The transaction code YAB/42 is also instructive. Not only does "YAB" spelled backwards yield the name "BAY" but, altogether, 42
"major trusts were tapped to help fund" the deal. Coincidentally, 42 is also the number of countries in which Santa Romana gold was
deposited in the immediate post-WWII years to form the Black Eagle fund, discussed earlier.
55
One of the more salient facts about the Puffin Investments fiasco is that Alan Shepherd's American wife, Sherry, is the daughter
of Dr Ole Bay. Dr Bay is known to have been the "Master Wizard" who arranged and ran the Project Hammer trading programme.
According to one former intelligence source familiar with the inner workings of Project Hammer, Dr Bay had told him that the ultimate
responsibility for Hammer lay with the CIA and the US Treasury, and that Robert Rubin – who later became US Treasury Secretary –
acted as Dr Bay's "gofer" on the project. Robert Rubin is now a director and Chairman of the Executive Committee of Citigroup.
If one had to choose a word to describe these apparently diverse connections, that word would surely have to be "incestuous".
Currently, Li Ka-shing (whom we mentioned earlier) is bidding to purchase control of the global communication network giant, Global
Crossing (which was also mentioned earlier), via a joint venture of Ka-shing's Hutchison Whampoa and Singapore Technologies
Telemedia . Representing Ka-Shing's bid to take control of Global Crossing was the powerful neo-conservative attorney, Richard
Perle, who sought a nod of approval from the Pentagon for the deal.
Perle, who is one of the present Bush Administration "think-masters", is close to Bush Senior, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz
and to others on the Defense Policy Board , which he chaired. A recent story by legendary investigative reporter Sy Hersh
revealed that Perle had furtively met with a leading Saudi investor in Marseille, France, on 3 January 2003, in what was seen as
an attempt to gain private financial advantage from the planned war on Iraq.
A furious Perle responded to the report by calling Hersh a "terrorist". The meeting was arranged on Perle's behalf by none other
than Adnan Khashoggi (whom we mentioned earlier). Khashoggi also attended the meeting.
Khashoggi, a trusted adviser to the Saudi royal family, is one of the "high net worth individuals" whose past investments have
been handled by Mayo Shattuck, formerly head of Alex. Brown (also mentioned earlier). It is of passing interest that Saudi
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz took a 10% stake in Citigroup (also mentioned earlier) back in 1991, following a cash "infusion"
of US$400 million, which was eclipsed from view by The
Carlyle Group which acted as the
facilitator for the investment.
In 1997, Mayo Shattuck was made Trustee of the Bronfman (also mentioned earlier) family fortune. He resigned as CEO of Deutsche
Banc Alex. Brown on 12 September 2001, the day following the tragic events in New York City and Washington, DC – the day that
has come to be known as "9-11".
56
On 13 September 2001, news reports began circulating of suspicious stock market transactions that suggested prior knowledge of
the events that were to take place on 9-11 .
Short sales of airline and insurance stocks that sharply fell in price in the wake of the 9-11 tragedy were later traced back
to Alex. Brown.
Author's Note
Documents and other exhibits in support of this story are available
HERE .
Endnotes
27. See
http//www.marcosbillions.com
for some additional background on Roberto Benedicto and his willingness to front for Marcos. Additionally, I have a two-page
Marcos document listing details of the numerous bank accounts he controlled either directly or through others.
28. See Luigi DiFonzo's
St Peter's Banker (Franklin Watts, New York, 1983).
29. See William Scott
Malone's Golden Fleece (Regardies, October 1988).
30. See "
The Project Hammer File
" part one for background on van Rooyen and Stander's involvement in Project Hammer.
31. See news reports
circa 2000 of BoNY involvement in illegal money laundering activities with IMF funds on behalf of Russian criminal and political
figures.
32. See Everybody's
Business: An Almanac – The Irreverent Guide to Corporate America, edited by Milton Moskowitz, Michael Katz and Robert Levering
(Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1980).
33. Although this
may, of course, just be pure coincidence, it is worth noting.
34. For a comprehensive
account of the MGM/Credit Lyonnais affair, see David McClintick and Anne Faircloth's informative "Predator", which is freely available
on the Internet.
John Brewster - 90
Did you by chance confuse Russia with Italy? Because Russia has close to 150M people, not
65M, significantly more than Germany. Granted, less than USSR back in 1939, but militarily
more powerful compared to Germany - and possibly with more exploited resources.
vk - 79
I tend to agree with the view that the key factor in USSR's demise was that it couldn't
sustain the competition with the Kapital and wasn't able to develop, "progress", "grow" at
the rate the West was showing off. US and USSR levels were far closer back in 1950 than in
1980, and the discrepancy was only growing. Reagan fanboys might argue that he sped up the
decaying process, but troubles and upheavals were going to happen, no matter what. Now, why
this rate of progress was so different is another matter, and probably the most important one
- both for 20th century history and for the fate of the West in this century.
It's also painfully obvious that the only path outside downright servitude for Europe is to
distance itself from the USA and seek if not a direct alliance at least a clear partnership
with Russia and a "detente" with clear rules on their borders and a common declaration of
neutrality over Ukraine - as in: no side will try to annex the whole country, which either
would be split up or ideally would have a heavy dose of decentralization and localism. But it
is of vital importance for the actual survival of Europe that atlanticists and Russiaphobes
be hunted down and expelled from any position of power or influence - be it from economy,
media, politics.
First Worlders commenting here seem to have the illusion Christianism is the good brother
of the three Abrahamic religions. Although I understand the pro-Christian bias coming from
the Europeans (since Christianism is an inextricable aspect of European identity), this
opinion is a myth: we have already tasted this in the Bolivian coup, but it's also a Latin
American phenomenon.
Christians are wolves under sheep skins.
--//--
@ Posted by: pogohere | Dec 9 2019 1:25 utc | 57
The USSR had a relatively backwards transportation system (specially railways), that still
used disproportional quantities of petroil to function, but that wasn't an existential threat
to the nation per se , it could be modernized.
Of all the theses I've read about the collapse of the USSR, the one that most convinced me
was Angelo Segrillo's "Decline of the USSR" - which I think only exists in Portuguese right
now. Segrillo covers all the arguments of the time used to explain the fall of the USSR and
refutes them all empirically before he lays out that the main cause of the fall of the USSR
was its structural inability to implement the Third Industrial Revolution ("toyotism").
When it became clear the USSR wouldn't be able to keep up technologically with the USA,
Gorbachev then decided (without knowing it) it would be preferrable for the USSR to disappear
than to continue to exist as a non-superpower.
In that sense, yes, the Soviet then relatively inneficient energy use was a symptom of the
underlying cause - but it wasn't the cause.
--//--
@ Posted by: bevin | Dec 9 2019 3:03 utc | 62
The problem with Europe is its geography: it is a tiny, depleted peninsula. In the 17th
Century, it was an advantage, since the lack of natural resources impelled it to aggressively
exploit other continents, giving birth to capitalism.
But capitalism is a global system, not a regional system. When it reached maturity, Europe
slowly, but inexorably, begun to lose its competitive advantages over purely capitalist
formations - the greatest of them all being the USA. Then what was an advantage became a
disadvantage.
This gordian knot was cut with WWI and WWII (both were only one war, in two parts) - a
last desperate attempt by British capitalism to preserve its imperialist status.
But History is unasailable: it is the saga of class struggle, of the contradictions
between the modes of production and the relations of production. The result couldn't be any
different: Western Europe was on its knees after WWII. The British Empire had just sold all
its assets to the Americans and German men were literally prostituting themselves to American
soldiers for on cigarette (and German children, for one chocolate bar). The USA was the
undisputed sovereign of the European Peninsula from 1945 on.
The last leverage the European Peninsula had, in that scenario, was the USSR itself: it
could ask the USA for good treatment and some dignity in exchange of not doing socialist
revolutions backed up by the Soviets. The result was the Marshall Plan and a permission to
revive their previous industrial parks.
That situation resulted in the rise of Atlanticism, the ideology that the USA is the
legitimate heir of Western Civilization. Andy Warhol was the successor to Michelangelo.
--//--
@ Posted by: john brewster | Dec 9 2019 4:35 utc | 65
The USSR stagnated during the period that spanned from the oil crisis of 1975 until its
fall in 1991.
But it only had a recession in two years of its history: the year after the Perestroika
and its last year of existence. Both were very mild recessions (by capitalist standards).
Even during the infamous "Brezhnev stagnation", growth was 1-3% per year - comparable to
the developed capitalist nations since the 1990s.
But the problem is that its successor states are doing objectively worse: Russia will
grown a little more than 1% this year; other ex-Soviet states are more or less in the same
situation (with Ukraine doing outright worse). The mircle promised to the Russians didn't
come: Putin's boom of the early 2000s was not comparable to the Soviet boom. Russia's status
today are completely dependent on China (which, ironically, has the Soviet system of
government) and the modernization from the old Soviet weapons and know-how it already
had.
Chile - it's not just the level of inequality and austerity in the country that triggered
the social uprising against the elite. On the OECD's 'better life' index, Chile scores very
badly even compared to other Latin American countries.
The OECD index allows you to compare well-being across countries, based on 11 topics the
OECD has identified as essential, in the areas of material living conditions and quality of
life.
The Indian economy is heading into trouble - to all intent, in recession. The
second-largest country in the world by population grew only 4.5 percent year-on-year in the
third quarter of 2019, below 5 percent in the previous period and market expectations of
4.7 percent. That's the weakest pace since the first three months of 2013, mainly due to a
fall in factory output and exports and a slowdown in investment.
Investment, sluggish for nearly a decade, grew a mere 1 per cent year-on-year, down from
4 per cent in the previous quarter. Manufacturing output contracted 1 per cent.
Infrastructure investment has collapsed.
The government has announced several measures to boost growth including a reduction in
corporate taxes, concessions on vehicle purchases, bank recapitalisation. Meanwhile, the
central bank has already cut borrowing cost 5 times this year and is seen lowering rates
again next week.
This is a very interesting example of how Western (i.e. libera, capitalist) propaganda
works, and also a very illustrative example of how capitalism declined from the point of view
of a person who benefitted the most from it when it was at its apex:
The shock in the US was that the Russians were not only competitive, but had embarrassed US
science and engineering by being first. In 1958, President Eisenhower signed into law the
National Defense Education Act, and this enabled talented students to flow into science and
engineering. The shock waves were felt throughout the entire educational system, from top
to bottom. Mathematics was more important than football.
He's right in the abovementioned paragraph. If you interviewed people who were 12-14 years
old between 1958 and 1963, and asked about what would be the future of the USA in the year
2000, most of them would have more or less the same answer: that the future of America was
scientific, bright, of high technology; a nation where scientists and engineers would be more
more venerated than tv celebrities and football/baseball players. It would be the world of
the infamous "flying cars" and space exploration and colonization.
Nobody in 1963 would imagine that the USA of the 2000s would be the USA of finance,
of Wall Street ; of football players, of the anti-vaxxers, of the flat earthers and of
the Kardashians.
But they should've. The reason this degeneration happened is the fact that the USA is a
capitalist society. In capitalism, scientific progress is accidental. What matters in the
capitalist system is the valorization process, not the process of use value creation. Like
any other societal formations, capitalism has a revolutionary period, an apex period, a
decline period and a collapse period. In my opinion, world capitalism has just exited its
apex phase and is now entering its decline phase.
Here's the propaganda part of the article:
As demonstrated by the USSR, socialism does not prohibit scientific prowess. There is a
difference, of course. Socialism's success in the USSR came at the expense of millions of
lives, the slave labor of millions more, and a lower standard of living. Nevertheless, the
fact is that Yuri Gagarin was the first person to orbit the earth. In comparison to the US
today, Soviet universities were not plagued by whining children – nor are today's
Chinese universities. The Soviets thought it wiser that their young study calculus and
physics.
This paragraph encapsulates all the elements of Cold War propaganda about the USSR. When I
read it, it felt like a blast from the past.
First, the image of the USSR as essentially a slavery society is a Western chimera. They
come from Weber -- who once theorized the USSR as a "modern Ancient Egypt" -- and the
propaganda from Solzhenitsyn, who hugely exagerated the number of prisoners in the USSR.
In fact, even at the height of the GULAG era, the USSR's jailed population never went
beyond 1.5% of its overall population (as we know now from Soviet official archives). That's
well within the world's average. If only 1.5% of the population is able to sustain the other
98.5%, then even I want to know how the Soviets operated such an economic miracle.
Besides, the USSR obviously didn't kill "millions of people" in order to send someone to
space. That's obviously absurd by any metric, logic included. First of all because this would
never gather political consensus among the population, second because it is impossible to do
rocket science with slave labor.
The quick rise of the Third Reich gave birth to the myth in the West that slave labor can
operate miracles. Nothing is further from the truth. In Ancient times, both the Greeks and
the Romans already knew slave labor was only economically viable in very basic and simple
tasks, such as agriculture, mining and other domestic services. Athens achieved naval
supremacy over Greece by using wage labor for its rowing and sailor crews, so that they could
be professionals with high morale in the battlefield. The reason for this is that maneuvering
triremes was an extremely complex art, too complex and valuable for the Athenians to trust to
slaves. They also had, by the nature and complexity of the task, a naturally high degree of
freedom from their "bosses". Either way, the task was simply too complex for a slave to
phisically learn, since a slave was kept into his/her place through physical deprivation and
domination, and a sailor had to be always fit physically and mentally to wage wars at sea.
The Spartans didn't slave their coastal colonies, giving them a much larger degree of freedom
(perioikoi), probably in exchange for a supply of sailors, ships. The Romans also did the
same: when a slave became specialized enough in the family business (such as acting as a
middle man in the paterfamilias' businesses in some coastal city), he usually "gifted" him
with his freedom.
In sum: even the ancients knew that, for more complex tasks, free people were a must.
Slavery was only economically viable for very simple and denigrating tasks (specially,
agriculture and mining).
As for the "lower quality of living", that's highly debatable. Surely, on average, the
USSR certainly didn't enjoy the same life quality than the top of the capitalist chain of the
time. But inequality was much, much lower (almost negligible) except for the rural-urban
divide, and there was no deprivation.
On average, life quality in the USSR was much better than the vast majority of the
capitalist nations with the benefit inequality was negligible (so the average approached the
median). Sure, it was no post-1980s Norway or Finland -- but those are microscopic capitalist
nations, with negligible population.
Thanks vk. The Soviet achievements in space were the achievements of a free people who had
to make superhuman sacrifices in order to preserve their freedom. Here's Boris Chertok, a
remarkable Soviet space designer whose experiences stretched from the crowds of 1917 and
Lenin's funeral to the construction of the international Space Station:
"I am part of the generation that suffered irredeemable losses, to whose lot in 20th
century fell the most arduous of tests. From childhood, a sense of duty was inculcated in
this generation - a duty to the people, to the Motherland, to our parents, to future
generations, and even to all humanity.
...
Currently ... it is ideological collapse that threatens the objective recounting of
[Soviet] science and technology ... motivated by the fact that its origins date back to the
Stalin epoch or to the period of the 'Brezhnev Stagnation'"
Video: How the U.S. Caused the Breakup of the Soviet UnionSean Gervasi 1992
Lecture By Sean
Gervasi and Dennis Riches Global Research,
November 30, 2019 Region: Russia and FSU , USA Theme: History
We bring to the attention of Global Research readers the text of an unpublished Lecture
delivered in 1992 by the late Sean Gervasi on the history of the collapse of the Soviet Union
and the US Strategy formulated during World War II to bring down the USSR.
The full transcript and video of Sean Gervasi's presentation is preceded by Dennis Riches
Introduction
Scroll down for the Video
Introduction
We defeated totalitarianism and won a war in the Pacific and the Atlantic simultaneously
We worked together in a completely bipartisan way to bring down communism So now we have to use
our political processes in our democracy, and then decide to act together to solve those
problems. But we have to have a different perspective on this one. It [global warming] is
different from any problem we have ever faced before [i] – Al Gore
These words above were spoken by former US vice-president Al Gore in 2007 in his film An
Inconvenient Truth . Because audiences at the time were in rapt awe of him, treating him as
a savior in the campaign to solve the global warming crisis, they never seemed to reflect on
the outrageous assumptions underlying his comments about "defeating totalitarianism" and
"bringing down communism." These are worth examining for what they say about perceptions of
world history among the American political class, and they even hint at how the errors in these
perceptions led Mr. Gore to being self-deceived about what would be necessary to solve the
problem he has devoted himself to since he has been out of power.
Although the United States played a crucial role in WWII, it was slow to get involved and it
let the Soviet Union do much of the heavy lifting and suffer the heaviest losses. The United
States had a lot of help in achieving the victory Mr. Gore claims for America, and we could
assume he knows this, so the way he chose to describe historical events is telling.
Perhaps acknowledging the reality would have detracted from his second point about "bringing
down communism." Everyone knows that what he is referring to so proudly is the destabilization
and destruction of the USSR, the Warsaw bloc nations, and Yugoslavia, not the abstract notion
of communism. He is referring to a "victory" which precipitated civil wars and a disastrous
collapse of the economy and social welfare systems in these countries, one that killed and
impoverished millions. In China, Cuba and the DPRK, contrary to what he stated, these nations'
versions of socialism haven't been brought down at all. [1992]
Explicitly describing the "bringing down of communism" as America's deliberate actions to
dismantle the USSR might run the risk of reminding the audience about the illegality of
interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, and it might have reminded people of
what a betrayal this was of America's WWII ally and partner in the détente of the 1970s.
The inconvenient truth is that the USSR was the WWII ally that played a crucial role in the
victory that Mr. Gore claimed solely for America.
Nonetheless, the comment about "bringing down communism" is refreshingly, and maybe
accidentally, very honest. Most descriptions of the Soviet collapse, even those done by
historians specializing in this field, pay little attention to American efforts to undermine
the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s. The political class always denied that America had a
plan to dismantle the USSR, and denied having any significant influence on events which they
claim arose from domestic causes. If America's influence is addressed at all, it is considered
as a matter of speculation, a mystery hardly worth thinking about when one can more easily look
at the dramatic events that occurred on the surface within the Soviet Union in the last decade
of its existence. The following transcript of the lecture by Sean Gervasi, delivered in 1992,
shortly after the collapse, is unique and valuable for what it reveals about the significant,
and perhaps decisive, American role in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In his conclusion, Mr. Gervasi came to this judgment:
The Soviet Union today, in the absence of this extraordinarily crafty, well-thought-out,
extremely costly strategy deployed by the Reagan administration, would be a society
struggling through great difficulties. It would still be a socialist society, at least of the
kind that it was. It would be far from perfect, but it would still be there, and I think,
therefore, that Western intervention made a crucial difference in this situation."
The journey to how he came to this conclusion is well worth the reader's time.
A final comment about Mr. Gore's remarks: He is oblivious to the inconvenient solution that
has been staring him in the face all these years: that the necessary reduction of carbon
emissions will require severe constraints on capitalism, a thesis developed by Jason W. Moore
in Capitalism in the Web of Life .[ii] Mr. Gore should know that a radical solution is
needed. In his recent sequel to An Inconvenient Truth he complains about the undue
influence of "money in politics" that has gotten so much worse over the last ten years, but
that's as deep as the class analysis and ideological exploration can go in America. He evinces
no awareness of the historical figures who developed answers to the problem of unaccountable
private control of a nation's government, resources and productive capacities. Gore is still
proud of having actively worked against a revolution in human affairs that aimed to curtail the
savage capitalism that led to the present ecological catastrophe.
In spite of the flaws one might see in what the Soviet Union actually became, flaws that
arose to a great extent because it had to fight against external threats throughout its
existence, the goals of the revolution of 1917 are still relevant to the crises of the 21st
century, and this is what makes Sean Gervasi's research so valuable now, after a quarter
century in which America doubled down on its "winning ways" and worsened the crises that were
evident long ago in 1992.
About Sean Gervasi
Sean Gervasi (1933-1996) spent the latter part of his career exposing the role of the
United States and Western powers in the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia. He was working on a
book,Balkan Roulette, at the time of his death.
Gervasi was an economist trained at the University of Geneva, Oxford and Cornell. His
political career began when he took a post as an economic adviser in the Kennedy
administration. He resigned in protest after the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.
After his resignation, Gervasi was never able to get work again in the United States as an
economist, despite his impressive academic credentials. He became a lecturer at the London
School of Economics after leaving Washington. Notwithstanding his great popularity, the school
refused to renew his contract in 1965.
During the 1970s and 1980s he was an adviser to a number of governments in Africa and the
Middle East, helping them navigate the hostile and predatory world of transnational
corporations and megabanks. He also worked for the UN Committee on Apartheid and the UN
Commission on Namibia.
In addition, Gervasi was a journalist, contributing to a wide range of publications, from
the New York Amsterdam News to Le Monde Diplomatique . He was a frequent
commentator on the listener-supported Pacifica radio station WBAI in New York. In 1976, Gervasi
broke the story of how the U.S. government was secretly arming the apartheid regime in South
Africa.
In the late 1980s, Gervasi began to focus on the Cold War and what he called the "full court
press," a basketball term for a highly aggressive "all in" strategy. In an article published in
the Covert Action Information Bulletin in early 1991[iii], when the breakup of the USSR
was imminent, Gervasi showed how the Reagan administration's strategy of economic isolation, a
gargantuan arms buildup with the threat of a nuclear attack, overt funding of internal dissent,
and CIA-directed sabotage had been decisive in bringing down the USSR. Gervasi backed up his
analysis with careful scholarship and documentation.
Gervasi was widely respected as a leading independent figure in the left, but his views were
contrary to the fashionable dogma that attributed the USSR's collapse almost exclusively to
such things as failures of leadership, centralization of the economy, the black market,
Chernobyl, or independence movements, and not to external hostility. These are the subjects
which he addressed in the following lecture given to a small audience in January 1992. The
lecture can still be found on internet video sites, but the thesis of this lecture still
remains marginal and obscure two decades later, even though it is highly pertinent to the Cold
War replay that is underway in the second decade of the 21st century -- one in which Russia
stands accused of turning the tables and doing a comparatively very tame version of the
propaganda war waged on the USSR in the 1980s.
After 1992, Gervasi focused his attention on the breakup of Yugoslavia, which he discovered
was a replay of the strategy used to break up the Soviet Union. He became active in exposing
the role of external powers, particularly the U.S. and German governments, in fomenting the
civil war in the Balkans. His view that the war in Bosnia was sparked by the aggressive
machinations these nations, and not age-old ethnic rivalries, alienated Gervasi from much of
the liberal and progressive movement. Journals to which he had once regularly contributed would
no longer print his articles. He had great difficulty finding a publisher for his book on the
Balkans, but some of his research on this topic can be found in the article "Why Is NATO In
Yugoslavia?"[iv] published by Global Research in 2001.[v]
Dennis Riches, November 2017
***
VIDEO
Scroll down for the full Transcript
https://www.youtube.com/embed/b9_aYcpxClA
Byline of the video:
Propaganda expert reveals details in 1992 of RAND Think Tank plan under Reagan to bring down
USSR, the major socialist challenge to capitalism in crisis, called Operation Full Court Press
when announced at a Reagan limited invitee press conference upon its launch. It involved
targeting mid-level Soviet bureaucrats with publications and Air America broadcasts pointing to
problems they were facing having better outcomes in the US, military provocations when they
were considering their budget in order to spend them into bankruptcy, luring them into
Afghanistan followed by arming the Mujahadeen with surface to air missiles and such; and
fanning flames of ethnic rivalries within the Soviet Union, like by sending publication
equipment to Baltic ethnic groups.
In first 20 minutes Sean prophetically lays out the impending crisis of capitalism that
drives their urgency to stamp out socialist competition. Sean died under mysterious
circumstances in Belgrad where he had set up shop pointing out a PR effort in the US Congress
by Ruder Finn hired by Croats and Kosovo Albanians to start a US war against Yugoslavia for
their secession.
Event January 26, 1992 arranged by Connie Hogarth of WESPAC, Camera: Beth
Lamont
Transcript
(edited by Dennis Riches)
Introduction
I've been speaking in the last year or so about developments in the Soviet Union from the
perspective of a person who follows the workings of the Western intelligence agencies,
something in which I was tutored while I was working at the United Nations, and was on the
receiving end of quite a lot of that activity.
That is an important theme that one needs to look at: the role of the West in developments
which have taken place in the Soviet Union, and it's one that I've been focusing on, but of
course the wider and more important issue is: how shall we understand the meaning of events in
the Soviet Union in the last five, six, ten years? That's really the critical question.
As you know, the developments, particularly the end or collapse of communist rule in the
Soviet Union, and finally the breakup of the Soviet Union itself, have been presented in our
media insistently and incessantly as evidence that socialism or social democracy, or
what-have-you, which we'll discuss, is unworkable. And this, of course, in tandem with the
theme which has been disseminated so energetically by these same people in the last decade,
that capitalism:
a) is more or less the same thing as democracy, and
b) must be seen as the core and triumphant achievement of Western civilization
Hence the thesis that this is the end of history, that we have achieved everything that
there is to achieve, that the present system of institutions in which we live in the West
represents the pinnacle of human capacities, intellectually and organizationally, and is the
best of all possible worlds.
That's the thesis, or those are the twin theses which surround us and which have been, I
think, creating an enormous amount of confusion and consternation because I think people sense
there is something wrong with this idea, and the effort to close off all discussion about
alternatives to, what I would term, our "regime" in the United States today, and possibly in
Western Europe, which is a moving backward from the more enlightened and liberal capitalism,
liberal democracy and capitalism, which evolved after the Second World War in Western Europe
and the United States.
We are today, I think, living in an irrational and savage capitalism of the 19th-century
variety, which for particular reasons, people who have power in this society either have
acceded to or have energetically worked to institute.
Part 1 The Crisis in the United States
The question is whether this great wave of propaganda makes any sense, and so I think we
should examine whether the idea that socialism and alternatives to raw capitalism are
impossible, undesirable, and unworkable. I think we have to look at that in two ways. First of
all, we have to examine our own situation in the United States, historically, and we have to
also, I think, look at what has happened in the Soviet Union because what has happened in the
Soviet Union is really very different from what we are told by the mass media. We have not
merely witnessed a collapse of communism in the Soviet Union. We have seen something really
very different, but it has been systematically misrepresented in the Western media.
There's a great deal of misunderstanding about the kind of society that American democracy
really represents, and that misunderstanding is both historical and contemporary. There is a
tremendous tension which we are all aware of in our society. It is a tension between
egalitarianism and inequality. It is a tension born of the evolution in the in the 16th, 17th
and 18th century in England, and the transfer of a particular kind of society onto American
soil through British political traditions, notwithstanding our rebellion as colonists at the
end of the 18th century. And that is the particular set of institutions known as liberal
democracy. Liberal democracy is a combination of parliamentary government and capitalism, and
liberal democracy inevitably, therefore, contains some very serious tensions because the
progressive development of parliamentary democracy has tended to give greater and greater scope
to the principle of equality in human life and politics. That's why in the course of British
19th century political development there was a progressive expansion of the franchise. And
that's why in the United States there was also an expansion of the franchise. The United States
did not have the same encumbering property qualifications in the beginning, although we did
have property qualifications in the 18th century in the United States, but eventually we had
the full franchise extended to all adults, and we've been redefining adults most recently.
We've dropped the level of political maturity or political enfranchisement to 18 years.
Capitalism, on the contrary, is a system of economic and social institutions based on the
principle of inequality, and there's a rationale for that inequality which also comes from the
18th century, but the idea, essentially, is that it makes sense from the point of view of
efficiency, and indeed equity, given all the considerations that one must take into account, to
have a society based on the unequal distribution of property organized around that institution,
to have an economy based on private property because, in the final analysis, it is most
efficient, and in the long run holds the greatest promise of continuous progress. By the way,
that's an argument that Marx made at a certain point -- that at a certain stage of history a
capitalist society is extremely progressive, that it gathers the technical capacities of
mankind, personkind, and develops them and accumulates and accumulates until it creates
something new, which we won't talk about just now.
But historically and currently in the United States we very strongly sense this tension so
that we go back and forth between periods when we have enormous pressures to give predominance
to the principle of inequality, to pay attention to the rights of property, and periods when
egalitarian tendencies have been very strong. For instance, as in the turn of the century
during the expansive phase of American populism and during the antitrust of the great popular
movements that sought -- not just popular -- but that sought to contain the power of the
cartels and the trusts in the United States. And today we sense that too. We passed the law in
1946 that's called the Employment Act. By the way, it's not called the Full Employment Act. You
have to remember that legislation. And yet we realize that our adherence to the principle of
full employment was tenuous even in the 25 years which followed the Second World War, and
completely spurious today. Why is that? It's because of this tremendous tension between the
realities of power under capitalism and the rather fragile hold which democratic principles and
institutions have on that power.
Let's go back to the Constitution and the Philadelphia Convention. I've been rereading Beard
and I'm very impressed by his grasp of who predominates really in this delicate balance in
liberal democracy between the principles of egalitarianism, the principles of parliamentary
democracy and the enormous concentration of power, which even then was inherent in the
dominance of the institutions of private property. Beard's argument essentially is that in the
final analysis a small group of men, whom he refers to as one-sixth of the adult male
population -- the only people who ratified the Constitution, the participants in the ratifying
conventions who voted positively for the Constitution -- represented one-sixth of the adult
male population. That is to say 8% of the adult population in today's terms. Against our values
that represents 8% of today's population -- the equivalent.
Now, what was obtained in that framing of the Constitution? What was obtained was a system
of political science, a system of government which was so structured as to ensure the dominance
of private property, the power of private property in any contention between the forces of
democracy and the forces of private property, and the forces of inequality, if you like, so
that the structure which constitutes, at the founding of this republic, which constitutes the
framework within which we operate today, is one which ensures that predominance.
I know that Beard has been attacked by many people, and it's perfectly understandable when
you read Beard carefully, but it seems to me that today Beard becomes more illuminating. Why? I
say I pay attention to the Constitution, to the Philadelphia Convention, to its ratification,
to the numbers who ratified it and to the purposes which they saw themselves as furthering by
their framing and ratification of this constitution because that is the framework within which
the United States experienced the most successful and untrammeled Industrial Revolution in the
history of mankind. Untrammeled. We had a straight run of industrialization which was the first
to transform the condition of man in human society, by which I mean something very, very
specific. And here I speak to things which were said by people like [ John Maynard] Keynes , by people like [
Joseph Alois] Schumpeter ,
but really ignored because they're extremely uncomfortable.
The rationalization for inequality in the institution of private property, in the thinking
of eighteenth century philosophers, was that property had to be shared unequally and income had
to be unequal because this inequality provided incentives which would constitute a constant
assurance of the drive to the expansion of production. That was the rationalization, but in the
20th century, according to the economic historians and according to people like Keynes,
countries like the United States and Great Britain began to end, began to transform the
historical situation within which these institutions were conceived. How? By developing such a
capacity to produce that gradually more and more numbers were lifted out of anything which
could be historically or comparatively called poverty so that scarcity, which dominates the
reasoning of economists, was really beginning to end in many respects. And Joseph Schumpeter
was able to say, for instance, in 1928, that if economic growth continued in the United States
for another 50 years we would see in 1978 the end of anything that could reasonably be called
poverty.
Now that didn't quite happen. That didn't quite happen because of the enormous influence of
inequality in the distribution of this productive abundance. But what it did transform was the
lives of many, many people, and it transformed everyday life and the historical condition. Look
between 1870 and 1970 at how the number of hours that the average American works falls. In the
period between 1945 and 1970, per capita production trebled, just in that period, and we
already had a huge industrial base at that time, so I would argue [agree], with Galbraith, who
-- because he was right was vilified and ignored by the economist profession and studiously
made little of by the mass media -- that indeed America began to be transformed with the
success of its enormous industrial revolution by the end of the period after 1865, when really
heavy industrialization began to take place. And indeed I would argue that the reason for the
Great Depression was that the United States had lost the ability to continue to absorb
everything that it could produce in an adequate way, given the institutions of the time.
So what happened then was that within this framework, which is the same framework conceived
by the James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. To further the purposes of property and to insure
against what Madison called "the leveling attacks of democracy," we have industrialization
enhance the expansion of an enormous power, which is the power that controls the machinery and
the resources of that productive system. That is to say large corporations. The largest 500
corporations in the United States today, plus the largest 500 banks and the largest 50
financial corporations control more resources than the Soviet planners ever dreamed of
controlling. The control of those resources, which is made invisible by the clever workings of
economists, inheres in the ability to make investment decisions. Investment decisions are the
key decisions in any economic system. The power to make those decisions is the power to
continuously transform and to determine the terms of everyday life among human beings in any
society. That power is not only invisible in our system of thought, carefully hidden by the
descendants of the 18th century philosophers, but it is also totally unaccountable.
Now maybe you could say, and we did say this between 1945 and 1975:
"OK this is a contradiction of democracy. This is the inheritance from the Philadelphia
Convention, the Constitution in its ratification and the dominance of this one-sixth of the
male adult population in 1789, but this system is so productive that we can alleviate the
resulting social and political tensions by raising the standard of living of ordinary
folks."
And that was the whole philosophy of the sophisticated American leadership in the first
generation after the Second World War. That was the philosophy of the Rockefellers when they
talked about the new enlightened capitalism of 20th century. Capitalism could deliver the goods
and hence people would be content, despite the fact that the realities of power born at the end
of the 18th century, and essentially enhanced by the enormous accumulation of power represented
by industrialization and the growth of large corporations and their concentrated power in the
economy. We could live with that because the United States economy was so productive.
Now, that's our history, and the tremendous tension of our situation today as contrasted
with the post-war period because one thing is very clear today: that for 20 years in the United
States this system has not been working. There has been a systematic retreat from full
employment, high wages, advancing standards of living, security in one's job, and the advance
of the welfare state. We have systematically been retreating from those things so that we have
higher and higher official and real unemployment, which of course is about double the official
unemployment -- and the statisticians work very hard to hide the realities of
life.
Sean Gervasi
Between 1977 and 1992, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 70% of American
families have seen their after-tax income fall. 70%! In the lower ranges of the income
distribution those falls are quite sharp. Purchasing power falls by twenty 20.8% for the
poorest fifth, by something like 12% for the next fifth, by something like 11% for the third
fifth, and by smaller amounts for those in the middle of the income distribution system. So I
would say that that represents, and people are increasingly becoming aware of it, a collapse of
the American standard of living. And this collapse of the American standard of living is
related to a gradual economic decline which is causing the post-war system, as we have known it
in the United States between 1945 and 1970, to begin to disintegrate. And I think this is the
reality of what is happening so that today even according to Wall Street forecasters like the
Levies, attached to Bard
College up here in the county, we are facing what they call a contained depression, which
may be worse than the kind of depression we saw in the 1930s because the stabilizing role of
the government makes it possible not to avoid some of the awful horrors that occurred in
the depression, but to diminish them to a degree which makes them almost invisible.
So we have a very tense situation. I ask you to reflect on that when we confront the
enormous economic difficulties from which there follow all kinds of social problems in our
society today which we face. These are connected to, and, if you like, made possible by the
arrangements conceived by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton . If this crisis which we have
been living in for 20 years, and have become more acutely aware of in the last 10, is
intractable, it is, above all, intractable because of this invisible concentrated power which
exists today after industrial growth -- the rise of the large corporations in the framework
conceived by Madison, Hamilton and the other Federalists.
So if you want to argue today that we need to reconsider this framework, you run into very
fundamental problems. You run into the problem that the Constitution is treated like an icon,
that people are unaware that the preamble to the Declaration of Independence is not the law of
the United States, that people are unaware of the fact that the Bill of Rights, which is
supposed to compensate for some of the failings of our constitutional system, has been
systematically shredded by the two most recent administrations. Witness William Kunstler and
his remarkable talks on what has happened to the Bill of Rights in the last ten years.
Part 2 The Crisis in the Soviet Union
Now, let's get to the Soviet Union, keeping in mind always that it is against this
background of crisis and the intractability of crisis, and it's rooting in the historical
origins of the Constitution that we are asked, that we are invited -- without anybody saying
that that's the background -- that we are invited to ponder the proposition that there is no
alternative to the kind of capitalism that we have, and that this capitalism is the
quintessence of democracy.
Now let us look at that proposition against a second set of data, if you like, which is
supposed to prove the case that there was socialism in the Soviet Union, that the Soviet Union
then, along with its Eastern European partners, collapsed in chaos owing to the essential
unworkability of this kind of a system. Let's look at that.
When the Reagan administration came into office we all became aware rather quickly that
something new was happening. We should have known that something new was happening because, in
fact, the arrival of the Reagan administration in power had been preceded by a very careful
build-up which was, in part, visible in the American polity, and that was the emergence of the
development and the elaboration of the power of a group which we now call the new right --
people who 20 years ago, 28 years ago in 1964, after Goldwater lost the Republican National
Convention. Rockefeller took command of the party that had been relegated to what every major
political commentator at the time called the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party. These were
the people who, particularly in California, were coming out of the walls in the late 1970s,
creating foundations, buying chairs of economics at universities. Look at it: the Coors ,
the
Mises , with all of their contacts. These were the people who were building a new group,
and the purpose of this group was to put a stop to the kind of systematic democratic
entrenchment which they thought had been going on in the 1960s and the 1970s.
In the 1960s and the 1970s, there were three movements: (1) the movement for workers'
rights, for unionization, the expansion of unionization, particularly among city employees and
for raising wages, and the tremendous industrial disruption that attended the 1960s and the
early 1970s in the industrial sector, (2) the civil rights movement, which preceded that,
beginning in the late 1950s, and (3) the movement against the war in Vietnam, the war in
Vietnam being one of the ways in which this society managed to utilize, in a profitable
fashion, its enormous productive capacity without giving it to ordinary folks, without giving
its fruits to ordinary folks.
The new right was determined to do something quite new. One of the new things that it did,
and Reagan really was not its spokesman because that implies a degree of activity which I think
he's incapable of. You can always program a spokesman. I don't think he had the wheels to do
that.
Reagan launched, as you know, a massive, serious, intense, ugly confrontation with the
Soviet Union, ideologically. At the same time we became aware that there was a significant
drive on to re-arm the United States, to throw enormous resources -- ultimately it was in
excess of 1.7 trillion dollars during the 1980s -- to throw enormous resources into the
military sector, to throw enormous resources into shifting the technology of the military
sector to war in space, SDI [Space Defense Initiative], etc. All of those things were on the
agenda, but many of us at the time puzzled about this. I remember asking myself, "What is it
with these folks? Do these fellows really want a world war? Can they not see that this can be
the outcome?"
And I remember those discussions, and I remember when many of you and I on June 12, 1982
were at the demonstration of 750,000 to 1 million people in the center of New York City, which
was an expression of the alarm that people felt at this enormous aggressive policy which was
coming out of the Reagan administration, which threatened to shred US-Soviet relations.
But in fact, retrospectively, we can see that there was something else behind it, that it
was not just irrational madness. There was a bit of that, but there was a rationality to what
was being done, and in fact, to understand that, it's important to see that it is connected to
every single major line of innovative policy that the Reagan administration developed. It was
extremely well thought-out, extremely shrewd. And [it involved] the military buildup and the
aggressive rhetoric towards the Soviet Union, the deliberate effort to create difficulties in
the relationships between the Soviet Union and the European powers. You remember that in 1982
the United States tried to force the European powers not to accept natural gas from the Soviet
Union, to deny shipments of technology to the Soviet Union which would make it possible for the
Soviet Union to exploit that natural gas, to earn foreign exchange, etc. It was all part of a
very complex strategy, but it was a very clear strategy.
Let me say, though, that many of us, at least I at the time, missed that. We didn't quite
comprehend what was going on, but we had in the back our mind flickers that something was
wrong. There were people who were saying or hinting clearly at what was happening, and shrewd
people, intelligent people who did begin to grasp what was happening.
Let me quote from one or two. Writing in 1982, Joe Fromm , who was then the editor of the
United States' US News and World Report , said,
"There was something behind," I'm quoting him, "the shift to a harder line in foreign
policy." The US, in fact, seemed to be "waging limited economic warfare against Russia to
force the Soviets to reform their political system." That suggests that's a nice journalist,
a reasonably liberal journalist at US News and World Report , but Joe then quoted a
State Department official saying (actually, a National Security Council official), "The
Soviet Union is in deep, deep economic and financial trouble. By squeezing wherever we can,
our purpose is to induce the Soviets to reform their system. I think we will see results over
the next several years." That's in 1982.
Robert Scheer wrote a book in 1982 called With Enough Shovels: Reagan and Bush and
Nuclear War . I think I've got the title almost right. This is a very interesting book in
which Scheer saw that there was something behind this enormously aggressive foreign policy,
foreign and military policy, that the Reagan administration was deploying. And he saw that the
United States was not simply playing nuclear chicken with the Soviet Union, as he put it, but
that it was embarked on a policy designed to create such pressure for the Soviet Union as to
force changes within the Soviet Union.
Now of course it had always been the case that the Cold War consisted of moves designed to
affect the behavior of others. The Cold War, from the point of view of the West, had always
aimed at modifying, as the State Department cookie pushers liked to put it in their delicate
prose, the behavior of our antagonist. But this, I think you will see, went beyond that
because, in fact, the Reagan administration embarked on a policy of many dimensions which
included pressure around the world on countries with close ties to the Soviet Union.
Insurgencies were initiated in Mozambique, Angola, Cambodia against Vietnam, Nicaragua, and,
quite a lot, Afghanistan.
I don't want to get into too many complicated discussions of Afghanistan, but I think
anybody who reflects upon the United States' response to the Soviet entry into Afghanistan in
1979 must realize that the United States did not want the Soviet Union to leave Afghanistan,
and in fact the purpose of these insurgencies around the world, which as you know, had expended
billions of dollars, was to pin the Soviet Union down, and to inflict economic costs upon the
Soviet Union. The purpose of the remilitarization in the West was to force the Soviet Union, at
the risk of exposing itself to the pressure of escalation, to meet our resource commitments, to
defend itself, or to place itself in a position to resist our pressure.
The purpose of escalating the technology of nuclear warfare, again, was to impose costs upon
the Soviet Union. [This was ] the purpose of every principled measure, such as withholding
advanced technology from the Soviet Union, foreign assistance programs aimed not at assisting
countries on the basis of their needs, but on assisting countries on the basis of the
contribution they would make to putting pressure on the Soviet Union. All of these things were
part of a systematic strategy designed to create havoc in the Soviet Union.
Now I'll say a little bit more about what the purpose of that was, but first let me point
out that this is a systematic strategy consisting of a number of pieces, and that it did pose
enormous economic and other costs upon the Soviet Union.
But who is Gervasi [the speaker] to say that this is so, beyond quoting Joseph Fromm? Well,
let me tell you a little bit about an interesting experience I had. I had lunch one day with a
friend who was passing through the United States, who had been in jail in South Africa for
eight years, and had just got out. He had been engaged in planning one of the principal
sabotage operations against the South African nuclear installations, and he was very happy to
be out of jail. We sat at lunch and he said to me -- we talked about many things, mostly about
Africa which he and I had worked on together -- and he said to me,
"What's going on in the Soviet Union?" I said to him, "Well, you know, I really can't
figure this out. I can't figure out what's going on." He said, "It seems to me that the
Soviet Union is being destabilized." "My goodness," I say to myself quietly.
The thought had never passed my mind, but when my friend, Christie, said this I thought I
should look into this, and I did.
The first thing I found was I spent a little bit of time on a computer and some things came
up, and I said that looks very interesting. Within a very short time I had discovered reams of
material being generated at the end of the 1970s and in the early 1980s by organizations like
the RAND Corporation. You know what the RAND Corporation is. It's an Air Force/CIA contracting
agency in Southern California, very large, very powerful, very influential in the so-called
intellectual defense community, the military industrial complex, and in Washington. People go
back and forth from the CIA, from the DIA to the State Department to the RAND Corporation. And
what were the chaps at the RAND Corporation doing? Well, they were producing very interesting
studies with titles like Economic Factors Affecting Soviet Foreign and Defense Policy :
A Summary Outline , The Costs of the Soviet Empire , Sitting on Bayonets: the
Soviet Defense Burden and Moscow's Economic Dilemma: The Burden of Soviet Defense ,
Exploiting Fault Lines in the Soviet Empire: Economic Relations with the USSR .
Anyway, I started reading the stuff. First of all, I started collecting it and I started
reading this stuff, and I found out something very interesting: that these fellows at the end
of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s were clearly fashioning a plan in which we began to
see the pieces of in the emerging parts of foreign and military policy, foreign and military
and economic policy under the Reagan administration. And the basic reasoning of this plan --
I'll give it to you -- is as follows: the Soviet Union was in a dual crisis. They knew what was
going on in Soviet Union. Economic growth in the Soviet Union had begun to slow down. It had
been very rapid, by the way, in the period from 1950 to the early 1970s. Between 1960 and 1984
per capita income and per capita production in the Soviet Union trebled, so it wasn't slow.
That was a 4 or 5% rate of growth, very rapid considering that we're growing at about 1.5
which, is about, by the way, equivalent to the rate of growth on average during the decade of
the 1930s in the United States.
Now, what I found out was that they also understood there was a leadership crisis in the
Soviet Union. The old line of principal Soviet leaders born in the early stages of Soviet
redevelopment after the Revolution, formed in the Second World War -- that leadership was dying
out, as we all knew. And in fact Mikhail Gorbachev , selected by Andrei Gromyko , was the first
representative of a new generation of Soviet leaders, but in the late 70s and early 80s, people
were dying. The major figures Andropov, Chernenko and Brezhnev, were dying, and there was a
very great confusion about succession. So the country was in a kind of crisis. The CIA calls it
a dual crisis, a leadership crisis, not knowing to which new people of a new generation the
leadership of the Soviet Communist Party and the Soviet Union should pass, and at the same time
a beginning of faltering of economic growth, which was serious because since the Soviet Union
had to always, like any country, choose between investing, competing in the arms race, and
raising the standard of living of its population. The fact that economic growth fell off made
that more difficult.
Now the next step in the reasoning of the RAND Corporation, gentlemen and ladies from the
RAND Corporation, was that the United States and its allies could take various actions which
would force the Soviet Union to increase its defense spending and its military assistance to
allies and friends. They could take measures to deny the Soviet Union credits, which they did,
and to deny it technology. They could also take measures which would reduce the overall volume
of resources available to the Soviet Union and hold back the growth of productivity, which
would exacerbate the problem, or force them to shift resources from consumers to investment.
And [they knew] that all of these effects would (to quote them) "aggravate the difficulties
confronting the Soviet leadership in a stagnant economy. So, a combination of these measures to
impose costs on the Soviet Union could be expected to lead to falling investment and/or living
standards, and such measures consequently might generate pressures within the Soviet Union for
withdrawing from the world stage, and for political reform."
So the purpose of this operation, which I will try to define more clearly in a moment, was
to impose, in a variety of ways, enormous costs on the Soviet Union, or to reduce the resources
available to them in such a way as to exacerbate their economic difficulties. Let me quote from
Abraham Becker , one of the shrewder Rand analysts:
Thus the Reagan administration seized Soviet economic troubles as an opportunity to
complicate further their resource allocation difficulties dilemma, in the hope that
additional pressures would result in a reallocation of resources away from defense, or would
push the economy in the directions of economic and political reform.
The purpose of this new aggressive multi-dimensional strategy was to force reform upon the
Soviet Union. What that reform was to be is a later chapter. Now, it's one thing to say that
these plans exist, and I'll talk about other plans. For instance, I managed to pull together a
collection of documents from the National Endowment for Democracy, which as you know, is
supposed to be a quasi-government institution. It's not a quasi-government institution. It's
funded by Congress. It's a government institution funded by Congress, which sees it to be its
business to "promote democracy outside the United States" in the rest of the world, where by
"democracy" one means essentially, and when you come down to it it's clear now in the Soviet
Union, "capitalism" and "liberal democracy," if you like [the latter term].
Now, it's one thing of course to talk about all this planning, to try on your own to reason
that all of these things fit together, but in fact we began to get official indications and
documentation, as early as the spring of 1982, that the government had signed on to this
strategy, that this was not the wild thinking of a few eager folks in a few think tanks, that
it was policy and that it was policy which the American public knew very little of, did not
understand the purposes and consequences of, but would nonetheless be required to pay for to
the tune of several trillion dollars, which did indeed help to create the situation in which we
presently find ourselves at home, locked in the Philadelphia Convention.
In the spring of 1982 I had spoken to two of the participants in this little meeting. A
senior National Security Council official charged with responsibility for Soviet affairs called
a number of influential Washington correspondents and asked them to come to the National
Security Council for a briefing. Two of them told me that they left this briefing extremely
shaken. They didn't want to say too much about it, but they gave me to understand that they
thought that this was an extremely aggressive, dangerous, and highly risky strategy which the
administration was describing and stating that it was about to embark upon.
Helen Thomas of UPI was one of the people who was in that meeting, and she described the
results of the briefing -- this briefing on the Soviet Union -- in the following manner:
A senior White House official said Reagan has approved an eight-page National Security
document that undertakes a campaign aimed at internal reform in the Soviet Union and the
shrinkage of the Soviet empire. He affirmed that it could be called a full-court press
against the Soviet Union.[vi]
A little later, just a few days later, in fact, further evidence, this time quoting official
documentation, not hearsay from a briefer at the National Security Council, but quoting
official documentation: Richard Halloran, the defense correspondent of The New York
Times published an article in that paper on May the 30th of 1982, just a few days really
after Helen Thomas sent out her UPI dispatch. Halloran quoted from the fiscal years 1984-1988
Defense Guidance, of which The Times stated that it had a copy.[vii] The Secretary's
Guidance Document recommended what Halloran called "a major escalation in the nuclear arms
race." Apart from that it indicated that a number of other measures were being taken "to impose
costs on the Soviet Union." Note the language is the language of the RAND planners. Some of the
same people probably wrote the document. I quote from Halloran's direct quote from the National
Guidance document of the Secretary of Defense:
"As a peacetime complement to military strategy, the Guidance Document asserts that the
United States and its allies should, in effect, declare economic and technical war on the
Soviet Union."
This is interesting. "And so I think," it went on. They wrote,
"to put as much pressure as possible on the Soviet economy already burdened with military
expenditure, they should develop weapons that are difficult for the Soviets to counter,
impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition, and
obsolesce," (Nice English. I've put sic in my article) "precious Soviet
investments."
So I think it's safe to say, and a number of people prove it to us a little later on, that
this policy was instituted. Let me just race ahead to one of the more recent proofs. David
Ignatius , who is a correspondent at The Washington Post, published a very remarkable
article about "spyless coups" not long ago, in October, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps it was
September. Ignatius is a correspondent with very close ties to the intelligence community, to
be very polite about it. I quote from his article: "Preparing the ground " This is immediately
after the Yeltsin double event of August 1991 in which Mr. Gorbachev was seemingly threatened
by a coup and in which Mr. Yeltsin did not seem to take power but did. He described the event
in this way:
Preparing the ground for last month's triumph was a network of overt operatives who,
during the last ten years, have quietly been changing the rules of international politics.
They have been doing in public what the CIA used to do in private, providing money and moral
support for pro-democracy groups, training resistance fighters, working to subvert communist
rule.[viii]
Could he have written that in The Washington Post in 1982? It's difficult, I would
have thought. It might not have passed muster. Some people might have noticed, but in 1991,
evidently, it was all right to say that this is what we were doing.[ix]
If you look very carefully you can find many traces by officials stating that the United
States had embarked upon a strategy which, retrospectively, it is very clear, was nothing more
and nothing less than a strategy to destabilize the Soviet Union. Mr. Casey's magnificent and
expansive imagination had carried covert operations beyond the narrow confines of Third World
countries and aimed them at the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. If you go back and look at the
history of these events in this perspective, reading some of the documents, you'll see things
very differently
Judd Clark [name indistinct, spelling uncertain], for instance, speaking at a private
seminar at Georgetown University, again around 1982, said,
"We must force our principle adversary, the Soviet Union, to bear the brunt of its
economic shortcomings."
Well, that's slightly veiled language that means the same sort of thing that everybody else
was saying. It wasn't, though, until 1985, that the redoubtable and incomparable Jeane
Kirkpatrick appeared on the stage with the full text of the play in hand, and she gave a
speech, not surprisingly in front of the Heritage Foundation, at a conference room on Capitol
Hill in which she said, "The Reagan doctrine, as I understand it, is about our relations with
the Soviet Union," and she then described every principal element of the strategy which Helen
Thomas in 1982 called, repeating the NSC briefer's statement, "a full-court press against the
Soviet Union."
If you read her speech to the Heritage Foundation, which everybody should read because it
was 1985, she was saying that the United States is bent upon a strategy aimed at overthrowing
the Soviet Union through internal and external pressures. She principally described the
external pressure.
I want to say a little bit about the debate over the internal pressure. Again, in 1982,
there was a nasty little debate between some members of Congress and the then-Secretary of
State General Alexander Haig . Mr. Haig was very anxious that the United States should embark
upon the program which Ronald Reagan was going to describe before the British Parliament in
June 1982, at just about the time most of us were going to be in the streets of New York to
protest some of the things that he was doing. And Hague said in the debate over the creation of
the National Endowment for Democracy, which the Congress had insisted should not spill over
into efforts to meddle in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union, Mr. Haig said,
"Just as the Soviet Union gives active support to Marxist-Leninist forces in the West and
the [Global] South " [ironic commentary:] (because it owns Newsweek , for instance and
it manipulates the Columbia Broadcasting Company such enormous power the Soviet Union has in
the West) " we must give vigorous support to democratic forces wherever they are located,
including countries which are now communist. We should not hesitate to promote our own
values, knowing that the freedom and dignity of man are the ideals that motivate the quest
for social justice. A free press, free trade unions, free political parties, freedom to
travel, and freedom to create are the ingredients of the democratic revolution of the future,
not the status quo of a failed past."
The founder of the Central Intelligence Agency said that propaganda is the first arrow of
battle. A statement by Alexander Haig in 1982 to the Congress signals what the United States
would attempt to do with the National Endowment for Democracy, that it would try to create and
participate in the creation of [a false narrative of ] a failed past in the Soviet Union. And,
in fact, as you know, all that went ahead.
Now, let's look at that for a second. I know that it's very difficult to believe this. I ask
you to look at the second of the articles which I read, or to search for what I've written. You
can read it and search for some of the documentation easily available. You will find that the
mission statement of the National Endowment for Democracy, which functions as a kind of
consortium bringing many of the pressures of the US government to bear inside the Soviet
Union.
Destabilization requires external pressure and a manipulation of the internal situation to
move political developments in the direction you desire. That's what targeting a country for
destabilization involves. We deprive Cuba of sugar, of medicines etc. and that creates internal
pressure, and utilizing the internal pressure, you insert yourself, create groups, diffuse
ideas which are inconsistent with those prevailing and suitable to power, and you begin to work
on that discontent. If the discontent deepens and spreads, you get better and better odds, and
because the Soviet Union was already in a kind of crisis, which, as Abraham Becker said,
"the United States then systematically sought to intensify and exacerbate."
The National Endowment for Democracy and literally dozens and dozens of pseudo-private
foundations, which I'll talk about in a second, went into the Soviet Union under the new
umbrella of glasnost, created academic presses, created newspapers, created radio stations, and
began to mobilize and to work upon the natural dissent and discontent that existed in the
Soviet Union, not only because of the historical past but also because of the difficulties of
the present as exacerbated by the United States and its Western partners.
If you look at how much money I'll just give you an idea of some of the projects that were
involved, and this is just one agency. You have to recognize that if this was going on in the
National Endowment for Democracy that there were many, many other channels of finance and
influence into the Soviet Union that were working on this.
For instance, in 1984 the NED gave $50,000 to a book exhibit in the Soviet Union: America
through American Eyes. At the book fair in 1985 (I mean I'm just selecting [a few]):
$70,000 via the Free Trade Union Institute, which is part of the National Endowment, to
Soviet Labor Review for research in publications on Soviet trade union and worker
rights.
In 1986, $84,000 to Freedom House to expand the operations of two Russian language journals
published in the US and distributed in the higher levels of the Soviet bureaucracy and
intelligentsia, already an arresting description. Imagine the Soviet Union publishing two
English-language journals in the Soviet Union during the 1980s and having them distributed and
eagerly read in the highest levels of the United States bureaucracy and intelligentsia. I don't
think that would have stuck very well in the United States.
In 1987, Freedom House, for the Athenaeum Press, rushed $55,000 for a Russian-language
publication house in Paris to publish unofficial research conducted in the USSR by established
scholars writing under pseudonyms. Now what does that mean? If you get down to 1989, we're
talking already in the $200,000 category.
For instance, the Center for Democracy, which is related to the National Endowment for
Democracy, began to create a center for assistance to independent and nationalist groups,
including the Crimean Tatar movement for human and national rights. In other words, they began
to finance ethnic and nationalist separatism, began to finance separate trade unions, began to
finance their own academics etc., except this is open, but it's very large-scale, very
large-scale.
I've done a little calculation and I can tell you that very large amounts of money were
being spent, probably on the order of, by all the Western allies, minimum, inside the Soviet
Union in the period from the mid to the late 1980s, one hundred million dollars a year -- a
hundred million dollars a year to finance organizations which might begin like WESPAC but would
then grow, develop, have outreach, which would become extraordinary with that kind of funding,
and did finally change things.
If you look at perestroika in the Soviet Union, [we know it started when] Mr. Gorbachev
became the Soviet leader. This is the background to the two stages in which we must understand
perestroika. In the first stage it was clear that the Soviet leadership was desperate to find a
way to renew socialism, that Mr. Gorbachev was bent upon the reformation of the notion of
socialism, and that he had widespread support inside the Soviet Union.
There were genuine economic improvements which took place between 1986 and, sort of, let's
say, the end of 1988, in the Soviet Union, as a result of those efforts, but the principal
question we have to ask ourselves, since today we confront a fragmented, or, if you like,
disassembled Soviet Union, the supremacy of nationalism, ethnic conflict, and Mr. Yeltsin --
who represents an extremely right-wing constituency at the present moment -- and the supremacy
of capitalism. And a capitalist society is now being created in the Soviet Union, ending Mr.
Gorbachev's experiment the crucial question to ask ourselves is a very simple one: how is it
that between 1985 and 1990 a movement which began as an attempt to transform and renew
socialism in the Soviet Union was supplanted by a right-wing movement aiming at the creation of
a capitalist society in the Soviet Union? That is the key question. That is the key question
because that's what's happened, and it's strange.
That's why many of us were puzzled about the contradictory evidence coming out of the
Khrushchev [ sic ? Brezhnev?] era. It was very difficult to understand. At first, it
seemed very positive, and then from the end of 1988, the fall of 1988, it became increasingly
clear that things were going to pieces, that Mr. Gorbachev was either not able to control the
forces which he had unleashed or that indeed he was bent upon creating, as I heard on the
French radio in 1988 for the first time stated very clearly -- it arrested my attention: the
purpose, said Mr. [name indistinct], on the radio in his not-bad French, was to create a
regulated market economy. That was the purpose of perestroika, not when it began, but somehow
something had happened.
In fact there's a lot of very interesting information out there now on the whole process.
There was clearly a large dissatisfied set of strata in the Soviet intelligentsia. What has
happened in the Soviet Union is more complex than the collapse through its own internal
contradictions of the system of socialism in the Soviet Union. I really don't want to talk very
much about whether the Soviet Union was a socialist society. There are people who say it was
and people who say it wasn't. It's a long discussion between Trotsky and Stalin etc., but for
my part I would say this: that the Soviet Union began as a genuine attempt to establish
socialism. There were always in the Soviet Union people genuinely seeking to further socialism,
and people who didn't give a damn. On balance, the thing we have to ask ourselves is whether
the existence of the Soviet Union, as an apparently perceived socialist society, was a positive
thing in the world equation at this particular time of history. I, on balance, having spent
years in the United Nations, seeing that under the attacks of the Western countries, which in
many cases were very ugly, most of the Third World countries which emerged in the late 1950s
and 60s and early 70s were really only barely saved by the few sources of support which they
got in the socialist world. And when the Soviet Union went down, they went down too; [for
example] Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua.
So in many respects I would have thought that the Soviet Union, for all its defects, stood
as a positive development in history, with all of the horrors that took place. The United
States has had its horrors. The question is this: did the Soviet Union collapse because
socialism is unworkable and central planning doesn't work? No, it didn't. There was a crisis in
the Soviet Union. I would argue that in the absence of the kind of pressure [that was applied],
it's very difficult to weigh the balance. How important were the internal forces? How important
were the difficulties experienced internally, and how important was the external pressure and
the externally intervening force? How important that balance was is very difficult to get. We
have to read through all a lot of intelligence to understand that, to begin to get a grasp of
things, but that's our duty as people who are living history, or who seek to understand
history. We have to try to do that, and my basic conclusion still at this moment is this: the
Soviet Union today, in the absence of this extraordinarily crafty, well-thought-out, extremely
costly strategy deployed by the Reagan administration, would be a society struggling through
great difficulties. It would still be a socialist society, at least of the kind that it was. It
would be far from perfect, but it would still be there, and I think, therefore, that Western
intervention made a crucial difference in this situation. That's a judgment.
Conclusion
All right. Now, there is a question irrespective of that: what does it mean that the Soviet
Union now has disappeared as a result of the kind of process that I'm talking about, a
combination of internal difficulties and external pressure and intervention? Does it mean that
socialism doesn't work? Does it mean that [there is no alternative to] the kind of capitalism
that we live in today, which I think increasingly of as a return to irrational and savage 19th
century capitalism? If you walk through the Bronx and Brooklyn and Harlem, how can you not
conclude that we are living in an irrational and savage capitalism in which the leveling
attacks of democracy have been dealt with, in which the possibility of remedying that situation
by the constitutional means which exist in the normal political channels of our government are
very small, that electoral changes, in other words, are not going to be very significant, until
there's a mass mobilization of American people to make something happen.
If this is so, then the fact that what has happened in the Soviet Union has happened as it
happened has no bearing whatsoever on our problems, and we should not be confused or pushed
into consternation by it. Why? Primarily, for a very simple reason: The Soviet Union was
conceived at a time when, in Marxist terms, it was not ready. The Soviet Union did not have the
material base of abundance which would make it possible to create a society at once egalitarian
and democratic because the struggle to create that base would require a degree of repression
and authoritarianism, particularly heightened by external intervention and attack, which
inevitably would distort the nature of socialism.
I sympathize with Isaac [name indistinct], but I think it's too simple when he says
socialism in a backward country is backwards socialism. But the critical fact for us is this:
the Soviet Union was a society conceived as a socialist society prior to the creation of the
economic base which would permit the creation of a socialist society with ease. We live in a
society whose capacity to produce, whose potential abundance is so great that the inability to
make use of it is literally tearing this society apart.
We live in a society which is ready, and when I say that, I want to go back to the terms of
the discussion on the constitutional conventions. Well, why can't we have economic democracy?
What does economic democracy mean? Economic democracy inevitably would mean a number of these
things: the accountability of the enormous concentrated power which exists in our society today
to public democratic institutions. The planned rational use of resources at the public level,
with democratic participation in the same manner that that planned rational use is conceived
within the framework of the corporations, where the exercise of those decisions is not
accountable. So it seems to me that in our day, when our society is riven by its
contradictions, unable to use its abundance, unable to use its productive capacity in a
rational, humane and democratic manner, that what is on the agenda today is the democratization
of economic power, the rendering accountable of the enormous economic potential and power that
exists in our society to make this a better and decent and democratic world.
Voilà.
End of lecture
Question Period
Well, dear friends, first of all, we have to have this serious debate because the real terms
of the debate are rendered invisible by the absurd rhetoric and the absurd way in which we
speak about ourselves, and by the mass media whose power and determination is to keep the real
terms of the debate invisible. The real terms of the debate are: why is this society
collapsing? Why does this economic machine not work? Who is responsible? If the people who are
responsible are not going to do something about it, let them get the hell out.
Moderator : I know there have got to be lots of questions. We'll allot a certain amount of
time. We'll try to recognize everyone.
Question : You've analyzed this quite well, but what does one do to change [the
situation]?
Well, I think part of the problem I don't mean to be repetitious but I think that people are
clearly immobilized and confused at the moment. I think one of the reasons that people are
immobilized and confused is that the proper debate is not out there. It's not possible for
people to express what they know from their experience to be true, to assert its truth. The
public debate rejects our experience and understanding because the public debate is designed to
contain us, to make us accept and even to believe in the superiority of this situation. I think
people know what needs to be done out there. In a sense the quintessential problem confronting
our country is the enormous concentrated power to shape people's lives, to define discourse, as
[name indistinct] pointed out, which is accountable to no one. The democratization of that
power means, I think, certainly radical changes in the structure of our society, but ones for
which in many respects people are ready and which indeed are supported by most of the values
that this society has lived by historically and attests to.
It seems to me it's really quite simple. We don't have democracy in the sense in which we
normally understand ourselves to have democracy in which people often speak of us as having. We
don't have that. Why do we not have it? Because of this eternal and now much more intensive,
much more intense tension that has existed from the beginning between property and democracy,
between popular majorities as the Federalists called them, disdainingly, and the rights of
property. This now has become an enormous incubus on American society. We have enormous
concentrated power for which nobody is accountable, and this is not acceptable. Roger and Me [the documentary
film] is a reflection of a sensitivity that says, "We've got to talk about this, Roger. You're
responsible for this." So I really think by not knowing these things, not changing the
discourse of our lives, and the discourse in the public arena, coming to agreements amongst one
another by hard work, by hard discussion, how can we know it's true?
And by the way, I don't think this can be done in the absence of action. That is to say, in
a haltingly naive phase of my recent existence, I tried to convince some people in the Congress
that we were headed into a really horrible situation, and they didn't want to know. They
didn't. They don't want to believe what is uncomfortable for them to believe, so my decision
was that you have to go into the trenches, that you have to work on projects that are going to
materialize these ideas, that you have to work against plant closings, that you have to work
for measures that alleviate the social burdens that exist in a city like New York, that you
have to work for things while articulating these ideas because it seems to me it's only in the
combination of action and debate of ideas that people will begin to understand the relevance
and the necessity of a new discussion. You can't have in that sense -- I cede your point -- you
can't have a drawing-room discussion which will prevail.
Certainly the people in the National Endowment for Democracy believe that. They don't just
sit back and spend millions of dollars on printing books and making radio tapes and television
shows. No. They created new political institutions. They then created new political parties,
financing people like Arkady Murashev, the Inter-Regional Group in the Soviet Parliament, until
recently. It doesn't exist anymore. The Inter-Regional Group was the group of pseudo-democrats,
pro-capitalists, speaking, in many respects for the interests represented in the agglomeration
of black market operations in the Soviet Union. Arkady Murashev was systematically cosseted,
financed and trained by an organization in Washington very closely tied to certain agencies
whose names we don't want to pronounce in the present circumstances. Murashev was a liaison man
between Washington and Yeltsin. The National Endowment for Democracy gave $40,000 just for the
faxes, and the printing machines and the telephones in the Initiatives Foundation, which was
the organization that the Inter-Regional Group used to put out its messages, get itself
organized, make contacts, etc. The United States was financing that operation. Arkady Murashev
is now the chief of police of the city of Moscow.
This is heavy stuff. I mean, really, it's incredibly dramatic, but we mustn't go on in this
vein because there are questions to be answered.
Question : Does every country have to go through this period of savage capitalism to become
socialist?
No. I don't believe that. No.
Question: Bush seemed to like Gorbachev. Was Gorbachev foolish? Was he taken for a ride?
These are the great mysteries. There are, as you know, there are a different views. There
are different theories about that. One of them is that Gorbachev was a mole, that Gorbachev was
a deep-cover or Western intelligence agent. I believe that's exaggerated. I believe that's off
the wall, but I do believe that there's an element here that's important to understand.
There was in the Soviet Union, as a result of the very success of the industrialization of
the Soviet Union, an enormous alienated set of strata amongst the educated population because
the Soviet elite absorbed people at a very small rate. It didn't reach out to large numbers of
people. They were educating enormous numbers of people, professional scientific workers,
managers, and these people were mostly urban people. They were the fruit, in many respects, of
industrialization. At the same time, being urban people, they found themselves trapped in the
most difficult conditions in the Soviet Union because in its industrialization the Soviet Union
really ignored a lot of problems. Theyfound themselves, in many respects, in a similar
situation as the United States, where the decay of urban areas, the lack of equipment, the lack
of infrastructure, the lack of adequate facilities for health or education etc. became a real
problem. They didn't have the resources to industrialize, to raise the standard of living in
the really poor republics of the Soviet Union, and to deal with the urban problem, as we call
it in the United States.
So these people were imagine all educated people earning this education and looking upon
themselves as deserving of the advantages and prerogatives of their Western counterparts,
living in the equivalent of New York City, but earning the wages of a skilled worker. They
didn't like it. They felt shut out. They were angry, and it's those people that the neoliberals
were recruiting, not just the American neoliberals but their own neoliberals. There were
neoliberals in the Soviet Union. There were reactionary people in the Soviet Union this [name
indistinct] operation out in Siberia, the so-called sociological think tank. There are people
who, I don't know why Perhaps when you become very isolated from the world and separated from
reality you conjure up the most amazing dreams in your mind. I think Marx called it idealism.
In any case, these people were very much Western idealists and they came, frankly, into Moscow
and Leningrad fervent believers in the need to embrace Western institutions because of their
frustration, because of their understanding of their own past. Whether it was distorted or not,
it's not for me to say. It's because of the way they viewed and felt about their past, because
of their own personal frustration, because of the problems which were very real that they
experienced by the Soviet leadership, by the Soviet economy and society. They were alienated,
and that's where there was recruitment. When economic growth slowed down it made it much worse,
and it spread the basis of recruitment very effectively.
There is a collection of essays which I think is quite remarkable and valuable, which gives
you some background about the incredible contradictions in the Soviet Union, and how the Soviet
Union, in fact, more than a decade and even two decades ago, was in fact being prepared for
what is happening. It was ripening for some big bull shaking the tree, which is eventually what
happened. That's the collection that The Monthly Review has published recently, After
the Fall, something like that. After the Fall of the Soviet Union is really a very
valuable collection of essays on the Soviet Union, or whatever it is after communism. Very
useful stuff.
Question : Could you talk about Third World countries?
That's a really hard question. I've worked in Third World countries which were socialist
countries and which were under attack. I worked in Mozambique in the beginning of the 1980s
when the South African-Western-CIA operations were really beginning to [take a toll], and
people were dying by the tens of thousands because the roads had been cut, and the supplies had
been cut, and the health stations blown up, and I think that it was very hard for them to
survive that. Socialism proved very frail in Mozambique, even though the leaders of the
revolution had been born in armed struggle, formed by armed struggle, were dedicated to armed
struggle, but the society just couldn't withstand that kind of pressure.
In some ways I think that's true of the Soviet Union. There was a war in the shadows waged
against the Soviet Union on a massive scale, and what these events prove is the Soviet Union
was insufficiently strong to stand up to those pressures, and I think this is all the more true
in the Third World. I don't know, but I don't want to say that I know the answer, whether they
should try to make that jump or not. I think that will depend on what happens in the Western
world. I don't see any reason why the jump couldn't be made if the West, Western Europe and the
United States, in particular North America saw [supported] significant transformation of the
present system of power. Then it's not a problem, but with this massive opposition coming from
the West, it's very difficult to survive.
Question (apparently edited from video recording): __________________
These same people today, and we're talking about within a few months, within the end of the
year there being not 50,000 but between six and eight million unemployed people in Russia, 130
million people, labor force of 65 or 70 million, and I saw this same thing happening in East
Germany.
I was very briefly in Humboldt University in 1989 or 1990, I can't remember which now. The
whole situation was in upheaval, and I saw many intellectuals genuinely enraged by the
arrogance of the Honecker regime, and at the same time, unfortunately, completely unaware of
what would happen if that regime went down, taking everything, "really existing socialism,"
with it. And my question would be, OK, it's a question. You know the old version of this
question used to be what about Stalin, but it's a little different now.
My problem is this: let's look at it in human terms, OK? Just forget ideology. What has
happened as a result of the materialization of the dreams of the so-called reformers and
democrats in the Soviet Union? What has happened is what has happened in Poland, and worse:
that the standard of living of ordinary people is going to collapse, that old people will be
destitute, that children will be without health care, that the transportation system is
collapsing, that there will be no food distribution by spring, that people will starve, that
there is continuous ethnic conflict. Now, the Soviet system of prices and of raw material
supplies were such that enormous quantities that the supply system worked in a way which led to
the waste of vast quantities of raw materials and semi-finished products. I mean vast
quantities.
So the idea was to go in to work at the enterprise level to create incentives to create
better accounting, a system of prices which would reflect the real value of these raw materials
and not the fact that they could be replaced anytime you wanted because all you have to do is
put an order in. It didn't matter what you did with them. It [the reform] was focused on the
enterprise, on profit incentives, and this loosening of the tight bonds on the enterprise,
really did lead to a recrudescence of output. For instance, between 1986 and 88 there was a 17%
increase in housing production in the Soviet Union. There was a 30% increase in overall
production. The production, the economy, accelerated in the period 1986-88. In those three
years the economy accelerated, but as I said, there were two stages of perestroika. There was a
stage of perestroika where the effects were quite beneficial, where it was clear that
perestroika and glasnost were aiming to energize and develop andfree and move forward the
Soviet Union.
As a friend of mine said, the only way to ensure the social development of the Soviet Union
is to undertake these reforms, but there was another stage, a second stage beginning in late
1988 to, obviously, the end of 1991, where the forces that were unleashed utilized the reform
program to destroy socialism, clearly to destroy socialism, and Mr. Gorbachev was either
helpless before that or a willing apprentice of that process. I could not pretend to pronounce
which of those was the case. It's very difficult to say.
On the other hand, I really don't know how anybody in his right mind could have conceived of
the notion that the way forward for the Soviet Union -- and this was the quintessential
statement of perestroika by the principle Soviet leaders in the mid-1980s -- the way for the
Soviet Union was to integrate the Soviet Union into the world economy. I mean to an economist
with any degree of sophistication and critical approach, that is sheer unadulterated madness.
It's like saying that the North American free trade agreement will lead to real economic
development in Mexico. It's absurd. I mean we know what those processes are. How can a much
weaker, less industrialized Soviet Union hope to stand up against the economic forces arrayed
against it and capable of penetrating it, once it declares its intention to integrate itself
into the world economy? When I heard that, I said, "It's all over, boys. These people don't
know that they're doing," and indeed, listening to Soviet economists as I did when I was still
teaching in Paris, and meeting with some of these people, until 1989, I got the impression of
two things: they had not the least actual understanding of what was going on in the West, and
that their theoretical conceptions were taken out of a handbook by Voltaire making fun of the
French aristocracy.
Transcript produced by Youtube "auto-caption" speech recognition software, corrected and
edited by blog author, Dennis Riches.
Notes
[i] Davis Guggenheim (Director), Al Gore (Writer), "An Inconvenient Truth," Paramount
Classics , 2006.
[ii] Jason W. Moore, Capitalism in the Web of Life (Verso, 2015), 267-268. "What is
really needed is proper planning of available resources globally, plus a drive, through public
investment, to develop new technologies that could work and, of course, a shift out of fossil
fuels into renewables. Also, it is not just a problem of carbon and other gas emissions, but of
cleaning up the environment, which is already damaged. All these tasks require public control
and ownership of the energy and transport industries and public investment in the environment
for the public good."
The reference appears to be to this article. The dates 1984-1988 may appear to be an error
because the report referred to was written in 1982. However, the Defense Guidelines were
focused on plans for the future, fiscal years of 1984-1988.
[ix] As we know from the perspective of 2017, the normalization of such interventions
continued shamelessly, going from a bad habit to a deranged addiction. The political
establishment in America now resorts to economic warfare, violence and military intervention as
the solutions for every problem in international relations.
All images, except the featured, in this article are from the author.
Perestroika put the final nails in the USSR's economy One of the first main policies
Gorbachev adopted was Perestroika – reform of the economy. Hoarding and reciprocal
favours (blat) had been a means of survival in the Soviet Union, thieving to 'moonlight' was
also common and this cost the regime a lot. The 'command-administrative' system had become
obsolete in the Post-Industrial era and was curtailing economic development 1. To solve this,
Gorbachev wanted to give enterprise managers control over contracts and introduce aspects of
the market economy, to make it managers' responsibility to gain contracts and to make sure the
enterprise makes a profit. However, in practice the way the enterprises operated remained
unchanged except in terms – ministries rephrased their commands as contracts 2. Private
enterprise was also permitted, which seemed to contradict Gorbachev's claim to be committed to
Marxist-Leninist thought which was vehemently opposed to capitalism which Marxist's argue
exploit the proleteriat – so to actually create a class of capitalists who (according to
Marxist doctrine) would exploit the workers who were supposed to be living in socialist –
i.e. 'classless society' seemed contradictory to the very ideological concept the regime's
power was based upon. A small amount of private enterprise emerged, but the profiteering was
very much resented by the general population – goods and services were sold for four or
five times their subsidized price due to shortages. Another aspect of Perestroika was entry
into the market economy – many of the social benefits given by the enterprises had to be
done away with, as they could not make a profit and afford to maintain the benefits, resulting
in a stagnant economy occuring simultaneously with a collapsing social welfare system.
Gorbachev's reforms did not work and only succeeded in hastening the economic collapse that was
inevitable.
1 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
2 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992 Yes because...
Glasnost facilitated Opposition to Concentrate against the Regime Allowing freedom of
thought from the 'mono-ideological controls' that existed for decades and allowing pluralist
thought and leadership meant a weakening of power for the Communist Party – it had to
convert into a proper parliamentary party to survive. Furthermore, in a regime based on
oppression and propaganda, when these are removed and freedom of speech and freedom of the
media are introduced, nasty elements about the system in the past are going to be revealed, and
when there is 70 years of repression being reported all at once, it is inevitable there will be
extreme hostility toward those responsible – the Party 1, this especially fuelled the
anger of the nationalities who had been oppressed and triggered a nationalist movement.
The population were dissatisfied with the dire state of affairs and could voice their
discontent openly with glasnost, which led to Gorbachev becoming very unpopular by 1991, in
which year the economy had contracted by 18% 2, people were also very concerned over the
incompetence of the command-administrative system and irresponsibility of the leadership with
regards to the 1986 Chernobyl power station disaster 3.
In a state committed to one ideology, the removal of mono-ideological controls, and the
ability of other ideological persuasions to come to power meant the Party had lost its RIGHT to
govern the people unless the people themselves WANTED the Party to rule. Thus, the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) had to win the support of the people in order to govern
effectively. However, in a society that was becoming increasingly liberal and 'bourgeois' (the
USSR was largely middle class, private property was protected and capitalism was legalised),
the people had to believe in socialist ideology – which would have been almost impossible
to achieve.
Gorbachev's reforms themselves undermined some of the principle features of socialist rule
in the USSR, e.g. atheism, mono-ideological control, one-party state, economic monopoly and the
suspendability of law. Gorbachev's ideology itself – his focus on 'all-human values'
instead of the class struggle, the rule of law, international peace and proper parliamentary
representation have more resonance with John Stuart Mill than Karl Marx 4 – Gorbachev was
subconsciously moving the USSR in this ideological direction.
With democratization and pluralist thought permitted, Gorbachev found himself operating
within an increasingly wide political spectrum – with the reformist 'democrats' on one
side and the conservative Communist Party members on the other. There was a constant power
struggle between the two and Gorbachev dealt with this by constantly playing one side against
the other and compromising. One of Gorbachev's critics at the time said this was like trying to
marry a hare to a hedgehog. The two sides were very much irreconcilable and instead of trying
to defeat one side, Gorbachev sat on the fence and as a result his policies were constantly
inconsistent – you cannot mix radical reforms with conservatism 5. The dangers of this
were apparent when Shevardnadze, Foreign Minister at the time, resigned because he warned a
dictatorship was approaching, Gorbachev ignored this threat and dismissed this claim with
overconfidence 6.
1 Kagarlitsky, B. Russia under Yeltsin and Putin: neo-liberal autocracy, London: Pluto
2002
2 Service, R. History of Modern Russia: from Nicholas II to Putin, London: Penguin 1997
3 Haynes, M., Russia: Class and Power, 1917-2000, London: Bookmarks 2002
4 Service, R. History of Modern Russia: from Nicholas II to Putin, London: Penguin 1997
5 Sheehy, G. The Man who changed the World, New York: HarperCollins 1991
6 Sheehy, G. The Man who changed the World, New York: HarperCollins 1991 No because...
Regional Nationalism and Independence Movements These original flaws in the system were
largely responsible for its own downfall – in particular the nationalities issue –
the decision to maintain the Empire without granting real power to the nationalities whilst
simultaneously repressing them left most of the nationalities feeling bitter when glasnost
revealed the truth about how they had been treated in the past and democratisation gave them
the power to chose representatives who would really represent people's interests (the
nationalist movement) whilst at the same time being given by Gorbachev an appetite for power
– a fatal combination.
The wealthier regions wanted a separation from the USSR because of the feeling they were
being milked from the centre and many other regions wanted to become independent because they
did not want to be part of an economic disaster area which became apparent when the Donbass
miners who had no commitment to nationalism thought their future would be safer if the Ukraine
wasn't part of the USSR 1.
The nationalist movement emerged when freedom of speech, media and association along with
democratisation and the loss of fear of repression allowed people to voice pride in their
nation and resentment at past repressions as well as the ongoing special treatment of Russians
in the Regions, who had access to better housing and other special privileges the locals did
not.
Certain Republics felt nationalism more strongly than others, most notably the Baltic States
who felt a strong cultural attachment to the West and felt they were being unfairly occupied.
Gorbachev's mistake here was to downplay the importance of nationalism and not treat the Baltic
States as a special case 2. After all, most of the population of the USSR wished to preserve
the Union – 76% voted to preserve the Union in March 1991 (except the Baltic States,
Moldova, Georgia and Armenia who did not conduct the referendum) 3. After the failed coup, most
states declared their independence, even if they did so with reluctance, as there was a general
feeling there was no alternative. Gorbachev tried to persuade the Republics not to become fully
independent. However, in early December, the Ukraine held a referendum where the population
voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence, even after Gorbachev stated "there can be no
Union without Ukraine", on 8th December, Yeltsin met with the Ukrainian and Bielorussian leader
and declared a formal end to the USSR and the establishment of the Confederation of Independent
States which they invited the other states to join.
There was nothing left Gorbachev could do, democratisation had brought about the means for
independence and Gorbachev didn't feel he could argue with people's wishes carried out through
democratic means and, on 25th December he resigned with regret.
1 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
2 Brown, A. The Gorbachev Factor, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996
3 Brown, A. The Gorbachev Factor, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996 Yeltsin Factor
Boris Yeltsin emerged as the true hero and strong leader for the fearlessness to condemn the
coup – in a press conference afterwards Yeltsin ordered Gorbachev around undermining his
position, then used his institutional powers derived from democratization to appoint Egor
Gaidar, an economist dedicated to laissez-faire economics, as his Finance Minister and
suspension of the CPSU pending an investigation into the coup. Gorbachev half heartedly argued
against this but it was no use – he was seen as a weaker leader along with discontent
over his policies, whilst Yeltsin's radicalism was keeping pace with developments and his
popularity at an all-time high, Gorbachev's position was also much less weaker without the
Communist Party. Also, the Soviet Union really could not exist without the Communist Party
arguably as they had political and economic monopoly on society and the Communist Party went
from controlling these aspects of society to ceasing to exist, the Soviet Union could not
function and the economy spiralled out of control. Yes because...
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... August 1991 Coup
Counter Productive, Bringing About What It Sought To Prevent - The End of the Soviet Union
By August 1991 Gorbachev's popularity was at an all-time low both in the Party and outside it.
Despite being advised by some of his staff to sign the Treaty agreement granting the republics
real autonomy before going on holiday and some suspicious circumstances he should have been
more questioning about, he planned on signing the agreement when he returned. This was a big
mistake and allowed the conservatives to stage a coup. The Emergency Committee made no
reference whatsoever to Marxism-Leninism or the class struggle in their speech, meaning it was
a coup in the hope of returning the Soviet Union to 'normal' i.e. an Empire controlled from
Moscow and putting the final nails in the coffin of socialism in the USSR 1.
The failed coup triggered the very thing it sought to prevent – the break-up of the
Soviet Union 2.
1 Hosking, Geoffrey, History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
2 Hosking, Geoffrey, History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
Yes because... Report this ad
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... The System Needed to
Change in Order to Survive in the Longer Term; That Mikhail Gorbachev's Reforms Failed Showed
that the USSR Could Not be Saved By the Gorbachev era, all hopes of fulfilling the original
Marxist-Leninist dream were gone and most did not feel passionately about communism, even
within the Party. There was a general acknowledgement that the USSR could not continue in the
same way as before – Andropov, Gorbachev's predecessor also realised this and set about
changing society through repressive measures such as harsh labour discipline enforced by
cutting payments from workers for work deemed poor quality and restrictions on the sale of
alcohol and prohibition of alcohol on official occasions was felt overly repressive and for
many – Gorbachev was seen as a positive, energetic leader who would overcome the USSR's
problems in a less repressive manner. With economic stagnation and an economy dependent on the
exportation of natural resources to survive 1, an unsuccessful war (Afghanistan) and an ageing
Party Membership to combat, Gorbachev was the candidate for those who wanted change or at least
realised change could no longer be postponed 2.
Autocracies survive due to repressing their people to the extent that they are not given the
freedoms required to change their government, rather than because the people want them to stay
in power. Mikhail Gorbachev's conscience and sense of responsibility for his population
dictated that the system could no longer be propped up like this, and that the people needed
and deserved the freedoms and basic human rights they had been denied for decades. That the
system could not encorporate such freedoms meant that the system morally should not be allowed
to perpetuate itself, and thus the Soviet Union fell apart because it was unrepresentative and
did not support the population's human rights means the fall of the USSR should be applauded,
not mourned for its' population.
1 Volkogonov, D.A. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire: political leaders from Lenin to
Gorbachev, edited and translated by M. Shukman, London: HarperCollins 1998
2 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992 Yes because...
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... War with Afghanistan
Drained USSR of Patriotic Morale The war in Afghanistan was a key contributing factor to
the breakup of the USSR. Reuveny and Prakash argue that the Soviet-Afghan war contributed to
undermining the Soviet Union in many ways. First, it discredited the Red Army, and impacted
negatively upon the image of the Red Army as a strong, almost invincible force, which gave
nationalist movements in the Republics hope that they might succeed in attaining independence
after all. Second, it impacted upon leadership perception on the usefulness of utilising the
military to keep the union intact and as a force for foreign intervention. Third, it created
new forms of political participation, which had begun to impact upon media reporting even
before glasnost, and began the first calls for glasnost, as it created a number of war
veterans, who went on to form organisations which weakened the total authority of the CPSU
1.
1 Reuveny, Rafael, and Prakash, Aseem, 'The Afghanistan War and the Breakdown of the Soviet
Union', Review of International Studies (1999), 25:693-708 Yes because... Report this ad
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... It was dead from the
time Stalin took control Gorbachev finished it off, but Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev etc.
really killed it. Lenin had nothing to do with that, he was a socialist-marxist, not a
communist. You obviously don't know the difference. Learn it before you blindly yell your
opinion into the dark of the internet.
SPECIAL TO THE TIMES
MOSCOW --
Yegor K. Ligachev, once the second-most-powerful man in the Kremlin, on Wednesday called his former
boss and comrade, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, a coward and a traitor.
"I met many Communists who spent
decades in labor camps in the permafrost zone but retained their faith in the party," the erstwhile
Politburo hard-liner said. "I fail to understand its general secretary who spent three days in the
best health resort the country has by the warm sea, then called for its dissolution."
Ligachev, as straight-talking and opinionated as ever, met with journalists to present his book
"The Gorbachev Riddle," a personal chronicle of the
perestroika
years he helped to
shape before the Soviet president and party leader gave him the boot in August, 1990.
The book presentation, attended by a standing-room-only audience in the Moscow House of
Journalists, served as a forum for Ligachev, 71, to reiterate his views and credo.
Advertisement
"When life proved me wrong, I did change my perceptions," he said with quiet dignity, "but I never
changed my principles. Unlike Gorbachev, I still adhere to socialism, and I still think this is the
future for my country." The white-haired native of Siberia said his only desire is to reunite the
nation, introduce peace and stability and build a "new, refurbished Soviet Union."
A foe of both Gorbachev and Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin, Ligachev contended that his country
is in danger of becoming a "raw materials supplier and semi-colony" for the capitalist world as the
Russian leadership presses on with its economic reforms.
"The ban on the Communist Party, an organization uniting about 20 million members, cannot but
diminish the chances for a peaceful resolution of the country's current political, economic and social
crisis," Ligachev said, referring to a ban that Yeltsin ordered last Nov. 6.
Few questions during the presentation ceremony concerned Ligachev's 303-page book itself; instead,
many people sought out his view of recent political developments.
The most persistent question put to Ligachev was why none of the former leaders of the Communist Party
had volunteered to defend it at hearings on its record ordered for July by the Constitutional Court of
Russia.
Asserting that it is Gorbachev who is legally obligated to take on this task, Ligachev said
that the party "had been betrayed by its general secretary" and that it is now up to "ordinary
Communists" to defend the party's 73-year record in leading the Soviet Union.
Ligachev, who became a voting, or full, member of the ruling party Politburo in 1985, the same year
Gorbachev came to power, remains the only publicly active figure from the defunct body who voices
support for his old principles.
Others, such as former Vice President Gennady I. Yanayev, are now in prison for their roles in last
August's unsuccessful attempt at overthrowing Gorbachev when he was on vacation at a Crimean beach
resort.
"... In 1979 at one of my public speeches ("How to kill an elephant with a needle"), I was asked what in my opinion was the most vulnerable point in the Soviet system. I replied: the one that is considered the most reliable, namely, the apparatus of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, within it - the Central Committee, and within the latter - the General Secretary. ..."
"... The reader should not think that I gave that idea to Cold War strategists. They realized that without me. One of the employees of the Intelligence Service told me that soon they (i.e. forces of the West) would put their man on "the soviet throne". ..."
"... What distinguishes this Cold War operation is that the method of "killing an elephant with a needle" was applied against a less powerful, yet mighty opponent, to obviate the possibility of a "hot war" becoming dangerous to the point where the advantages of the West could disappear, as happened in the war of Germany versus the Soviet Union in 1941-1945. ..."
"... The method in question made it possible to avoid risk and losses, save time and win by proxy. The method invented by the weak to fight stronger opponents was adopted by the most powerful forces on the planet in their war for domination over the entire human race. ..."
More than anyone else, he was responsible for handing the US and UK their greatest strategic victory ever
Alexander Zinoviev
Tue,
|
1300 words
8,718
31
MORE:
History
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
RI
continues
with
a series of articles about the life and works of the brilliant postwar Russian philosopher, author, and
dissident, Alexander Zinoviev.
This time, his famous essay on how the West destroyed the USSR is introduced by his widow Olga, chairwoman
of the Zinoviev Club at Rossiya Sevodnya, a major Russian news agency.
How
different US-Russia relations were back then...
Zinoviev often said that judging from
Gorbachev's behavior, one cannot exclude the possibility that he was working for the West, but that at the end of
the day, it didn't really matter, because what he did served the West's interests exactly.
lllustrations are by Zinoviev himself, provided to
RI
by his family.
Translated from
Russian
especially
for
RI
by Sergei Malygin
Introduction
Before you, dear readers, you have one of the
seven chapters
of Zinoviev's famous essay 'How to Kill an Elephant With a Needle', written in 2005, a year
before the author's death.
The material for it derived from recollections of the numerous meetings Alexander Zinoviev had with
representatives of the West's political elite who were responsible for the formation of policy with respect to the
USSR.
1016196444.jpg
Olga Zinovieva - an active voice in
contemporary Russia
The idea underlying little episodes, including historical examples, is as elementary and limpid as spring
water: how to work out the weak spot of the enemy, adversary, scoundrel or opponent, irrespective of their
number and armaments, both literally and metaphorically.
With graphic clarity, as if it were a lesson, he provides a whole series of examples, beginning with his
own example involving a compass but then using classical examples from history, such as the episode with Francisco
Pizarro, the conquistador conqueror of Mexico, who demonstrated extraordinary quick-wittedness in his detection of
the adversary's weak spot (the Indians).
Astonished by the attack of a handful of Pizarro's warriors on their leader, whom they regarded as a god
and who in their conception was invulnerable and untouchable, the Indians capitulated without a fight. "Pizarro",
wrote Alexander Zinoviev, "had divined the enemy army's weak spot, its Achilles heel".
In this essay he writes about how the Soviet Union's weak spot turned out to be the top echelons of the
leadership.
Zinoviev was often called a dissident, but he never thought of himself as such. He was a critic of the
Soviet system, but he was not its enemy.
In his later years he often repeated that, if he had known what a dreadful fate awaited the USSR, he would
not have written a single critical book or article about it.
Olga Zinovieva
How to kill an elephant with a needle
I was exiled to the West in 1978, when the thirty-year course of the Cold War hit a radical turning point.
Cold War leaders have studied Soviet society since the beginning. The new science of Sovietology has been
developed employing thousands of experts and involving hundreds of research centers.
Within it, a separate branch of Kremlinology has appeared. It pedantically studied the structure of the
Soviet State, the party apparatus, the central party apparatus, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union, the Politburo and employees of the government apparatus individually.
But for a long time (perhaps until the end of the 1970s) the main focus was on the ideological and
psychological manipulation of the general population, the creation of pro-Western masses of Soviet citizens who
in actuality would play the role of the West's "fifth column" and (intentionally or unintentionally) working on
the ideological and moral disintegration of the Soviet population (not to mention other functions). Thus the
dissident movement was created.
In short, the main work was carried out through the destruction of Soviet society "from below". Important
achievements had been made that became factors in the future counterrevolution. But they were not significant
enough to bring the Soviet society to its collapse.
By the end of the 1970s, the Western Cold War leaders understood that. They realized that the government
system formed the basis of Soviet communism and the party apparatus was at its core. Having thoroughly studied
the party apparatus, the nature of relations between its members, their psychology and qualifications,
selection methods and its other characteristics, Cold War leaders concluded that Soviet society could be
destroyed only from the top, by destroying its system of government.
To destroy the latter it was necessary and sufficient to destroy the party apparatus, starting from its top
level - the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. So they shifted their main efforts in
that direction.
They found the most vulnerable place in the Soviet social structure. It was not difficult for me to guess
this shift, because I had an opportunity to observe and study that hidden part of the Cold War.
In 1979 at one of my public speeches ("How to kill an elephant with a needle"), I was asked what in my
opinion was the most vulnerable point in the Soviet system. I replied: the one that is considered the most
reliable, namely, the apparatus of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, within it - the Central Committee,
and within the latter - the General Secretary.
To Homeric laughter in the audience, I said that "if you put your man in that position he will ruin the
party apparatus, thus starting a chain reaction resulting in the breakdown of the entire government system and
administration. The consequence will be the breakdown of the entire society". I referred to the precedent of
Pizarro.
The reader should not think that I gave that idea to Cold War strategists. They realized that without me.
One of the employees of the Intelligence Service told me that soon they (i.e. forces of the West) would put
their man on "the soviet throne".
At that time I did not believe that was possible. I spoke hypothetically of the General Secretary as the
West's "needle". But Western strategists already considered that to be a realistic proposition. They developed
a plan for winning the war: take the supreme power in the Soviet Union under their control by promoting "their"
man to the position of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union, force him to destroy the CPSU apparatus, implement an overhaul ("perestroika") that would start a chain
reaction and consequent breakdown of the entire Soviet society.
Such a plan was realistic then because the crisis at the top level of Soviet power was already evident, due
to the senescence of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU.
Soon "their" man in the role of the Western "needle" appeared (if he was not "prepared" in advance).
Admittedly, the plan worked well.
What distinguishes this Cold War operation is that the method of "killing an elephant with a needle" was
applied against a less powerful, yet mighty opponent, to obviate the possibility of a "hot war" becoming
dangerous to the point where the advantages of the West could disappear, as happened in the war of Germany
versus the Soviet Union in 1941-1945.
The method in question made it possible to avoid risk and losses, save time and win by proxy. The method
invented by the weak to fight stronger opponents was adopted by the most powerful forces on the planet in their
war for domination over the entire human race.
You put it pretty well. I also think that Gorby wasn't a conscious traitor, but he
was not capable to handle the necessary tasks for the reform of the USSR. He botched
it badly.
Yeltsin, on the other hand, was exactly that: a traitor. And he proved
it time and again.
Did not notice that about Pizarro, Kortez conquered Mexico.
Gorby was not fit and did not have what it takes to be Central Secretary and
he had no idea about how power is used. In times of restructuring and reforms
power cannot be diffused and undermined which is what he did, but must be
concentrated. Making quite a few heads roll would cause the rest to fall in
line including Yeltsin, who was a typical opportunist who smelt weakness and
rot at the top and used it.
Note that after Lenin death and until, Stalin by brutal measures concentrated
power in his hands, there was a lot of talk but little deeds. Just like in US
Congress. Same happened under Gorby, everybody started talking, then everybody
started smearing face with feces and glorifying the West until they undermined
any chance for positive change. What should have been done is to make heads
indeed roll at the top especially in Central Asia and Caucasus republics where
corruption was running amok and local intelligencia born by USSR own efforts
started thinking too much of themselves. Then when everybody would see there
is the Boss in Kremlin, things could have been started to move .
In China Deng had to deal with Hua Guo Feng and others before he started
reforms after concentrating power in own hands.
Gorby, well, was not cut for the role. Every few months new ideas, busy body
and not very straight talker. He was too soft and lacked abilities to be
leader of such a country and had none in his surrounding to shore his
deficiencies up.
He did , but me think not enough. also, it is not exactly the way
it used to be. I think Putin knew what he was doing. Unlike Gorby
who had all of the power in his hands and could do things we are
talking about, Putin had to maneuver. His position was not
unassailable when he came to power and much later. He had to be
more of a fox. He is also not a cruel man, like Stalin was.
It wouldn't be impossible, even today there are some questionable characters in very
high Kremlin positions, and if any of them manage come to power they will undermine
Russia's interests as has happened in the not so distant past.
I agree that in the
case of Gorby he was more of a fool than a Western agent. The Westerners knew how to
charm, flatter and entertain him and he was only too willing to please them and lap
up their manipulation and false promises.
It would be impossible. They do not and did not understand how things work in
Russia and they almost always are wrong. Gorby stupidity was all the required,
Yeltsin was a dark horse and Coup leaders should have studied more of Lenin
how to make coups.
With Gorby no cunning was necessary. The guy was plain sucker and not fit for
the office. Looks like he got picked for 2 qualities. Youth and good health
and having no enemies.
In those years we had new General secretary every
year.
I am so sad that the great Soviet Union for which so many many millions
of brave and honest people gave everything they had and their life in
the end got ripped apart due to this corrupted idiot. Furthermore I am
surprised beyond any belief that no one from KGB or Soviet Army arranged
for this fool to get smoked when they saw what was about to commence.
Today it is still the biggest mystery to me. I am aware that USSR had
some problems but those were truly nothing compared to what Russia and
all the other post Soviet countries faced after USSR got destroyed by
that cock sucker. 300 000 000 people more or less got their future
crippled and robbed because of 1 ( one ) western puppy. I just still
today cannot believe that happened. Looks like of course he had some KGB
staff on his payroll but in the end I just cannot believe that no one
took him to Siberia and burried him over there on time.
What is even
more sad is that today this idiot is prancing freely across Russia even
after almost everyone today sees that because of him they got Yeltsin
and his mobsters that stole their future.
I do admire Russian people and respect them for everything they wnt
through their past but some things are just not logical for a 12 year
old child and definitely not for a nation that gave the most chess
masters and champions to the world.
I would definitely like your comment on this if you are a citizen of
ex USSR.
lets look at it a different way ... Who was Gorbachev not Working FOR !
-
Gorbachev Was not Working For the USSR, Gorbachev Was not working for the People of the
USSR ...
-
now it is easier to see who Gorbachev the Traitor was Working For / and Where Gorbachev
Loyalties Were !
Mihail Sergeyevitch is a Russian
patriot, just as good as many more millions of Russians are! But Mihail Sergeyevitch
fallen for the pretence of honesty, so skilfully played by the west, as he presupposed the
existence of GENTLEMEN being in power in the west! ...and he wasn't the only one of the
Russian politicians, ...Dimitry Anatolyevitch fallen for the same, ...when the agreed for
a no-fly zone to be established over Libya!
There are NO gentlemen in western politics! ZIPPO, ZILCH, NADA! There are O N L Y
BASTARDS, one worse then the next!
i think gorbachev can in a sense be called traitorious to the RUSSIAN nation --
whether it was under the USSR or not...
but precisely because he allowed himself
to be ''open'' in ways that the west needed for the leadership to be open -- at the
exact time when russia at the core of the USSR NEEDED someone to REFUSE to be
''open'' in exactly the way the USA wanted -- in order to get rid of the
'perception' of a 'failing, geriatric ussr" - and thus , be ''welcomed" by the
''world" which to gorbachev WAS the west...
to the nearly complete ignoring of THE MAJORITY of other nations (such as we see
PUTIN achieve differently) -
he became the instrument of what was to follow -- yeltsin and the collapse of not
just the USSR -- but RUSSIA'S governance itself
which further opened russia to the pillaging through the oligarchic collaborators
with their western masters...
i think GORBACHEV LOVES RUSSIA -- i really do -- i think he is as russia in his
soul and heart as can be...
but he was simply
WRONG in his putting FAITH and confidence, just as BORIS correctly argues,
in having GENTLEMEN AS COUNTERPARTS from the west. -- reagan the ACTOR?
excuse me -- THAT IS ALL that gorbacheV should HAVE KEPT IN MIND. to know that
the USA was and IS NOT A ''partner"
as the russians, including putin -- like to say out of POLITENESS.
he should have realized that the WEST ARE NOT -- nd never have been 'THE LEAGUE
OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN"
but EXTRAORDINARILY DECEITFUL plunderers and pillagers.
AND it has been like that since the beginning of the USA - TODAY -- and WILL
continue to be so.
it is in its DNA
just as TRUE compassion -- faith, ethics, morality, a sense of TRUE justice and
brotherhood of all humanity
IS IN THE DNA Of the RUSSIAN SOUL.
in other words -- the MISTAKE of gorbachev -- and yeltsin -- who were RIVALS --
was to believe or WISH to believe THAT THE AMERICANS and west --
were and are EQUALS AS PEOPLE GUIDED BY ETHICS ABOVE politics, economics,
personal glory, even nationality --
tht the west -- reagan etc -- were actually MEN OF HONOR.
THAT WAS HIS -- and ANY russian leaderships; GREATEST mistake.
perhaps gorbachev did not HAVE to 'work for the CIA" -- AND THE author is
probably correct -- he didn'/t HAVE to - DIRECTLY \\\
it was enough that gorbachev suffered from ''infatuation" with the west....
and so -- whatever HIS intentions or beliefs were -- his ACTS -- in themselves
BECAME acts of treason to his great country and people.
for what he did was -- to try to present THEM -- IN HIS ''glasnost and perestroika"
some of the 'freedom of the west" -- that the russian people REALLY did NOT need
-- but could have a freedom of THEIR very own
INDEPENDENT of ''copying or emulating" the west...
because IN RUSSIA AND AMONG the russian people
was ALL THE STRENGTH of their own freedom and choice and prosperity they WOULD
EVER NEED!
Hearing on U.S. Security Strategy Post-9/11
Testimony before House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
November 6, 2007
(
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/...
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage:
Well, indeed. I think we probably didn't get off to the
right foot in the Cold War. But, you know, we did apply smart power.
And let me give you an example -- I was being facetious about the
Chou En-lai French Revolution comment. But one of the advisers to
Gorbachev was a fellow by the name of Yakovlev -- he's the fellow who
came up with the term perestroika.
He actually, back in the bad days of the Cold War, when we were
tightly constraining the number of Soviet citizens who might come here,
he actually studied at Columbia. And he studied under a professor who
taught him about pluralism.
And Yakovlev went back to the then-Soviet Union with an idea that pluralism could work.
And 20 years later, he was the adviser. So it took a while to realize that investment,
but we realized that investment.
I called this out as a real possibility 2 years ago! I actually think that Gorbachev was
just a naive fool and the real CIA agent was his top adviser, Yakovlev. Here is what I
wrote back then:
". . . after extensive research by the Prole Center research team, it
has come to light that Alexander Yakovlev, Gorbachev's chief advisor on glasnost
and perestroika, was very likely a CIA penetration agent – an agent of influence. He could
have been either a witting or unwitting asset of U.S. intelligence."
This information was included as part of a brief book review I did. Here is the link to
the full article:
I still cannot believe how many naive people live today in Russia. There are STILL plenty
of people who believe that gorbachev was just a "clumsy" person in charge of the "task too
big to handle".
I would like to remind you that even after 2 "sudden" deaths of Soviet
leaders ( Andropov and Chernenko ) before this traitor USSR was just in a period of
economic stagnation and certainly not a deep recession. Several independent prominent
western economists have also collaborated that.
What happened is just so obvious to me that it really cannot get any simpler.
Gorbachev was a very weak minded person who even wasnt a true believer in Soviet
principles and even less so even less capable manager and organizer. He was a bureaucrat
whos wife was terminally ill and who was just a simpleton who allowed himself to be
seduced by the western propaganda and few full stores even though he obviously knew
nothing of the background principles of how world economy functioned even then.
Apparently he was way out of his league when meeting with Reagan who was a smart brave
and a cunning man I do have to admit that.
Gorbachev did what he only knew he could do. He betrayed the 70 years or hard work of
Soviet people and building of different world because he thought that world will admire
this moron and traitor if he arranges the collapse of USSR and the "end of the Cold War".
Of course there is another side of this coin.
What the actually did was "below the table" arrangement with the US that he would be
able to send his wife to a treatment abroad if he made the USSR disappear and that he
would be obviously well compensated for this evil deed. Even today he is being funded by
the western government through his "charity funds" Green Cross and Gorbachev foundation.
This guy made the dissolution of USSR on purpose make no mistake about it. It was
organized to make it seem as it happened "accidentally" and as a part of "democratic
process" so less question would be asked. Apparently even that idiotic strategy worked
which seems rather incredible for a country that provided so many smart people and was a
leading chess nation for decades. Even Albania would be skeptical about it.
Of course there is a silver lining to this. He could not do this all by himself. He had
powerful friends in KGB and army who helped him in his deeds. Why? Because they were
greedy people who lost faith in CP. With the help of these people Gorbachev introduced
extremely vile version of capitalism to the 300 000 000 people while he and his "comrades"
extracted currency reserves from the sabotaged USSR and hid them in western banks and off
shore companies.
To corroborate my point I will point out few facts:
1. only when gorbachev came to power Chernobyl catastrophe happened
2. he is the person who sent top Soviet military commanders AND THEIR WHOLE FAMILIES to
move from East Germany to the PLAINS of Ukraine and live like dogs for months until their
poor quality appartements were finished while being given nothing in exchange from Helmut
Kohl but a "Danke schon". No sane 6 year old would do that and certainly not a reasonable
and intelligent but honest Soviet leader.
3. He was the person who forced the Energia rocket with Polyus payload to be rushed beyond
all reason and that is what caused its demised and failure to put first ever weapon system
into orbit.
4. He allowed for the Berlin wall to fall like a brick overnight and did nothing to stop
that
5. He DIRECTLY NEGLECTED results of referendum of Soviet people in 1991. who with 72% of
votes wanted to preserve USSR
6. He arranged for NATO not to move eastward ORALLY WITHOUT ANY KIND OF
AGREEMENT!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??! WHO DOES THIS!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?
BUAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
7. He himself made the USSR formally and willingly the thing of past in the end of 1991.
No one sane can believe that USSR dissolved itself in the time when there was no war
had a stable economy and strong army. This guy did it with the help of corrupt highly
positioned KGB and military personnel and of course CIA who helped them to transfer 50 000
000 000 US dollars ( 1991. value ) out of USSR for their own benefit.
To conclude: Gorbachev is a person of poor intellect, no love for Soviet or Russian
principles or state, but also a very sane traitor of USSR and Russia as well and also a
member of masonic clan who sold it for his personal interest. Just because he was playing
dumb doesnt mean he is not the biggest criminal in Soviet history. Make no mistake about
it. Even the dumbest person in Russia cannot believe that all this factors fell in place
"like chips". The probability for that is exactly 0 ( zero ).
Oh come on, this is not news. This was pretty evident. Initially he was not cooperating
with CIA. But CIA offered him something he couldn't resists. Nobel peace price, enormous
wealth, safe passage to US etc. Health care etc.
Wasn't Gorbachev from Russia's frontier lands (sometimes called Ukraine)? Not only that,
but from a place which joined the Nazis in their atrocities? I've also heard he took big
US money to step down. Bad source on that one though.
I disagree with this. Gorbachev had the right intentions. He just didn't bank on the
treachery of the wests big biz and various vested interests. Both Gorby and Reagan were
both honorable in their intentions and they did achieve much. To me it was Yeltsin who did
the utmost damage to Russia making it look like a 3rd world anarchic country as he allowed
Oligarchs to strip the countries assets.
It's difficult for me to believe that Gorbachev was simply a naive fool. Anyone
educated in Marxist theory know about the predatory nature of
capitalism/imperialism. Anyone, particularly a Soviet politician, who'd been
observing the behavior of the US after WW2 should have known that the Yanks are
masters of treachery.
This same words could be written by Gorbachov ' if he had known what a dreadful fate
awaited the USSR, he would not have written a single critical book or article about it." ,
I think Alexander Zinoviev also worked and even work for the CIA after his dead publishing
his books.
To me, Gorbachev is no traitor. He is a Russian patriot who honestly wanted to improve
Soviet Communism and adapt it to his time. Was he naïve? Yes, very much so. After all, he
started the stones rolling and should have known what could happen if other people got
their hands on them. He probably knew that if one takes one single stone from the
monolithic structure of communism the whole structure would collapse. So he just tried to
embellish some of the corner stones of communism without pulling them entirely out from
its structure, and called this 'perestroika' and 'glasnost'. Other people in his
government, oblivious of the danger of completely pulling corner stones from its
structure, didn't think embellishing stones in-situ was enough, and pulled them completely
from the structure, with the intend to put them back once the dust that had settled on
them over time had been thoroughly scratched off, with a wire brush. But by doing so the
corner stones changed their form and didn't fit anymore into the places they had been
taken from, communism. Thus, the Primal Sin was committed, and Soviet Communism collapsed.
And so did Roman Catholicism in Europe for similar reasons.
"... Ivan Nikitchuk, a Communist party deputy, said recent events and the Ukraine crisis in particular have led five MPs, including two from the ruling United Russia party, to ask the prosecutor general, Yury Chaika, to examine Gorbachev, 83. ..."
"... "The consequences of that destruction can be felt today in the conflicts that we have seen," said Nikitchuk. ..."
A group of Russian MPs have formally requested prosecutors to investigate former Soviet
leader Mikhail
Gorbachev for treason over the breakup of the Soviet Union, a lawmaker said on
Thursday.
Ivan Nikitchuk, a Communist party deputy, said recent events and the Ukraine crisis in particular have led five
MPs, including two from the ruling United Russia party, to ask the prosecutor general, Yury
Chaika, to examine Gorbachev, 83.
"We asked to prosecute him and those who helped him destroy the Soviet Union for treason of
national interests," said Nikitchuk, adding that Soviet citizens in 1991 were against the
country's breakup.
Seeking to create a more open and prosperous Soviet Union through glasnost and perestroika,
Gorbachev ended up unleashing forces that swept away the country he had sought to preserve and
himself from power.
"The consequences of that destruction can be felt today in the conflicts that we have seen,"
said Nikitchuk.
He added that this included not only Ukraine but other former Soviet countries over the past
two decades.
In February, a popular pro-Western uprising in Ukraine ousted pro-Moscow president Viktor
Yanukovych, who has since taken refuge in Russia .
The Kremlin responded by sending troops to Ukraine's Russian-speaking peninsula of Crimea
and annexing it as part of Russia last month.
"What is happening in Ukraine can happen in Russia, too," said Nikitchuk. "This pushed us to
write to the prosecutor general, so that professional lawyers rather than historians can
investigate the events of 1991."
He added that lawmakers were also concerned about internal enemies stirring unrest.
"The fifth column in our country has been formed and works in the open, funded by foreign
money," he said.
In a landmark speech marking Russia's takeover of Crimea, President Vladimir Putin called Russians
disagreeing with his policies, such as his decision to occupy Crimea, a fifth column.
There have been previous attempts by the Communist party to have Gorbachev prosecuted but
these have led nowhere.
Nikitchuk said he hoped that the current political climate makes for a more favourable
moment and that prosecutors would launch the investigation this time.
Unlike the previous cases, the current request is backed by lawmakers from the ruling party,
United Russia.
Gorbachev said the lawmakers' initiative was "poorly thought out and groundless from a
historical point of view".
"Such calls only show that some lawmakers want publicity," he told the Interfax news agency.
A spokeswoman at the prosecutor's office declined to comment.
The Soviet Union officially ceased to exist in December 1991 after Russia, Belarus and
Ukraine signed the Belavezha accords dissolving the USSR. Gorbachev resigned two weeks
later.
The Soviet Union did not disappear because of a great flood or a major earthquake. Somebody
was at the helm making decisions and setting a political course. Politicians should be
responsible for their actions. But do politicians alone bear responsibility?
In fact, Gorbachev's problem is inseparably linked with the unstated problem of the low
self-esteem and rationalization of the millions of people who lived through the drama of 1991.
Some justify Gorbachev's actions in an attempt to justify their own complicity in events. For
the same reasons, others try to shift blame from themselves by holding Gorbachev solely
responsible. "He ruined everything," they say. "We are not to blame."
Unfortunately, the Soviet people bear responsibility for what happened to their country.
That does not lift responsibility from any one individual, even if that person was part of the
leadership -- those whom we naturally call on the carpet first for anything that happens. We
the people are to blame for not mounting any resistance to that course of action, or at least
for not fighting it hard enough.
In truth, the only people with the moral right to criticize Gorbachev today are the ones who
had the courage in the 1980s and 1990s to point out how destructive his policies were, to go
against the flow, and to condemn the path followed not only by Gorbachev, but also by his main
political rival, former President Boris Yeltsin.
Gorbachev's rule contrasts favorably with the leaders who came both before and after him,
and he is not remembered for having committed any particularly egregious wrongdoings. According
to that thinking, Gorbachev did not "destroy" the Soviet Union, he "only" betrayed the country
he led.
Gorbachev took office with a pledge to serve and defend the state. He cannot be blamed for
the fact that a catastrophe that had been brewing for two decades erupted during his reign. But
as the captain, he was obligated to "go down with the ship" and share the same political fate
as the country he governed. The problem is not that Gorbachev could have prevented the collapse
and didn't -- he couldn't have under any circumstances -- but that when the troubles came, he
snuck away from the battlefield and went home to have dinner.
The people might sometimes excuse or even justify the deeds of malefactors, but it never
forgives a traitor.
Boris Kagarlitsky is the director of the Institute of Globalization
Studies.
But by his death in 1997, Deng's decision appeared vindicated, as world opinion had turned
decisively in his favor. Deng had seen enough of Russia's tumultuous politics to know where he
stood: sacrifice political liberalization for stability's sake, because the alternative was
chaos and collapse. Chinese analysts of Soviet politics continue to fault Gorbachev for
abandoning central planning too rapidly and in a disorganized fashion. Rather than liberalizing
politics, they argue, Gorbachev should have focused on the economy.
Today, top Chinese leaders cite the Soviet Union as an example of why China's Communist
Party must keep its fist clenched on power, even as it casts off the last remaining vestiges of
the Maoist economy. Jiang Zemin, who succeeded Deng as China's leader, argued in 1990 that
the Soviet Union's main problem was that Gorbachev was a traitor like Leon Trotsky, the Soviet
revolutionary who was found guilty of betraying Marxism-Leninism by then-leader Joseph
Stalin.
That was an ironic charge coming from the official who first formally welcomed China's
business classes into the supposedly communist ruling party. Yet in December 2012, Chinese
President Xi Jinping echoed this analysis. "Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate?" he
asked
a group of Communist Party members. "Their ideals and convictions wavered," he explained.
"Finally, all it took was one quiet word from Gorbachev to declare the dissolution of the
Soviet Communist Party, and a great party was gone." Yet it is Deng's logic that has come to
dominate most interpretations of the Soviet Union's collapse. "My father,"
reported Deng's youngest son, "thinks Gorbachev is an idiot."
In Russia, many agree. Russians regularly rate Gorbachev as one of their worst leaders of
the 20th century. A 2013 poll
found that only 22 percent of Russians perceive Gorbachev positively or slightly
positively, while 66 percent have a negative impression. By contrast, Leonid Brezhnev, who
presided over two decades of stagnation, is viewed positively by 56 percent of Russians. Even
Stalin, who managed a murderous reign of terror, gets positive marks from half of Russians. It
is not surprising, then, that Deng's reputation in Russia has risen. Many Russians see China as
a model of what their country should have done during the 1980s and 1990s. Liberal politics
cause chaos and economic distress, many Russians have concluded, and only a strong hand can
deliver economic growth.
... ... ...
... Deng managed to compromise with other elites, letting them retain their authority in
exchange for their support in pursuing economic reforms that allowed China to grow. But in the
Soviet Union, economic reform meant destroying the power base of the special interest groups,
leaving a potential military coup lurking in the background and hanging over Gorbachev's head.
That was a threat Deng never faced.
The reason why Gorbachev lost out is not because the Soviet economy was unreformable.
China's example proved that the transition from a centrally planned to a market economy was
possible. Rather, the Soviet Union collapsed because vast political power was entrusted to
groups that had every reason to sabotage the efforts to resolve the country's decades-long
financial dilemmas.
In the end, the political clout of these interest groups proved far greater than Gorbachev
anticipated. In his quest to reform his country and steer it away from calamity, Gorbachev
brought about the very process that would eventually lead to the Soviet Union's collapse.
Perestroika put the final nails in the USSR's economy One of the first main policies
Gorbachev adopted was Perestroika – reform of the economy. Hoarding and reciprocal
favours (blat) had been a means of survival in the Soviet Union, thieving to 'moonlight' was
also common and this cost the regime a lot. The 'command-administrative' system had become
obsolete in the Post-Industrial era and was curtailing economic development 1. To solve this,
Gorbachev wanted to give enterprise managers control over contracts and introduce aspects of
the market economy, to make it managers' responsibility to gain contracts and to make sure the
enterprise makes a profit. However, in practice the way the enterprises operated remained
unchanged except in terms – ministries rephrased their commands as contracts 2. Private
enterprise was also permitted, which seemed to contradict Gorbachev's claim to be committed to
Marxist-Leninist thought which was vehemently opposed to capitalism which Marxist's argue
exploit the proleteriat – so to actually create a class of capitalists who (according to
Marxist doctrine) would exploit the workers who were supposed to be living in socialist –
i.e. 'classless society' seemed contradictory to the very ideological concept the regime's
power was based upon. A small amount of private enterprise emerged, but the profiteering was
very much resented by the general population – goods and services were sold for four or
five times their subsidized price due to shortages. Another aspect of Perestroika was entry
into the market economy – many of the social benefits given by the enterprises had to be
done away with, as they could not make a profit and afford to maintain the benefits, resulting
in a stagnant economy occuring simultaneously with a collapsing social welfare system.
Gorbachev's reforms did not work and only succeeded in hastening the economic collapse that was
inevitable.
1 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
2 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992 Yes because...
Glasnost facilitated Opposition to Concentrate against the Regime Allowing freedom of
thought from the 'mono-ideological controls' that existed for decades and allowing pluralist
thought and leadership meant a weakening of power for the Communist Party – it had to
convert into a proper parliamentary party to survive. Furthermore, in a regime based on
oppression and propaganda, when these are removed and freedom of speech and freedom of the
media are introduced, nasty elements about the system in the past are going to be revealed, and
when there is 70 years of repression being reported all at once, it is inevitable there will be
extreme hostility toward those responsible – the Party 1, this especially fuelled the
anger of the nationalities who had been oppressed and triggered a nationalist movement.
The population were dissatisfied with the dire state of affairs and could voice their
discontent openly with glasnost, which led to Gorbachev becoming very unpopular by 1991, in
which year the economy had contracted by 18% 2, people were also very concerned over the
incompetence of the command-administrative system and irresponsibility of the leadership with
regards to the 1986 Chernobyl power station disaster 3.
In a state committed to one ideology, the removal of mono-ideological controls, and the
ability of other ideological persuasions to come to power meant the Party had lost its RIGHT to
govern the people unless the people themselves WANTED the Party to rule. Thus, the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) had to win the support of the people in order to govern
effectively. However, in a society that was becoming increasingly liberal and 'bourgeois' (the
USSR was largely middle class, private property was protected and capitalism was legalised),
the people had to believe in socialist ideology – which would have been almost impossible
to achieve.
Gorbachev's reforms themselves undermined some of the principle features of socialist rule
in the USSR, e.g. atheism, mono-ideological control, one-party state, economic monopoly and the
suspendability of law. Gorbachev's ideology itself – his focus on 'all-human values'
instead of the class struggle, the rule of law, international peace and proper parliamentary
representation have more resonance with John Stuart Mill than Karl Marx 4 – Gorbachev was
subconsciously moving the USSR in this ideological direction.
With democratization and pluralist thought permitted, Gorbachev found himself operating
within an increasingly wide political spectrum – with the reformist 'democrats' on one
side and the conservative Communist Party members on the other. There was a constant power
struggle between the two and Gorbachev dealt with this by constantly playing one side against
the other and compromising. One of Gorbachev's critics at the time said this was like trying to
marry a hare to a hedgehog. The two sides were very much irreconcilable and instead of trying
to defeat one side, Gorbachev sat on the fence and as a result his policies were constantly
inconsistent – you cannot mix radical reforms with conservatism 5. The dangers of this
were apparent when Shevardnadze, Foreign Minister at the time, resigned because he warned a
dictatorship was approaching, Gorbachev ignored this threat and dismissed this claim with
overconfidence 6.
1 Kagarlitsky, B. Russia under Yeltsin and Putin: neo-liberal autocracy, London: Pluto
2002
2 Service, R. History of Modern Russia: from Nicholas II to Putin, London: Penguin 1997
3 Haynes, M., Russia: Class and Power, 1917-2000, London: Bookmarks 2002
4 Service, R. History of Modern Russia: from Nicholas II to Putin, London: Penguin 1997
5 Sheehy, G. The Man who changed the World, New York: HarperCollins 1991
6 Sheehy, G. The Man who changed the World, New York: HarperCollins 1991 No because...
Regional Nationalism and Independence Movements These original flaws in the system were
largely responsible for its own downfall – in particular the nationalities issue –
the decision to maintain the Empire without granting real power to the nationalities whilst
simultaneously repressing them left most of the nationalities feeling bitter when glasnost
revealed the truth about how they had been treated in the past and democratisation gave them
the power to chose representatives who would really represent people's interests (the
nationalist movement) whilst at the same time being given by Gorbachev an appetite for power
– a fatal combination.
The wealthier regions wanted a separation from the USSR because of the feeling they were
being milked from the centre and many other regions wanted to become independent because they
did not want to be part of an economic disaster area which became apparent when the Donbass
miners who had no commitment to nationalism thought their future would be safer if the Ukraine
wasn't part of the USSR 1.
The nationalist movement emerged when freedom of speech, media and association along with
democratisation and the loss of fear of repression allowed people to voice pride in their
nation and resentment at past repressions as well as the ongoing special treatment of Russians
in the Regions, who had access to better housing and other special privileges the locals did
not.
Certain Republics felt nationalism more strongly than others, most notably the Baltic States
who felt a strong cultural attachment to the West and felt they were being unfairly occupied.
Gorbachev's mistake here was to downplay the importance of nationalism and not treat the Baltic
States as a special case 2. After all, most of the population of the USSR wished to preserve
the Union – 76% voted to preserve the Union in March 1991 (except the Baltic States,
Moldova, Georgia and Armenia who did not conduct the referendum) 3. After the failed coup, most
states declared their independence, even if they did so with reluctance, as there was a general
feeling there was no alternative. Gorbachev tried to persuade the Republics not to become fully
independent. However, in early December, the Ukraine held a referendum where the population
voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence, even after Gorbachev stated "there can be no
Union without Ukraine", on 8th December, Yeltsin met with the Ukrainian and Bielorussian leader
and declared a formal end to the USSR and the establishment of the Confederation of Independent
States which they invited the other states to join.
There was nothing left Gorbachev could do, democratisation had brought about the means for
independence and Gorbachev didn't feel he could argue with people's wishes carried out through
democratic means and, on 25th December he resigned with regret.
1 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
2 Brown, A. The Gorbachev Factor, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996
3 Brown, A. The Gorbachev Factor, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996 Yeltsin Factor
Boris Yeltsin emerged as the true hero and strong leader for the fearlessness to condemn the
coup – in a press conference afterwards Yeltsin ordered Gorbachev around undermining his
position, then used his institutional powers derived from democratization to appoint Egor
Gaidar, an economist dedicated to laissez-faire economics, as his Finance Minister and
suspension of the CPSU pending an investigation into the coup. Gorbachev half heartedly argued
against this but it was no use – he was seen as a weaker leader along with discontent
over his policies, whilst Yeltsin's radicalism was keeping pace with developments and his
popularity at an all-time high, Gorbachev's position was also much less weaker without the
Communist Party. Also, the Soviet Union really could not exist without the Communist Party
arguably as they had political and economic monopoly on society and the Communist Party went
from controlling these aspects of society to ceasing to exist, the Soviet Union could not
function and the economy spiralled out of control. Yes because...
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... August 1991 Coup
Counter Productive, Bringing About What It Sought To Prevent - The End of the Soviet Union
By August 1991 Gorbachev's popularity was at an all-time low both in the Party and outside it.
Despite being advised by some of his staff to sign the Treaty agreement granting the republics
real autonomy before going on holiday and some suspicious circumstances he should have been
more questioning about, he planned on signing the agreement when he returned. This was a big
mistake and allowed the conservatives to stage a coup. The Emergency Committee made no
reference whatsoever to Marxism-Leninism or the class struggle in their speech, meaning it was
a coup in the hope of returning the Soviet Union to 'normal' i.e. an Empire controlled from
Moscow and putting the final nails in the coffin of socialism in the USSR 1.
The failed coup triggered the very thing it sought to prevent – the break-up of the
Soviet Union 2.
1 Hosking, Geoffrey, History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
2 Hosking, Geoffrey, History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
Yes because... Report this ad
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... The System Needed to
Change in Order to Survive in the Longer Term; That Mikhail Gorbachev's Reforms Failed Showed
that the USSR Could Not be Saved By the Gorbachev era, all hopes of fulfilling the original
Marxist-Leninist dream were gone and most did not feel passionately about communism, even
within the Party. There was a general acknowledgement that the USSR could not continue in the
same way as before – Andropov, Gorbachev's predecessor also realised this and set about
changing society through repressive measures such as harsh labour discipline enforced by
cutting payments from workers for work deemed poor quality and restrictions on the sale of
alcohol and prohibition of alcohol on official occasions was felt overly repressive and for
many – Gorbachev was seen as a positive, energetic leader who would overcome the USSR's
problems in a less repressive manner. With economic stagnation and an economy dependent on the
exportation of natural resources to survive 1, an unsuccessful war (Afghanistan) and an ageing
Party Membership to combat, Gorbachev was the candidate for those who wanted change or at least
realised change could no longer be postponed 2.
Autocracies survive due to repressing their people to the extent that they are not given the
freedoms required to change their government, rather than because the people want them to stay
in power. Mikhail Gorbachev's conscience and sense of responsibility for his population
dictated that the system could no longer be propped up like this, and that the people needed
and deserved the freedoms and basic human rights they had been denied for decades. That the
system could not encorporate such freedoms meant that the system morally should not be allowed
to perpetuate itself, and thus the Soviet Union fell apart because it was unrepresentative and
did not support the population's human rights means the fall of the USSR should be applauded,
not mourned for its' population.
1 Volkogonov, D.A. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire: political leaders from Lenin to
Gorbachev, edited and translated by M. Shukman, London: HarperCollins 1998
2 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992 Yes because...
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... War with Afghanistan
Drained USSR of Patriotic Morale The war in Afghanistan was a key contributing factor to
the breakup of the USSR. Reuveny and Prakash argue that the Soviet-Afghan war contributed to
undermining the Soviet Union in many ways. First, it discredited the Red Army, and impacted
negatively upon the image of the Red Army as a strong, almost invincible force, which gave
nationalist movements in the Republics hope that they might succeed in attaining independence
after all. Second, it impacted upon leadership perception on the usefulness of utilising the
military to keep the union intact and as a force for foreign intervention. Third, it created
new forms of political participation, which had begun to impact upon media reporting even
before glasnost, and began the first calls for glasnost, as it created a number of war
veterans, who went on to form organisations which weakened the total authority of the CPSU
1.
1 Reuveny, Rafael, and Prakash, Aseem, 'The Afghanistan War and the Breakdown of the Soviet
Union', Review of International Studies (1999), 25:693-708 Yes because... Report this ad
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... It was dead from the
time Stalin took control Gorbachev finished it off, but Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev etc.
really killed it. Lenin had nothing to do with that, he was a socialist-marxist, not a
communist. You obviously don't know the difference. Learn it before you blindly yell your
opinion into the dark of the internet.
Joe Venetos ,
history, European Union and politics, int'l relations
Answered Aug 22 2017 · Author has 485 answers and 325k answer views
Neither.
The USSR as it was was not sustainable, and the writing was all over the wall.
The reason it wasn't sustainable, however, is widely misunderstood.
The Soviet Union could have switched to a market or hybrid economy and still remained a
unified state. However, it was made up of 15 very different essentially nation-states from
Estonia to Uzbekistan, and separatist movements were tearing the Union apart.
Unlike other multi-national European empires that met their day earlier in the 20th century,
such as the British, French, Portuguese, Austro-Hungarian, or Ottoman Empires, the Russian
Empi...
The USSR as it was was not sustainable, and the writing was all over the wall.
The reason it wasn't sustainable, however, is widely misunderstood.
The Soviet Union could have switched to a market or hybrid economy and still remained a
unified state. However, it was made up of 15 very different essentially nation-states from
Estonia to Uzbekistan, and separatist movements were tearing the Union apart.
Unlike other multi-national European empires that met their day earlier in the 20th century,
such as the British, French, Portuguese, Austro-Hungarian, or Ottoman Empires, the Russian
Empire never had the chance to disband; the can was simply kicked down the road by the
Bolshevik revolution and the Soviet era. Restrictions on free speech and press, followed by a
gradual economic downturn that began in the 1970s, brewed anti-Union and separatist sentiments
among sizeable sections of society. It's important to note, however, that not everyone wanted
the disband the USSR, and not everyone in the Russian republic wanted to keep it together (the
Central Asian states were the most reluctant to secede). There was, actually, a referendum on
whether or not to keep the Union together, and a slight majority voted in favor (something
Gorbachev points out to this day), but the vote was also boycotted by quite a few people,
especially in the Baltic republics. So, we know that the citizens had mixed feelings and the
reasons for the USSR's end were far more complex than just "communism failed".
By the summer of 1991, there was nothing Gorbachev could do. The hardliners saw him as
incompetent to save the Union, but too many citizens and military personnel had defected to the
politicians of the constituent republics (rather than the Union's leadership), including Russia
itself, that were increasingly pursuing their independence since the first multiparty elections
across the Union in 1989. By December 1991, Union-level political bodies agreed to
disband. So, Gorbachev had no choice but to admit that the USSR no longer existed.
Gorbachev could have ruled with an iron fist, and he could have done so from the 1985
without ever implementing glasnost and perestroika, but that could have been a disaster.
We don't really know, actually, but in my opinion, an oligarchy -which is what the USSR
was in its later years, not an authoritarian state like it was under Stalin- still needs
some level of public consent to continue governing, like China (which is also a diverse
society, but far more homogenous than the USSR was). If you have all this economic and
separatist malaise brewing, it's not going to work out.
In the long run, Russia is much better off. They now have a state where ethnic
Russians make up 80% of the population (a good balance), from what was, I think 50% in the
USSR.
While some Russians regret that the USSR ended, others don't care or were ready to call
themselves "Russian" rather than "Soviet". It's no different to French public opinion turning
against the Algerian war in the 1960s and supporting Algerian independence, or British public
opinion starting to support the independence of India yet some people from those countries, may
look back fondly. Also, Russia went through a tough economic period in the 1990s, which
strengthened Soviet nostalgia, understandably, thinking back to a time when the state
guaranteed everyone with housing and a job. While some sentiments still exist today in
the Russian Federation that may appear pro-Soviet, it's important to point out that that
doesn't necessarily mean these folks would like to recreate the Soviet Union as it
was . Many just simply miss the heaftier influence the USSR had, versus what they perceive
to be weakness or disrespect for Russia today. The communist party today gets few votes in
Russian elections; and many Russians now were not adults prior to 1991, and thus don't quite
remember the era too well; many others may be old enough to remember the economic downturn of
the 80s, and not the economic good times of the 60s.
One final point, regarding Gorbachev being a "stooge of the West": that gives far too
much credit to America under Reagan for taking down the USSR. The "West" had nothing to do with
it. In the longer run, as we may be seeing slowly unravel since the Bush Jr administration,
America pretty much screwed itself with the massive military spending that started in the 80s
and continues upward, with supporting the mujahedeen to lure the USSR into Afghanistan in 1979
(a war that lasted until 1989), with opposing any secular regime in the Middle East
friendly to Moscow in the 70s and 80s, and so on we all know how these events started playing
out for the US much later, from 9/11 to the current Trump mess.
At the 19th Party Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, President Xi (31 October 2019)
reiterated the imperative of "Upholding the centralized and unified leadership of the CPC."
Why does Xi insist on this point as #1 item on the party's agenda of items?
Let's make a comparison. In 1956, Khrushchev denounced Stalin as a "dictator" and of
using the party as a sort of church for the worship of his own "personality cult." This was
nonsense of course and Mao said so formally in 1963, but it was music to the ears of the
capitalist powers, in the lead the US .
Kruscev then decided to liberalize the "Stalinist party"--which was more music to the
ears of the capitalist "Free West." He said, since the class struggle in in the USSR was
over, there were no class enemies, and everyone could join the party. Opportunist did;
corrupt greedy people did, until at last in 1989 it was top heavy with members of the
shadow economy--managers of factories, mines, industries of all sorts who had over 3
decades accumulated undeclared private wealth from leeching from the the public wealth. The
party had become a club of "entrepreneurs" (thieves) whose best bet for investments of
their ill-gotten accumulation of wealth was the restoration of capitalism.
There was much more damage to the party than I can synthesize in a post, but this small
bit will do. The party was infiltrated by opportunists of the worst greed. And its
integrity, authority, ability to plan the economy according to scientific Marxist Lenininst
wisdom and principles died.
Now the US and the Cia had long ago figured that if the integrity of party could be
disintegrated the USSR would collapse. And so it did.
The CPC has no intention of China collapsing and falling once again into the avid hands
of Western imperialism, which wages capitalist.imperialist class war on China. So, China
would never dream of declaring the class struggle over for China.
Its constitution states that China will remain a class society for a long time. Not only
because it depends for the creation of wealth on a loyal national, anti-imperialist
bourgeoisie but also because China is threatened by imperialism, which is also a class war
Khrushchev ignored, calling for "peaceful coexistence" with imperialism, since both USSR
and the imperialists supposedly shared the goal of peace under the nuclear cloud.
The man was a scoundrel and destroyed the power of the Communist Party, paving the way
to the restoration of capitalism.
This is the difference between the Soviet Union post-1956 and China. Mao was not
cleansed out of the party and consigned to the lower depths of Hell like Stalin. Whatever
his mistakes, he was treated as a comrade not an enemy, his contribution acknowledged, his
deficits also--unlike Stalin. Furthermore, his revolutionary contribution to the founding
and survival of the People's Republic of China was enshrined in the party's memory. His
picture is on the currency. He is loved and respected. The party was not stressed, purged,
or divided by making Mao an issue of allegiance.
Finally, by recognizing the contribution of the loyal bourgeoisie to a self-sufficient,
independent China, the CPC acknowledges that China is still a class society. No second
economy, operating in the shadow for China. The private sector exists and is regulated (and
lately bought up gradually by the state). No chance for a clutch of opportunists to
accumulate more combined wealth than the state's and so able to take over the state and
exact regime change.
This is why Xi specifically demands and requires a strong, centralized, integral, and
uncorrupt Communist party. The party is the insurance for the persistence of the path to
socialism and eventually communism for China. No party, no sovereign, imperialism-free
China
And in this determination of making the CPC the pillar of China's social and economic
progress for all the people, Xi is acting as a Leninist. The party is for the people and
the people for the party. They are one. Without a revolutionary party and a revolutionary
theory (in China "scientific and Marxist) the revolution would die. A it did in the Soviet
Union, starting with the Kruscev gambit.
This for the West is "authoritarianism," though the West is ruled by a clutch of
authoritarian economic elites who make all the decisions in their own interests. But they
call tit "democracy." At least in China, if anything, it's an "authoritarianism" for and by
the people--a bit closer to democracy, I should argue.
Nemesiscalling 15
Right you are. The Anti-Russia hype has been going on for a while but had a bit of a hiatus
during King (W) Shrub II. Both parties worked to destroy the Russian economy during the
80s/90s with the Chicago/Harvard boys gutting it completely while enriching themselves. It
accelerated under Obama while they presented us with the "Reset" switch. Apparently the
Russians didn't play along so they became the bogeyman that gets inflated as time goes on.
Trump tried but got dragged down in the process.
As to a US split, I live in the south. So I've wondered if California (for example) tried
to leave if a US President would pull a Lincoln and destroy the state ... in order to save
it.
Andrew Bacevich
describes how the U.S. learned all the wrong lessons from the fall of the Berlin Wall and
the end of the Cold War:
You won't hear it from any of the candidates vying to succeed Trump, but we are still
haunted by our false conception of the Cold War. On the stump, politicians get away with
reciting comforting clichés about the imperative of American global leadership. Yet
the time for believing such malarkey is long gone.
An essential first step toward recoupling national security policy and reason is to see
the Cold War for what it was: not a "long, twilight struggle" ending in victory, but a vast
and costly tragedy that inflicted needless suffering, brought humankind absurdly close to
extinction, and from which U.S. policymakers have drawn all the wrong lessons.
The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall offers an occasion not for celebration but
for somber and long overdue reflection.
One of the wrong lessons that U.S. policymakers drew from the events of 1989-1991 was that
the U.S. was chiefly responsible for ending and "winning" the Cold War, which inevitably
overestimated our government's capabilities and effectiveness in affecting the political
fortunes of other parts of the world. The far more critical and important role of the peoples
of central and eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself in overthrowing the system that had
oppressed them was pushed into the background as much as possible. The U.S. took credit for
their success and policymakers frequently attributed the outcome to the policies of the late
Cold War rather than to the deficiencies and failings of the other system. After waging
stalemated and failed wars in the name of anticommunism, U.S. policymakers wanted to be able to
claim that they had "won" something, and so they declared victory for something that they
hadn't caused.
The period that followed the dissolution of the USSR was one of triumphalism, expansion, and
overreach. The U.S. not only congratulated itself for achieving something that was accomplished
by others, but it also assumed that it could achieve similar results in other parts of the
world. If NATO had been a great success as a defensive alliance, the "thinking" went, why
shouldn't it continue and expand to include many more countries? If the U.S. was supposedly
able to bring down the Soviet Union, why shouldn't it do the same to authoritarian regimes
elsewhere? Absent the check on ambition and hubris that a superpower rival provided, the U.S.
was free to run amok and do whatever it liked without regard for the consequences. That
triumphalism sowed the seeds for many of the more significant post-Cold War failures that we
have witnessed since then. Even today, that same overconfidence encourages U.S. policymakers to
flirt with the idea of engaging in another Cold War-style rivalry with a more formidable state
in China.
George Kennan presciently warned
against the triumphalism that he saw around him as early as 1992. At that time, he was
responding directly to the claims from Republicans that Reagan and his policies had "won" the
Cold War:
The suggestion that any American administration had the power to influence decisively the
course of a tremendous domestic-political upheaval in another great country on another side
of the globe is intrinsically silly and childish. No great country has that sort of influence
on the internal developments of any other one.
Kennan went on to say that the militarization of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War was
a boon to Soviet hard-liners and in that way helped prolong it:
The extreme militarization of American discussion and policy, as promoted by hard-line
circles over the ensuing 25 years, consistently strengthened comparable hard-liners in the
Soviet Union.
The more America's political leaders were seen in Moscow as committed to an ultimate
military rather than political resolution of Soviet-American tensions, the greater was the
tendency in Moscow to tighten the controls by both party and police, and the greater the
braking effect on all liberalizing tendencies in the regime. Thus the general effect of cold
war extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union
at the end of the 1980's.
Whenever hawks talk about "winning" the Cold War, they invariably mean that it was the
militarized policies they favored that carried the day, but Kennan reminded us that this was
not so. In fact, a militarized foreign policy perpetuated the struggle by providing Soviet
hard-liners with a plausible foreign threat that they could use to justify their own policies
and to clamp down on internal dissent. We have seen the same thing repeated several times in
the last thirty years on a smaller scale with other governments. The most aggressive and
confrontational policies unwittingly aid authoritarian regimes by giving them an external enemy
that they can use to deflect attention from their own failings and as a pretext for the
consolidation of power at home.
Kennan was already telling us shortly after the Cold War ended that no one had "won" it:
Nobody -- no country, no party, no person -- "won" the cold war. It was a long and costly
political rivalry, fueled on both sides by unreal and exaggerated estimates of the intentions
and strength of the other party [bold mine-DL]. It greatly overstrained the economic
resources of both countries, leaving both, by the end of the 1980's, confronted with heavy
financial, social and, in the case of the Russians, political problems that neither had
anticipated and for which neither was fully prepared.
We can all be grateful that the Cold War ended, but we shouldn't delude ourselves with talk
of victory. Not only is it inaccurate, but it encourages the worst kinds of overreach and
arrogance that has led to several serious foreign policy failures in the decades that have
followed. Kennan warned us almost thirty years ago not to go down this path of triumphalism,
and as so often happened Americans ignored Kennan's wisdom.
Kennan concluded with the same idea that Bacevich stated at the end of his op-ed:
That the conflict should now be formally ended is a fit occasion for satisfaction but also
for sober re-examination of the part we took in its origin and long continuation. It is not a
fit occasion for pretending that the end of it was a great triumph for anyone, and
particularly not one for which any American political party could properly claim principal
credit.
American policymakers are not known for sober re-examination and acknowledgment of error,
but these are exactly the things that are needed if we are to stop making the same blunders and
learning the wrong lessons from the past. Kennan and Bacevich's advice is just as timely and
important today as it was twenty-seven years ago. Perhaps this time we should pay attention and
listen to it.
"... The brother of the current Chilean president, scions of one of the richest families in Chile, became famous for introducing, as Minister of Labor and Social Security under Pinochet, a funded system of pensions where employees make compulsory contributions from their wages into one of several pension funds, and after retirement receive pensions based on investment performance of such funds. Old-age pensions thus became a part of roulette capitalism. But In the process, the pension funds, charging often exorbitant fees, and their managers became rich. ..."
"... José Piñera had tried to "sell" this model to Yeltsin's Russia and to George Bush's United States, but, despite the strong (and quite understandable) support of the financial communities in both countries, he failed. Nowadays, most Chilean pensioners receive $200-$300 per month in a country whose price level (according to International Comparison Project, a worldwide UN- and World Bank-led project to compare price levels around the world) is about 80% of that of the United States. ..."
"... the combined wealth of Chilean billionaires' (there were twelve of them) was equal to 25% of Chilean GDP. The next Latin American countries with highest wealth concentrations are Mexico and Peru where the wealth share of billionaires is about half (13 percent of GDP) of Chile's. But even better: Chile is the country where billionaires' share, in terms of GDP, is the highest in the world (if we exclude countries like Lebanon and Cyprus) where many foreign billionaires simply "park" their wealth for tax reasons. The wealth of Chile's billionaires, compared to their country's GDP, exceeds even that of Russians. [Graph] ..."
"... Such extraordinary inequality of wealth and income, combined with full marketization of many social services (water, electricity etc.), and pensions that depend on the vagaries of the stock market has long been "hidden" from foreign observers by Chile's success in raising its GDP per capita. ..."
"... if there Is no social justice and minimum of social cohesion, the effects of growth will dissolve in grief, demonstrations, and yes, in the shooting of people. ..."
Chile: The poster boy of neoliberalism who fell from grace
It is not common for an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development county to
shoot and kill 16 people in two days of socially motivated riots. (Perhaps only Turkey, in
its unending wars against the Kurdish guerrilla, comes close to that level of violence.) This
is however what Chilean government, the poster child of neoliberalism and transition to
democracy, did last week in the beginning of protests that do not show the signs of subsiding
despite cosmetic reforms proposed by President Sebastian Piñera.
The fall from grace of Chile is symptomatic of worldwide trends that reveal the damages
causes by neoliberal policies over the past thirty years, from privatizations in Eastern
Europe and Russia to the global financial crisis to the Euro-related austerity. Chile was
held, not the least thanks to favorable press that it enjoyed, as a exemplar of success.
Harsh policies introduced after the overthrow of Salvador Allende in 1973, and the murderous
spree that ensued afterwards, have been softened by the transition to democracy but their
essential features were preserved. Chile indeed had a remarkably good record of growth, and
while in the 1960-70s it was in the middle of the Latin American league by GDP per capita, it
is now the richest Latin American country. It was of course helped too by high prices for its
main export commodity, copper, but the success in growth is incontestable. Chile was
"rewarded" by the membership in the OECD, a club of the rich nations, the first South
American country to accede to it.
Where the country failed is in its social policies which somewhat bizarrely were
considered by many to have been successful too. In the 1980s-90s, the World Bank hailed
Chilean "flexible" labor policies which consisted of breaking up the unions and imposing a
model of branch-level negotiations between employers and workers rather than allowing an
overall umbrella union organization to negotiate for all workers. It was even more bizarrely
used by the World Bank as a model of transparency and good governance, something that the
transition countries in Eastern Europe should have presumably copied from Chile. The
brother of the current Chilean president, scions of one of the richest families in Chile,
became famous for introducing, as Minister of Labor and Social Security under Pinochet, a
funded system of pensions where employees make compulsory contributions from their wages into
one of several pension funds, and after retirement receive pensions based on investment
performance of such funds. Old-age pensions thus became a part of roulette capitalism. But In
the process, the pension funds, charging often exorbitant fees, and their managers became
rich.
José Piñera had tried to "sell" this model to Yeltsin's Russia and to
George Bush's United States, but, despite the strong (and quite understandable) support of
the financial communities in both countries, he failed. Nowadays, most Chilean pensioners
receive $200-$300 per month in a country whose price level (according to International
Comparison Project, a worldwide UN- and World Bank-led project to compare price levels around
the world) is about 80% of that of the United States.
While Chile leads Latin America in GDP per capita, it also leads it terms of inequality.
In 2015, its level of income inequality was higher than in any other Latin American country
except for Colombia and Honduras. It exceeded even Brazil's proverbially high inequality. The
bottom 5% of the Chilean population have an income level that is about the same as that of
the bottom 5% in Mongolia. The top 2% enjoy the income level equivalent to that of the top 2%
in Germany. Dortmund and poor suburbs of Ulan Bataar were thus brought together.
Chilean income distribution is extremely unequal. But even more so is its wealth
distribution. There, Chile is an outlier even compared to the rest of Latin America.
According to the Forbes' 2014 data on world billionaires, the combined wealth of Chilean
billionaires' (there were twelve of them) was equal to 25% of Chilean GDP. The next Latin
American countries with highest wealth concentrations are Mexico and Peru where the wealth
share of billionaires is about half (13 percent of GDP) of Chile's. But even better: Chile is
the country where billionaires' share, in terms of GDP, is the highest in the world (if we
exclude countries like Lebanon and Cyprus) where many foreign billionaires simply "park"
their wealth for tax reasons. The wealth of Chile's billionaires, compared to their country's
GDP, exceeds even that of Russians.
[Graph]
Such extraordinary inequality of wealth and income, combined with full marketization of
many social services (water, electricity etc.), and pensions that depend on the vagaries of
the stock market has long been "hidden" from foreign observers by Chile's success in raising
its GDP per capita.
But the recent protests show that the latter is not enough. Growth is
indispensable for economic success and reduction in poverty. But it is not enough: if there
Is no social justice and minimum of social cohesion, the effects of growth will dissolve in
grief, demonstrations, and yes, in the shooting of people.
Japan has a shrinking population. Can you explain to me why on the Earth they need
economic growth?
This preoccupation with "growth" (with narrow and false one dimensional and very
questionable measurements via GDP, which includes the FIRE sector) is a fallacy promoted by
neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism proved to be quite sophisticated religions with its own set of True
Believers in Eric Hoffer's terminology.
A lot of current economic statistics suffer from "mathiness".
For example, the narrow definition of unemployment used in U3 is just a classic example of
pseudoscience in full bloom. It can be mentioned only if U6 mentioned first. Otherwise, this
is another "opium for the people" ;-) An attempt to hide the real situation in the neoliberal
"job market" in which has sustained real unemployment rate is always over 10% and which has a
disappearing pool of well-paying middle-class jobs. Which produced current narco-epidemics
(in 2018, 1400 people were shot in half a year in Chicago (
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-weekend-shooting-violence-20180709-story.html
); imagine that). While I doubt that people will hang Pelosi on the street post, her
successor might not be so lucky ;-)
Everything is fake in the current neoliberal discourse, be it political or economic, and
it is not that easy to understand how they are deceiving us. Lies that are so sophisticated
that often it is impossible to tell they are actually lies, not facts. The whole neoliberal
society is just big an Empire of Illusions, the kingdom of lies and distortions.
I would call it a new type of theocratic state if you wish.
And probably only one in ten, if not one in a hundred economists deserve to be called
scientists. Most are charlatans pushing fake papers on useless conferences.
It is simply amazing that the neoliberal society, which is based on "universal deception,"
can exist for so long.
"... As for the USSR, the Soviet elite changed sides. I think Putin once said that Soviet system was "unviable" to begin with. And that's pretty precise diagnosis: as soon as the theocratic elite degenerates, it defects; and the state and the majority of the population eventually fall on their own sword. ..."
"... And the USSR clearly was a variation of a theocratic state. That explain also a very high, damaging the economy, level of centralization (the country as a single corporation) and the high level of ideology/religion-based repression (compare with Iran and Islamic state jihadists.) ..."
"... So after the WWII the ideology of Bolshevism was dead as it became clear that Soviet style theocratic state is unable to produce standard of living which Western social democracies were able to produce for their citizens. Rapid degeneration of the theocratic Bolshevik elite (aka Nomenklatura) also played an important role. ..."
"... It is important to understand that the Soviet elite changed sides completely voluntarily. Paradoxically it was high level of KGB functionaries who were instrumental in conversion to neoliberalism, starting with Andropov. It was Andropov, who created the plan of transition of the USSR to neoliberalism, the plan that Gorbachov tried to implement and miserably failed. ..."
"... So the system exploded from within because the Party elite became infected with neoliberalism (which was stupid, but reflects the level of degeneration of the Soviet elite). ..."
"... The major USA contribution other then supplying the new ideology for the Soviet elite was via CIA injecting God know how much money to bribe top officials. ..."
"... As Gorbachov was a second rate (if not the third rate) politician, he allowed the situation to run out of control. And the efforts to "rock" the system were fueled internally by emerging (as the result of Perestroika; which was a reincarnation of Lenin's idea of NEP) class of neoliberal Nouveau riche (which run the USSR "shadow economy" which emerged under Brezhnev) and by nationalist sentiments (those element were clearly supported by the USA and other Western countries money as well as via subversive efforts of national diaspora residing in the USA and Canada) and certain national minorities within the USSR. ..."
"... The brutal economic rape of the xUSSR space and generally of the whole former Soviet block by the "collective neoliberal West" naturally followed. Which had shown everybody that the vanguard of Perestroika were simply filthy compradors, who can't care less about regular citizens and their sufferings. ..."
"... BTW this huge amount of loot postponed the internal crisis of neoliberalism which happened in the USA in 2008 probably by ten years. And it (along with a couple of other factors such as telecommunication revolution) explain relative prosperity of Clinton presidency. Criminal Clinton presidency I should say. ..."
"... BTW few republics in former USSR space managed to achieve the standard of living equal to the best years of the USSR (early 80th I think) See https://web.williams.edu/Economics/brainerd/papers/ussr_july08.pdf ..."
"... Generally when the particular ideology collapses, far right nationalism fills the void. We see this now with the slow collapse of neoliberalism in the USA and Western Europe. ..."
"... Chinese learned a lot from Gorbachov's fatal mistakes and have better economic results as the result of the conversion to the neoliberalism ("from the above"), although at the end Chinese elite is not that different from Soviet elite and also is corruptible and can eventually change sides. ..."
"... But they managed to survive the "triumphal march of neoliberalism" (1980-2000) and now the danger is less as neoliberalism is clearly the good with expired "use by" date: after 2008 the neoliberal ideology was completely discredited and entered "zombie" state. ..."
This is a very complex issue. And I do not pretend that I am right, but I think Brad is way too superficial to be taken seriously.
IMHO it was neoliberalism that won the cold war. That means that the key neoliberal "scholars" like Friedman and Hayek and
other intellectual prostitutes of financial oligarchy who helped to restore their power. Certain democratic politicians like Carter
also were the major figures. Carter actually started neoliberalization of the USA, continued by Reagan,
Former Trotskyites starting from Burnham which later became known as neoconservatives also deserve to be mentioned.
It is also questionable that the USA explicitly won the cold war. Paradoxically the other victim of the global neoliberal revolution
was the USA, the lower 90% of the USA population to be exact.
So there was no winners other the financial oligarchy (the transnational class.)
As for the USSR, the Soviet elite changed sides. I think Putin once said that Soviet system was "unviable" to begin with.
And that's pretty precise diagnosis: as soon as the theocratic elite degenerates, it defects; and the state and the majority of
the population eventually fall on their own sword.
And the USSR clearly was a variation of a theocratic state. That explain also a very high, damaging the economy, level
of centralization (the country as a single corporation) and the high level of ideology/religion-based repression (compare with
Iran and Islamic state jihadists.)
The degeneration started with the death of the last charismatic leader (Stalin) and the passing of the generation which remembers
that actual warts of capitalism and could relate them to the "Soviet socialism" solutions.
So after the WWII the ideology of Bolshevism was dead as it became clear that Soviet style theocratic state is unable to
produce standard of living which Western social democracies were able to produce for their citizens. Rapid degeneration of the
theocratic Bolshevik elite (aka Nomenklatura) also played an important role.
With bolshevism as the official religion, which can't be questioned, the society was way too rigid and suppressed "entrepreneurial
initiative" (which leads to enrichment of particular individuals, but also to the benefits to the society as whole), to the extent
that was counterproductive. The level of dogmatism in this area was probably as close to the medieval position of Roman Catholic
Church as we can get; in this sense it was only national that Cardinal Karol Wojtyla became a pope John Paul II -- he was very
well prepared indeed ;-).
It is important to understand that the Soviet elite changed sides completely voluntarily. Paradoxically it was high level
of KGB functionaries who were instrumental in conversion to neoliberalism, starting with Andropov. It was Andropov, who created
the plan of transition of the USSR to neoliberalism, the plan that Gorbachov tried to implement and miserably failed.
So the system exploded from within because the Party elite became infected with neoliberalism (which was stupid, but reflects
the level of degeneration of the Soviet elite).
The major USA contribution other then supplying the new ideology for the Soviet elite was via CIA injecting God know how
much money to bribe top officials.
As Gorbachov was a second rate (if not the third rate) politician, he allowed the situation to run out of control. And
the efforts to "rock" the system were fueled internally by emerging (as the result of Perestroika; which was a reincarnation of
Lenin's idea of NEP) class of neoliberal Nouveau riche (which run the USSR "shadow economy" which emerged under Brezhnev) and
by nationalist sentiments (those element were clearly supported by the USA and other Western countries money as well as via subversive
efforts of national diaspora residing in the USA and Canada) and certain national minorities within the USSR.
Explosion of far right nationalist sentiments without "Countervailing ideology" as Bolshevism was not taken seriously anymore
was the key factor that led to the dissolution of the USSR.
Essentially national movements allied with Germany that were defeated during WWII became the winners.
The brutal economic rape of the xUSSR space and generally of the whole former Soviet block by the "collective neoliberal
West" naturally followed. Which had shown everybody that the vanguard of Perestroika were simply filthy compradors, who can't
care less about regular citizens and their sufferings.
And the backlash created conditions for Putin coming to power.
BTW this huge amount of loot postponed the internal crisis of neoliberalism which happened in the USA in 2008 probably
by ten years. And it (along with a couple of other factors such as telecommunication revolution) explain relative prosperity of
Clinton presidency. Criminal Clinton presidency I should say.
The majority of the xUSSR space countries have now dismal standard of living and slided into Latin American level of inequality
and corruption (not without help of the USA).
Several have civil wars in the period since getting independence, which further depressed the standard living. Most deindustrialize.
Generally when the particular ideology collapses, far right nationalism fills the void. We see this now with the slow collapse
of neoliberalism in the USA and Western Europe.
Chinese learned a lot from Gorbachov's fatal mistakes and have better economic results as the result of the conversion
to the neoliberalism ("from the above"), although at the end Chinese elite is not that different from Soviet elite and also is
corruptible and can eventually change sides.
But they managed to survive the "triumphal march of neoliberalism" (1980-2000) and now the danger is less as neoliberalism
is clearly the good with expired "use by" date: after 2008 the neoliberal ideology was completely discredited and entered "zombie"
state.
So in the worst case it is the USA which might follow the path of the USSR and eventually disintegrate under the pressure of
internal nationalist sentiments. Such a victor...
Even now there are some visible difference between former Confederacy states and other states on the issues such as immigration
and federal redistributive programs.
Last month, the Council of Economic Advisers, an agency of the Trump White House, released
an extraordinary report titled "The Opportunity Costs of Socialism." The report begins with the
statement: "Coincident with the 200th anniversary of Karl Marx's birth, socialism is making a
comeback in American political discourse. Detailed policy proposals from self-declared
socialists are gaining support in Congress and among much of the younger electorate."
The very fact that the US government officially acknowledges a growth of popular support for
socialism, particularly among the nation's youth, testifies to vast changes taking place in the
political consciousness of the working class and the terror this is striking within the ruling
elite. America is, after all, a country where anti-communism was for the greater part of a
century a state-sponsored secular religion. No ruling class has so ruthlessly sought to exclude
socialist politics from political discourse as the American ruling class.
The 70-page document is itself an inane right-wing screed. It seeks to discredit socialism
by identifying it with capitalist countries such as Venezuela that have expanded state
ownership of parts of the economy while protecting private ownership of the banks, and, with
the post-2008 collapse of oil and other commodity prices, increasingly attacked the living
standards of the working class.
It identifies socialism with proposals for mild social reform such as "Medicare for all,"
raised and increasingly abandoned by a section of the Democratic Party. It cites Milton
Friedman and Margaret Thatcher to promote the virtues of "economic freedom," i.e., the
unrestrained operation of the capitalist market, and to denounce all social reforms, business
regulations, tax increases or anything else that impinges on the oligarchy's
self-enrichment.
The report's arguments and themes find expression in the fascistic campaign speeches of
Donald Trump, who routinely and absurdly attacks the Democrats as socialists and accuses them
of seeking to turn America into another "socialist" Venezuela.
What has prompted this effort to blackguard socialism?
A series of recent polls in the US and Europe have shown a sharp growth of popular
disgust with capitalism and support for socialism. In May of 2017, in a survey conducted by
the Union of European Broadcasters of people aged 18 to 35, more than half said they would
participate in a "large-scale uprising." Nine out of 10 agreed with the statement, "Banks and
money rule the world."
Last November, a poll conducted by YouGov showed that 51 percent of Americans between the
ages of 21 and 29 would prefer to live in a socialist or communist country than in a capitalist
country.
In August of this year, a Gallup poll found that for the first time since the organization
began tracking the figure, fewer than half of Americans aged 18–29 had a positive view of
capitalism, while more than half had a positive view of socialism. The percentage of young
people viewing capitalism positively fell from 68 percent in 2010 to 45 percent this year, a
23-percentage point drop in just eight years.
This surge in interest in socialism is bound up with a resurgence of class struggle in
the US and internationally. In the United States, the number of major strikes so far this
year, 21, is triple the number in 2017. The ruling class was particularly terrified by the
teachers' walkouts earlier this year because the biggest strikes were organized by
rank-and-file educators in a rebellion against the unions, reflecting the weakening grip of the
pro-corporate organizations that have suppressed the class struggle for decades.
The growth of the class struggle is an objective process that is driven by the global
crisis of capitalism , which finds its most acute social and political expression in the
center of world capitalism -- the United States. It is the class struggle that provides the key
to the fight for genuine socialism.
Masses of workers and youth are being driven into struggle and politically radicalized by
decades of uninterrupted war and the staggering growth of social inequality. This process has
accelerated during the 10 years since the Wall Street crash of 2008. The Obama years saw the
greatest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top in history, the escalation of the wars
begun under Bush and their spread to Libya, Syria and Yemen, and the intensification of mass
surveillance, attacks on immigrants and other police state measures.
This paved the way for the elevation of Trump, the personification of the criminality and
backwardness of the ruling oligarchy.
Under conditions where the typical CEO in the US now makes in a single day almost as much
as the average worker makes in an entire year, and the net worth of the 400 wealthiest
Americans has doubled over the past decade, the working class is looking for a radical
alternative to the status quo. As the Socialist Equality Party wrote in its program eight
years ago, " The Breakdown of Capitalism and the
Fight for Socialism in the United States ":
The change in objective conditions, however, will lead American workers to change their
minds. The reality of capitalism will provide workers with many reasons to fight for a
fundamental and revolutionary change in the economic organization of society.
The response of the ruling class is two-fold. First, the abandonment of bourgeois democratic
forms of rule and the turn toward dictatorship. The run-up to the midterm elections has
revealed the advanced stage of these preparations, with Trump's fascistic attacks on
immigrants, deployment of troops to the border, threats to gun down unarmed men, women and
children seeking asylum, and his pledge to overturn the 14th Amendment establishing birthright
citizenship.
That this has evoked no serious opposition from the Democrats and the media makes clear that
the entire ruling class is united around a turn to authoritarianism. Indeed, the Democrats are
spearheading the drive to censor the internet in order to silence left-wing and socialist
opposition.
The second response is to promote phony socialists such as Bernie Sanders, the Democratic
Socialists of America (DSA) and other pseudo-left organizations in order to confuse the working
class and channel its opposition back behind the Democratic Party.
In 2018, with Sanders totally integrated into the Democratic Party leadership, this role has
been largely delegated to the DSA, which functions as an arm of the Democrats. Two DSA members,
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York and Rashida Tlaib in Detroit, are likely to win seats in
the House of Representatives as candidates of the Democratic Party.
The closer they come to taking office, the more they seek to distance themselves from their
supposed socialist affiliation. Ocasio-Cortez, for example, joined Sanders in eulogizing the
recently deceased war-monger John McCain, refused to answer when asked if she opposed the US
wars in the Middle East, and dropped her campaign call for the abolition of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The working class and youth are increasingly looking for a socialist alternative, but their
understanding of socialism and its history is limited. Here the role of the revolutionary
party, the Socialist Equality Party, is critical. It alone seeks to arm the emerging mass
movement of the working class with a genuine revolutionary, socialist and internationalist
program.
The SEP fights to mobilize and unite the working class in the US and internationally in
opposition to the entire ruling elite and all of its bribed politicians and parties. As our
program explains:
But socialism will be achieved only through the establishment of workers' power. This will
be a difficult struggle Socialism is not a gift to be given to the working class. It must be
fought for and won by the working class itself.
The task facing workers and youth looking for the way to fight against war, inequality,
poverty and repression is to join and build the Socialist Equality Party to lead the coming
mass struggles of the working class.
"... The last three decades have seen the United States engaged in continuous and ever-expanding warfare under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The drive to conquer and subjugate the lands of the Middle East and Central Asia is a consensus policy of the American ruling class. The results have included over a million dead in Iraq and hundreds of thousands more across Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen. ..."
"... Meanwhile the Pentagon released a seemingly lunatic "joint doctrine" that goes well beyond Dr. Strangelove. It states: "nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability. Specifically, the use of nuclear weapons will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and develop situations that call for commanders to win." ..."
"... There is a worried sense within ruling circles that three decades of war have only created a series of debacles, and that US imperialism is confronting what is termed, in military and foreign policy circles, as "strategic competition" from Russia and China. At the same time, ever-sharper conflicts are emerging between Washington and its erstwhile NATO partners, in particular Germany, against which the US fought in two world wars. ..."
"... Zakaria pays special tribute to the individual who popularized the concept of the "unipolar moment," the extreme right-wing columnist Charles Krauthammer, who wrote an article with that title, also in Foreign Affairs , in 1991. He promoted an unvarnished perspective of the unilateral use of US military aggression to assert the dominance of American capitalism around the globe. ..."
"... He further insisted that if US imperialism proved unable to maintain its unipolar moment it would be "not for foreign but for domestic reasons. ... stagnant productivity, declining work habits, rising demand for welfare state entitlements and new taste for ecological luxuries." He charged that while "defense spending declined, domestic entitlements nearly doubled." And, above all, he blamed "America's insatiable desire for yet higher standards of living without paying any of the cost." [3] ..."
"... For America's ruling elite, long at each other's throats, the path should be clearer now to reforming a working consensus about the US's world role. Some of the policy-making world's most divisive issues now look settled. Force is a legitimate tool of policy; it works. For the elites themselves, the message is America can lead, stop whining, think more boldly. Starting now. [5] ..."
"... We understood this editorial, by the mouthpiece of US finance capital, as an accurate reflection of the pathological triumphalism prevailing within the American bourgeoisie. ..."
"... A third of the population is functionally illiterate. Not even the mass media can avoid reporting on a daily basis some of the more spectacular 'horror stories' of lives destroyed by the impact of the social crisis: homeless people freezing in cardboard boxes, cancer victims being denied treatment because they have no medical insurance and unemployed workers and their families committing suicide ..."
"... This position dovetailed neatly with that of German imperialism, which was backing Croatian and Slovenian independence as part of a post-reunification reassertion of its power in Europe. German imperialism was returning to the scenes of its crimes in 1914 and 1941, unilaterally defying the United States, the United Nations and the European Commission. ..."
"... This was patently the case in Yugoslavia, where the first impulse to break up the existing federation came from Slovenia and Croatia, the wealthiest regions of the country, where local ruling elites calculated that they could fare better by breaking with the poorer republics and establishing their own independent ties to European governments, banks and corporations. ..."
"... In conclusion: the so-called "Unipolar Moment" of 1990 and 1991, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the launching of the Gulf War, marked the collapse of the post-World War II equilibrium, established on the basis of the hegemony of American capitalism and the collaboration of the Moscow Stalinist bureaucracy. It signaled the beginning of a new period of uninterrupted war, the growth of inter-imperialist rivalries ..."
This lecture was delivered by Bill Van Auken, senior writer for the World Socialist Web Site , at the Socialist Equality
Party (US) Summer School on July 25, 2019.
It is now nearly three decades since the deliberate liquidation of the Soviet Union by the Moscow Stalinist bureaucracy and the
launching of the First Persian Gulf War, which began in January 1991. This war, which involved the deployment of over half a million
US troops -- more than twice the number sent into the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- clearly marked a turning point in the development
of US and world imperialism.
It likewise marked a turning point for the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). Objective developments,
in particular the disintegration of Stalinism, intersected with the protracted struggle of the ICFI against Pabloite revisionism,
culminating in the 1985 split and the consolidation of control by the orthodox Trotskyists, for the first time since the founding
of the International Committee in 1953. This signaled a fundamental change in the relationship between the Fourth International and
the working class.
Grasping that change, the ICFI sought to shoulder the immense political responsibility of leading the international working class,
which found concrete expression in the convening of the extraordinarily important "World Conference of Workers against War and Colonialism"
held in Berlin in November 1991, to which we will return.
The sharp turn by US imperialism toward unilateralism and militarism, consummated in the Gulf War of 1991, was bound up with the
protracted crisis of American capitalism and the relative decline of its domination of the global economy. With the demise of the
USSR, US imperialism concluded that it could now offset the challenge that American corporations faced from rivals in Europe and
Japan, which had been growing since the 1970s, through the relatively untrammeled use of the US armed forces.
Demolished vehicles line Highway 80, also known as the "Highway of Death", the route fleeing Iraqi forces took as they retreated
fom Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm. [Credit: U.S. Air Force]
In the case of the Persian Gulf, the US military could be used to secure unchallenged American supremacy in the world's most important
oil-producing region, which would put Washington in a position to blackmail its oil-import-dependent European and Asian imperialist
rivals with the threat of cutting off their energy supplies. As President George H.W. Bush would declare, in the run-up to the Gulf
war, an attack on Iraq would give the US "persuasiveness that will lead to more harmonious trading relationships."
This was not a development that took us by surprise. In its 1988 Perspectives Resolution, the ICFI warned:
Despite the loss of its economic hegemony, the United States remains, militarily, the most powerful imperialist country, and
reserves to itself the role of global policeman. But the conditions which prevailed in 1945 at the beginning of the so-called
American Century have been drastically transformed. The loss of the economic preponderance which once made its word "law" among
the major capitalist nations compels the United States to place ever-greater reliance on the brute force of its military strength.
[1]
The resolution went on to declare that a prophecy made by Trotsky was about to be vindicated, quoting his War and the Fourth
International from 1934. "The world is divided? It must be re-divided. For Germany it was a question of 'organizing Europe.'
The United States must organize the world. History is bringing humanity face to face with the volcanic eruption of American imperialism."
This was confirmed in barely two years.
There is an obvious continuity between these events of nearly 30 years ago and the present global political situation. The struggle
to assert US hegemony over the Persian Gulf threatens to ignite a new and even more terrible war against Iran, a country with three
times the population and four times the landmass of Iraq. The outbreak of a military confrontation is only a matter of time.
The last three decades have seen the United States engaged in continuous and ever-expanding warfare under both Democratic
and Republican administrations. The drive to conquer and subjugate the lands of the Middle East and Central Asia is a consensus policy
of the American ruling class. The results have included over a million dead in Iraq and hundreds of thousands more across Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria and Yemen.
More and more these various conflicts threaten to metastasize into a Third World War. Preparations for a nuclear confrontation
with Russia and China were chillingly described recently by the incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the military's
No. 1 priority. Meanwhile the Pentagon released a seemingly lunatic "joint doctrine" that goes well beyond Dr. Strangelove. It
states: "nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability. Specifically, the
use of nuclear weapons will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and develop situations that call for commanders to win."
There is a worried sense within ruling circles that three decades of war have only created a series of debacles, and that
US imperialism is confronting what is termed, in military and foreign policy circles, as "strategic competition" from Russia and
China. At the same time, ever-sharper conflicts are emerging between Washington and its erstwhile NATO partners, in particular Germany,
against which the US fought in two world wars.
The contradiction between the interdependent character of the global economy and the capitalist nation-state system is leading
inexorably to a new world war.
Under these conditions, there have been several recent commentaries by US foreign policy analysts bemoaning the end of the "unipolar
moment" proclaimed nearly 30 years ago, and looking back upon it with a certain nostalgia.
Among them is a piece published in Foreign Affairs by CNN's multi-millionaire pseudo-intellectual charlatan Fareed Zakaria,
titled "The Self-Destruction of American Power." He writes:
Ever since the end of World War I, the United States has wanted to transform the world. In the 1990s, that seemed more possible
than ever before. Countries across the planet were moving toward the American way. The Gulf War seemed to mark a new milestone
for world order, in that it was prosecuted to uphold a norm legitimized by international law. [2]
The American way, world order, norms and international law: this is how these layers fondly recall a mass slaughter.
Zakaria pays special tribute to the individual who popularized the concept of the "unipolar moment," the extreme right-wing
columnist Charles Krauthammer, who wrote an article with that title, also in Foreign Affairs , in 1991. He promoted an unvarnished
perspective of the unilateral use of US military aggression to assert the dominance of American capitalism around the globe.
Our best hope for safety in such times is in American strength and will to lead a unipolar world, unashamedly laying down the
rules of world order and being prepared to enforce them," he wrote.
He went on to present the pretext for the next major US war: "There is no alternative to confronting, deterring and, if necessary,
disarming states that brandish and use weapons of mass destruction. And there is no one to do that but the United States."
He further insisted that if US imperialism proved unable to maintain its unipolar moment it would be "not for foreign but for
domestic reasons. ... stagnant productivity, declining work habits, rising demand for welfare state entitlements and new taste for
ecological luxuries." He charged that while "defense spending declined, domestic entitlements nearly doubled." And, above all, he
blamed "America's insatiable desire for yet higher standards of living without paying any of the cost." [3]
This, after a decade of unrelenting attacks on working class living standards in the wake of the breaking of the 1981 PATCO strike.
The message was clear: imperialist war abroad had to be accompanied by an intensification of social counterrevolution and class war
in the US itself.
Bush himself, in the run-up to the Gulf War, proclaimed that the unleashing of US military power, against a relatively defenseless
oppressed country, would inaugurate a "New World Order."
The content of this "new world order" was never explained. The only thing that was clear was that the old world order had broken
down and what was to replace it, in the first instance, was an eruption of US military violence.
The catastrophic breakdown of the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union -- celebrated by facile bourgeois
intellectuals as the "end of history" and the "triumph of capitalism" -- had removed a key prop of the old post-World War II order.
Moreover, the very same forces of globalization of capitalist production and technological development that had fatally undermined
the autarchic Stalinist economies were driving the entire world capitalist order into profound crisis.
... ... ...
It justified this threat on the basis of the "overwhelming dependence of Western nations on vital oil supplies from the Middle
East." Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, introduced the "Reagan corollary," vowing that the US would defend these vital oil interests
against internal threats to stability as well.
The US government deliberately manufactured the pretext for its military intervention in the Persian Gulf. Tensions between Iraq
and Kuwait had been growing since the end of the Iran-Iraq war, in which Washington had provided significant aid to the Iraqi regime
of Saddam Hussein. Kuwait's lowering of oil prices and its demand for debt payments had further undermined an Iraqi economy that
had been battered by the war, while Baghdad claimed that Kuwait was carrying out slant drilling into Iraq's Rumaila oil field, on
the border between the two countries.
The US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, used a meeting on July 25, 1990 -- just weeks before Bush was to announce his "line
in the sand" and launch the drive to war -- to assure Saddam Hussein of US friendship and sympathy, while telling him that Washington
had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait."
The trap having been laid, Saddam Hussein, driven by desperation over the mounting economic and social crisis in Iraq, quickly
walked into it.
Like every US imperialist war waged in the name of liberation and democracy, the Gulf War was based on deception and lies.
The attempt was made to equate Saddam Hussein, whom Washington had only recently courted as an ally, with Adolf Hitler. This demonization
would become a standard feature of every succeeding US war. It had, in fact, been used in what amounted to a dress rehearsal for
the Gulf War, less than two years earlier. In preparing the invasion of Panama, the US State Department compared the involvement
in the drug trade of Manuel Noriega -- a longtime CIA asset -- with Hitler's invasion of Poland.
A massive propaganda campaign was waged to sway US public opinion toward support for the Gulf war. This infamously included the
testimony given by a 15-year-old girl to Congress, in which she tearfully recounted seeing armed Iraqi troops invading a hospital
to steal incubators, throwing babies onto the floor to die. Only later was it revealed that the story was a complete fabrication.
The girl had not been in Kuwait before, during or after the Iraqi invasion. She was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington
and a member of the royal family, sent to read a script written by a major US PR firm.
Finally, Bush justified military intervention by claiming an imminent threat posed by Iraq's massing of 120,000 troops on Saudi
Arabia's border. Satellite images subsequently revealed that there was nothing on the Kuwait-Saudi border but desert sand.
A critically important part of the report to the Special Congress of the Workers League in 1990 was the clarification of our attitude
toward Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Initial responses within the International Committee had included its condemnation as
an "act of aggression" by the British section, in an initial article published in its newspaper. On the other hand, there was a suggestion
from within the Australian section, that we support the annexation of Kuwait as a "small step" in advancing "the unfulfilled national
and democratic tasks of the Arab revolution."
The report made clear that we had no reason to condemn Iraqi aggression. Given the economic warfare waged by Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia against Iraq in the run-up to the invasion, our concern was not who fired the first shot. Moreover, to take such a position
would be to support the territorial integrity of Kuwait, a Sheikdom created by British imperialism, carved out of the southern Iraqi
province of Basra, as a means of better dominating the Arabian Peninsula. The same is the case with virtually all the borders drawn
by imperialist powers in the Middle East.
At the same time, in response to the suggestion from a member of the Australian section that we support Kuwait's annexation, it
affirmed:
To attribute any progressive role to Hussein's invasion would lead the ICFI in a false direction and undermine the theoretical
and political gains that have been made since 1985, in our collective struggle against the WRP's betrayal of the program of world
socialist revolution.
Of course, this refers to the struggle waged against the Workers Revolutionary Party's abandonment of the Theory of Permanent
Revolution, particularly in relation to its opportunist relations with various Arab regimes, systematically subordinating the independent
struggle of the working class to the supposedly anti-imperialist stance of one or another bourgeois nationalist leader.
... ... ...
The US launched the Gulf War on January 16, 1991. Operation Desert Storm, as it was dubbed, consisted mainly of one of the most
intensive air bombardments in military history. Eighty-eight thousand tons of munitions were dropped on Iraq in the course of just
42 days. This is roughly equivalent to one-fourth of the total bomb tonnage dropped on Germany during the entire Second World War.
The Iraqi casualty totals were estimated at 135,000. Much of Iraq's conscript army was wiped out, with soldiers incinerated from
the air or buried alive in their trenches. Hundreds of thousands more Iraqis, of course, died as a result of the systematic destruction
of the country's infrastructure.
On the so-called Highway of Death, the US launched wave after wave of bombings against a defenseless, miles-long column of vehicles,
carrying Iraqi troops as well as civilians withdrawing from Kuwait on the orders of the Hussein government, which announced that
it was complying with a UN Resolution demanding the withdrawal.
As we stated in response to this war crime:
The US war against Iraq is among the most terrible crimes of the twentieth century, a slaughter that future generations will
look back on with shame. It has demonstrated that the ruling class of so-called democratic America is just as capable of mass
murder as the Nazis. [4]
The Wall Street Journal responded to the Gulf War with an editorial that stated:
For America's ruling elite, long at each other's throats, the path should be clearer now to reforming a working consensus about
the US's world role. Some of the policy-making world's most divisive issues now look settled. Force is a legitimate tool of policy;
it works. For the elites themselves, the message is America can lead, stop whining, think more boldly. Starting now. [5]
We understood this editorial, by the mouthpiece of US finance capital, as an accurate reflection of the pathological triumphalism
prevailing within the American bourgeoisie.
The 11th Plenum of the International Committee was held on March 5, 1991, less than a week after the end of the Gulf War. Its
opening report stated:
The American bourgeoisie is serving notice that American imperialism will seek through force to overcome problems arising from
the protracted economic decline of the US. For all the problems of American capitalism -- the decay of its industrial base, the
loss of its overseas markets, the massive trade deficits and budget deficits, the collapse of its banking system, the gangrenous
growth of social ills -- the bourgeoisie believes it has found an answer: Force!
The report quotes the extremely relevant passage from Anti-Dühring , written 113 years earlier, in which Engels delivered
a Marxist response to Dühring's claim that force was the decisive element in history:
...its own productive forces have grown beyond its control and, as if necessitated by a law of nature, are driving the whole
of bourgeois society towards ruin, or revolution. And if the bourgeoisie now make their appeal to force in order to save the collapsing
"economic situation" from the final crash, this only shows that they are laboring under the same delusion as Herr Dühring: the
delusion that "political conditions are the decisive cause of the economic situation"; this only shows that they imagine, just
as Herr Dühring does, that by making use of "the primary," "the direct political force," they can remodel those "facts of the
second order," the economic situation and its inevitable development; and that therefore the economic consequences of the steam-engine
and the modern machinery driven by it, of world trade and the banking and credit developments of the present day, can be blown
out of existence by them with Krupp guns and Mauser rifles. [6]
Substitute computerization for the steam engine and smart bombs and cruise missiles for Krupp guns and Mausers and this statement
stands as a fitting refutation of the triumphalist rantings of the US ruling class in the wake of the Gulf War.
... ... ...
Moreover, in the context of the Gulf War, the call for revolutionary defeatism from the standpoint of fighting the US military
to the last Iraqi was senseless and reactionary. The military balance of forces was such that -- outside of the revolutionary mobilization
of the masses of the Middle East and the working class in the US and beyond -- the military victory of the US was virtually assured.
More fundamentally, it betrayed a complete disdain for and hostility to the fight against war based upon the struggle of the working
class. It was entirely bound up with the Pabloite perspective that one or another form of "armed struggle," waged by non-proletarian
forces, was the substitute for the revolutionary mobilization of the working class internationally, and particularly in the advanced
capitalist countries.
The most decisive response of the ICFI to the Gulf War, US imperialism's "unipolar moment" and the march toward the restoration
of capitalism and dissolution of the USSR, was the calling of the Berlin Conference against imperialist war and colonialism.
... ... ...
The war ushered in a period of capitalist disequilibrium that would last for three decades, dominated by capitalist crisis and
overshadowed by the successful October 1917 Revolution in Russia, calling into question the very survival of the capitalist order.
The absence, however, of revolutionary parties -- particularly in Europe -- on a par with the Bolsheviks in Russia, allowed the
bourgeoisie to defeat a series of revolutionary struggles. But they were unable to create a new equilibrium to replace what was shattered
by 1914.
The rise of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, led by Stalin, and the terrible degeneration of the Communist International as
it was subordinated to the Stalinist theory of "socialism in one country" and Moscow's maneuvers with imperialism, led to a series
of catastrophic defeats, above all in Germany. The coming to power of the Nazis in 1933, without a shot being fired, exposed the
counterrevolutionary character of Stalinism, leading Trotsky to found the Fourth International.
The document establishes that the ability of the bourgeoisie to achieve a new equilibrium in the aftermath of World War II, which
they could not do following World War I, was based not merely on the rise of US imperialism as a hegemonic power, but also the indispensable
role of Stalinism. It opposed and sabotaged the revolutionary struggles of the working class in the aftermath of the war, particularly
in Italy, France and Greece. In Eastern Europe, its establishment of so-called buffer states served not only to suppress the working
class and any genuine struggle for socialism, but also to pacify a fractious region that had been a source of European instability
since the dawn of the 20th century.
The equilibrium established at the end of World War II, however, as the document makes clear, was mined with its own contradictions.
Its revival of world trade and rebuilding of capitalism in Europe and Japan led to the gradual decline of US hegemony, leading to
mounting US deficits which, by 1985, had transformed America into a debtor nation.
Turning to the crisis in the United States, the manifesto sketches out a portrait that seems altogether contemporary:
Not a single significant piece of social legislation has passed through Congress in more than two decades [now we can say
five decades ]. Massive budget cuts have destroyed what remains of the old social programs. The crime statistics are merely
the most obvious symptoms of the malignant state of social relations. Amidst rapidly growing unemployment and, for those who still
have jobs, declining wages, the state of education, housing and medical care is nothing less than catastrophic.
A third of the population is functionally illiterate. Not even the mass media can avoid reporting on a daily basis some of
the more spectacular 'horror stories' of lives destroyed by the impact of the social crisis: homeless people freezing in cardboard
boxes, cancer victims being denied treatment because they have no medical insurance and unemployed workers and their families
committing suicide. [10]
... ... ...
The manifesto warned that these conflicts were being manipulated and exploited by the imperialist powers, while capitalism sought
to divert popular indignation over social inequality into the blind alley of national and ethnic conflict.
The ability of reactionary petty-bourgeois demagogues to agitate for communal violence it said, "is to be attributed not to the
intellectual and moral power of nationalism, but to the political vacuum left by the prostration of the traditional organizations
of the working class, which offer no way out of the crisis of the capitalist system."
Between the calling of the conference on May 1, 1991 and its convening on November 16, events moved very rapidly, with Croatia
and Slovenia both declaring their independence on June 25 of that year. Macedonia followed suit soon after, and the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
began its fragmentation into warring ethnic cantons. Armed clashes had broken out, particularly around the coastal city of Dubrovnik.
US Army combat engineer vehicle demolishes a Bosnian Serb bunker near Dubrave, January 1996
The promotion of virulent ethno-chauvinism and national separatism was led by former bureaucrats of Yugoslavia's ruling League
of Communists. They sought, on the one hand, to divide and suppress the Yugoslav working class, which had carried out a wave of mass
strikes against the austerity measures imposed by the IMF as part of capitalist restoration. On the other, they were driven to carve
out ethnic states in order to forge their own independent relations with imperialism as a new ruling class of comprador capitalists.
In his report to the conference, comrade North pointed to the attitude adopted by the Pabloite leader Ernest Mandel, who advocated
unconditional support for the self-determination of Croatia, regardless of the character of the regime. Mandel moreover issued a
call for direct imperialist intervention, denouncing Serbian chauvinism, while turning a blind eye to Croatian chauvinism.
This position dovetailed neatly with that of German imperialism, which was backing Croatian and Slovenian independence as part
of a post-reunification reassertion of its power in Europe. German imperialism was returning to the scenes of its crimes in 1914
and 1941, unilaterally defying the United States, the United Nations and the European Commission.
The Berlin conference adopted a resolution titled "On the Defense of the Working Class in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union"
which stated the following:
Everywhere rival capitalist cliques are stirring up nationalism and chauvinism, in order to incite the workers against each
other and to preempt an uprising against the old and new oppressors. The bloodbath in Yugoslavia is a result of these policies.
This war has nothing to do with the right of nations to self-determination. Serbian and Croatian nationalists are merely fighting
to secure for themselves a larger portion of the exploitation of the working class. [19]
The history of Yugoslavia, its rise and fall, could be the subject for an entire school, as could the national question and the
slogan of "self-determination." Clearly that cannot be accomplished in this lecture.
... ... ...
Not only the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the breakup of Yugoslavia, but more fundamentally, the development of capitalist
globalization, gave rise to a new type of nationalist movement, seeking the dismemberment of existing states -- including those that
emerged out of the previous national struggles against colonialism -- to further the interests of rival bourgeois factions in establishing
the most advantageous relations to imperialism and transnational capital.
This was patently the case in Yugoslavia, where the first impulse to break up the existing federation came from Slovenia and Croatia,
the wealthiest regions of the country, where local ruling elites calculated that they could fare better by breaking with the poorer
republics and establishing their own independent ties to European governments, banks and corporations.
Similar considerations have motivated a whole series of national separatist movements, including in Europe, in the cases of the
right-wing Northern League in Italy and Catalan nationalism in Spain.
... ... ...
In conclusion: the so-called "Unipolar Moment" of 1990 and 1991, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the launching of
the Gulf War, marked the collapse of the post-World War II equilibrium, established on the basis of the hegemony of American capitalism
and the collaboration of the Moscow Stalinist bureaucracy. It signaled the beginning of a new period of uninterrupted war, the growth
of inter-imperialist rivalries, and inevitably, a global rise in the class struggle and socialist revolution.
... .. ...
Footnotes:
[1] The World Capitalist Crisis and the Tasks of the Fourth International, Perspectives Resolution of the International Committee
of the Fourth International , (Detroit: Labor Publications, 1988), p. 66.
[2] Fareed Zakaria, "The Self-Destruction of American Power," Foreign Affairs , Vol. 98, No. 4, (July/August 2019)
[3] Charles Krauthammer, "The Unipolar Moment," Foreign Affairs , Vol. 70, No. 1, (1990/1991), pp. 23–33
[4] The Bulletin , March 1, 1991, "Bush is Guilty of Mass Murder"
[5] Cited in Desert Slaughter, The Imperialist War Against Iraq , (Detroit: Labor Publications, 1991), p. 232.
[6] Karl Marx Frederick Engels, Collected Works , Vol. 25, p. 153.
[7] The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International, The Transitional Program , (New York: Labor
Publications, 1981), p. 20.
[8] Workers League Internal Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 15, p. 31.
[9] Workers League Internal Bulletin , Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 2.
[10] Oppose Imperialist War & Colonialism, Manifesto of the International Committee of the Fourth International , (Detroit:
Labor Publications, 1991), p. 12.
[11] Ibid., p. 24.
[12] The Fourth International , Vol. 19, No. 1, Fall-Winter 1992, p. 11.
[13] Ibid., p. 7.
[14] Ibid., p. 9.
[15] Ibid., p. 10
[16] Ibid., p. 14
[17] Ibid., p. 13.
[18] Oppose Imperialist War & Colonialism , p. 16.
[19] The Fourth International , Vol. 19, No. 1, p. 38.
[20] On the Manifesto of the Armenian Social Democrats , Iskra, No. 33, Feb. 1, 1903, Lenin, Collected Works , Vol.
6, pp. 326–329.
"... Like the Cold War, the new cold war was triggered by an American lie. It was a lie so duplicitous, so all encompassing, that it would lead many Russians to see the agreement that ended the cold war as a devastating and humiliating deception that was really intended to clear the way for the US to surround and finally defeat the Soviet Union. It was a lie that tilled the soil for all future "Russian aggression." ..."
"... That key promise made to Gorbachev was shattered, first by President Clinton and then subsequently supported by every American President: NATO engulfed Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in 1999; Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004, Albania and Croatia in 2009 and, most recently, Montenegro. ..."
"... When Clinton decided to break Bush's promise and betray Russia, George Kennen, father of the containment policy, warned that NATO expansion would be "the most fateful error of American foreign policy in the entire post-cold-war era." "Such a decision," he prophesied, "may be expected to . . . restore the atmosphere of the cold war in East-West relations . . .." ..."
"... As Matlock explains, the urgent transition allowed "privileged insiders[to] join the criminals who had been running a black market [and to] steal what they could, as fast as they could." The sudden, uncompromising transition imposed on Russia by the United States enabled, according to Cohen, "a small group of Kremlin-connected oligarchs to plunder Russia's richest assets and abet the plunging of some two-thirds of its people into poverty and misery." ..."
"... The rape of Russia was funded, overseen and ordered by the United States and handed over by President George H.W. Bush to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Much of their advice, Matlock says generously, "was not only useless, but sometimes actually damaging." ..."
"... The economic policies wrestled onto Russia by the US and the transition experts and international development experts it funded and sent over led to, what Cohen calls, "the near ruination of Russia." Russia's reward for ending the Cold War and joining the Western economic community was, in Cohen's words, "the worst economic depression in peacetime, the disintegration of the highly professionalized Soviet middle class, mass poverty, plunging life expectancy [for men, it had fallen below sixty], the fostering of an oligarchic financial elite, the plundering of Russia's wealth, and more." ..."
"... By the time Putin came to power in 2000, Cohen says, "some 75% of Russians were living in poverty." 75%! Millions and millions of Russian lives were destroyed by the American welcoming of Russia into the global economic community. ..."
"... But before Putin came to power, there was more Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin was a necessity for Clinton and the United States because Yeltsin was the pliable puppet who would continue to enforce the cruel economic transition. But to continue the interference in, and betrayal of, the Russian people economically, it would now be necessary to interfere in and betray the Russian democracy. ..."
"... Intoxicated with American support, Yeltsin dissolved the parliament that had rescinded his powers and abolished the constitution of which he was in violation. In a 636-2 vote, the Russian parliament impeached Yeltsin. But, President Clinton again sided with Yeltsin against the Russian people and the Russian law, backed him and gave him $2.5 billion in aid. Clinton was blocking the Russian people's choice of leaders. ..."
"... "Funded by the US government," Cohen reports, Americans "gave money to favored Russian politicians, instructed ministers, drafted legislation and presidential decrees, underwrote textbooks, and served at Yeltsin's reelection headquarters in 1996." ..."
"... Asserting its right as the unipolar victor of a Cold War it never won, betraying the central promise of the negotiated end of the cold war by engulfing Russia's neighbors, arming those nations against its written and signed word and stealing all Russian hope in capitalism and democracy by kidnapping and torturing Russian capitalism and democracy, the roots of the new cold war were not planted by Russian lies and aggression, as the doctrinal Western version teaches, but by the American lies and aggression that the fact checked, demythologized version of history reveals. ..."
When Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev received his peace prize in 1990, the Nobel Prize committee
declared that "the two mighty power blocs,
have managed to abandon their life-threatening confrontation" and confidently expressed that "It is our hope that we are now celebrating
the end of the Cold War." Recently, U.N. General Secretary António Guterres funereally closed the celebrations with the
realization that "The Cold War is back."
In a very short span of history, the window that had finally opened for Russia and the United States to build a new international
system in which they work cooperatively to address areas of common interest had slammed back closed. How was that historic opportunity
wasted? Why was the road from the Nobel committee's hope to the UN's eulogy such a short one?
The doctrinal narrative that is told in the U.S. is the narrative of a very short road whose every turn was signposted by Russian
lies, betrayal, deception and aggression. The American telling of history is a tale in which every blow to the new peace was a Russian
blow. The fact checked version offers a demythologized history that is unrecognizably different. The demythologized version is also
a history of lies, betrayal, deception and aggression, but the liar, the aggressor, is not primarily Russia, but America. It is the
history of a promise so historically broken that it laid the foundation of a new cold war.
But it was not the first promise the United States broke: it was not even the first promise they broke in the new cold war.
The Hot War
Most histories of the cold war begin at the dawn of the post World War II period. But the history of U.S-U.S.S.R. animosity starts
long before that: it starts as soon as possible, and it was hot long before it turned cold.
The label "Red Scare" first appeared, not in the 1940s or 50s, but in 1919. Though it is a chapter seldom included in the history
of American-Russian relations, America actively and aggressively intervened in the Russian civil war in an attempt to push the Communists
back down. The United States cooperated with anti-Bolshevik forces: by mid 1918, President Woodrow Wilson had sent 13,000 American
troops to Soviet soil. They would remain there for two years, killing and injuring thousands. Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev would
later remind America of "the time you sent your troops to quell the revolution." Churchill would record for history the admission
that the West "shot Soviet Russians on sight," that they were "invaders on Russian soil," that "[t]hey armed the enemies of the Soviet
government," that "[t]hey blockaded its ports, and sunk its battleships. They earnestly desired and schemed for its downfall."
When the cause was lost, and the Bolsheviks secured power, most western countries refused to recognize the communist government.
However, realism prevailed, and within a few short years, by the mid 1920s, most countries had recognized the communist government
and restored diplomatic relations. All but the US It was not until several years later that Franklin D. Roosevelt finally recognized
the Soviet government in 1933.
The Cold War
It would be a very short time before the diplomatic relations that followed the hot war would be followed by a cold war. It might
even be possible to pin the beginning of the cold war down to a specific date. On April 22 and 23, President Truman told Soviet foreign
minister Vyacheslav Molotov to "Carry out his agreement" and establish a new, free, independent government in Poland as promised
at Yalta. Molotov was stunned. He was stunned because it was not he that was breaking the agreement because that was not what Roosevelt,
Churchill and Stalin had agreed to at Yalta. The final wording of the Yalta agreement never mentioned replacing Soviet control of
Poland.
The agreement that Roosevelt revealed to congress and shared with the world – the one that still dominates the textbook accounts
and the media stories – is not the one he secretly shook on with Stalin. Roosevelt lied to congress and the American people. Then
he lied to Stalin.
In exchange for Soviet support for the creation of the United Nations, Roosevelt secretly agreed to Soviet predominance in Poland
and Eastern Europe. The cold war story that the Soviet Union marched into Eastern Europe and stole it for itself is a lie: Roosevelt
handed it to them.
So did Churchill. If Roosevelt's motivation was getting the UN, Churchill's was getting Greece. Fearing that the Soviet Union
would invade India and the oil fields of Iran, Churchill saw Greece as the geographical roadblock and determined to hold on to it
at all cost. The cost, it turned out, was Romania. Churchill would give Stalin Romania to protect his borders; Stalin would give
Churchill Greece to protect his empire's borders. The deal was sealed on October 9, 1944.
Churchill says that in their secret meeting, he asked Stalin, "how would it do for you to have ninety percent predominance in
Romania, for us to have ninety percent predominance in Greece? . . ." He then went on to offer a fifty-fifty power split in in Yugoslavia
and Hungary and to offer the Soviets seventy-five percent control of Bulgaria. The exact conversation may never have happened, according
to the political record, but Churchill's account captures the spirit and certainly captures the secret agreement.
Contrary to the official narrative, Stalin never betrayed the west and stole Eastern Europe: Poland, Romania and the rest were
given to him in secret. Then Roosevelt lied to congress and to the world.
That American lie raised the curtain on the cold war.
The New Cold War
Like the Cold War, the new cold war was triggered by an American lie. It was a lie so duplicitous, so all encompassing, that
it would lead many Russians to see the agreement that ended the cold war as a devastating and humiliating deception that was really
intended to clear the way for the US to surround and finally defeat the Soviet Union. It was a lie that tilled the soil for all future
"Russian aggression."
At the close of the cold war, at a meeting held on February 9, 1990, George H.W. Bush's Secretary of State, James Baker, promised
Gorbachev that if NATO got Germany and Russia pulled its troops out of East Germany, NATO would not expand east of Germany and engulf
the former Soviet states. Gorbachev records in his memoirs that he agreed to Baker's terms "with the guarantee that NATO jurisdiction
or troops would not extend east of the current line." In Super-power Illusions , Jack F. Matlock Jr., who was the American
ambassador to Russia at the time and was present at the meeting, confirms Gorbachev's account, saying that it "coincides with my
notes of the conversation except that mine indicate that Baker added "not one inch." Matlock adds that Gorbachev was assured that
NATO would not move into Eastern Europe as the Warsaw Pact moved out, that "the understanding at Malta [was] that the United States
would not 'take advantage' of a Soviet military withdrawal from Eastern Europe." At the February 9 meeting, Baker assured Gorbachev
that "neither the President or I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place."
But the promise was not made just once, and it was not made just by the United States. The promise was made on two consecutive
days: first by the Americans and then by West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. According to West German foreign ministry documents,
on February 10, 1990, the day after James Baker's promise, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher told his Soviet counterpart
Eduard Shevardnadze "'For us . . . one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east.' And because the conversation revolved
mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: 'As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general.'"
A few days earlier, on January 31, 1990, Genscher had said in a major speech that there would not be "an expansion of NATO territory
to the east, in other words, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union."
Gorbachev says the promise was made not to expand NATO "as much as a thumb's width further to the east." Putin also says mourns
the broken promise, asking at a conference in Munich in February 2007, "What happened to the assurances our Western partners made
after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them."
Putin went on to remind his audience of the assurances by pointing out that the existence of the NATO promise is not just the
perception of him and Gorbachev. It was also the view of the NATO General Secretary at the time: "But I will allow myself to remind
this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. [Manfred] Woerner in Brussels on 17 May
1990. He said at the time that: 'The fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet
Union a firm security guarantee.' Where are those guarantees?"
Recent scholarship supports the Russian version of the story. Russian expert and Professor of Russian and European Politics at
the University of Kent, Richard Sakwa says that "[r]ecent studies demonstrate that the commitment not to enlarge NATO covered the
whole former Soviet bloc and not just East Germany." And Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Politics at Princeton University and
of Russian Studies and History at New York University, adds that the National Security Archive has now published the actual
documents detailing what Gorbachev was promised. Published on December 12, 2017, the documents finally, and authoritatively,
reveal that "The truth, and the promises broken, are much more expansive than previously known: all of the Western powers involved
– the US, the UK, France, Germany itself – made the same promise to Gorbachev on multiple occasions and in various emphatic ways."
That key promise made to Gorbachev was shattered, first by President Clinton and then subsequently supported by every American
President: NATO engulfed Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in 1999; Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia
and Slovenia in 2004, Albania and Croatia in 2009 and, most recently, Montenegro.
It was this shattered promise, this primal betrayal, this NATO expansion to Russia's borders that created the conditions and causes
of future conflicts and aggressions. When, in 2008, NATO promised Georgia and Ukraine eventual membership, Russia saw the threat
of NATO encroaching right to its borders. It is in Georgia and Ukraine that Russia felt it had to draw the line with NATO encroachment
into its core sphere of influence. Sakwa says that the war in Georgia was "the first war to stop NATO enlargement; Ukraine was the
second." What are often cited as acts of Russian aggression that helped maintain the new cold war are properly understood as acts
of Russian defense against US aggression that made a lie out of the promise that ended the Cold War.
When Clinton decided to break Bush's promise and betray Russia, George Kennen, father of the containment policy,
warned that NATO expansion would be
"the most fateful error of American foreign policy in the entire post-cold-war era." "Such a decision," he prophesied, "may be expected
to . . . restore the atmosphere of the cold war in East-West relations . . .."
The broken promise restored the cold war. Though it is the most significant root of the new cold war, it was not the first. There
was a prior broken promise, and this time the man who betrayed Russia was President H.W. Bush.
The end of the Cold War resulted from negotiations and not from any sort of military victory. Stephen Cohen says that "Presidents
Reagan and George H.W. Bush negotiated with the last Soviet Russian leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, what they said was the end of the
Cold War on the shared, expressed premise that it was ending 'with no losers, only winners.'"
The end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet Union occurred so closely chronologically that it permitted the American mythologizers
to conflate them in the public imagination and create the doctrinal history in which the US defeat of the Soviet Union ended the
cold war. But the US did not defeat the Soviet Union. Gorbachev brought about what Sakwa calls a "self-willed disintegration of the
Soviet bloc." The Soviet Union came to an end, not by external force or pressure, but out of Gorbachev's recognition of the Soviet
Union's own self interest. Matlock flatly states that "pressure from governments outside the Soviet Union, whether from America or
Europe or anywhere else, had nothing to do with [the Soviet collapse]." "Cohen demythologizes the history by reinstating the chronological
order: Gorbachev negotiated the end of the cold war "well before the disintegration of the Soviet Union." The Cold War officially
ended well before the end of the Soviet Union with Gorbachev's December 7, 1988 address to the UN
Matlock says that "Gorbachev is right when he says that we all won the Cold War." He says that President Reagan would write in
his notes, "Let there be no talk of winners and losers." When Gorbachev compelled the countries of the Warsaw Pact to adopt reforms
like his perestroika in the Soviet Union and warmed them that the Soviet army would no longer be there to keep their communist
regimes in power, Matlock points out in Superpower Illusions that "Bush assured Gorbachev that the United States would not
claim victory if the Eastern Europeans were allowed to replace the Communist regimes that had been imposed on them." Both the reality
and the promise were that there was no winner of the Cold War: it was a negotiated peace that was in the interest of both countries.
When in 1992, during his losing re-election campaign, President Bush arrogantly boasted that "We won the Cold War!" he broke his
own promise to Gorbachev and helped plant the roots of the new cold war. "In psychological and political terms," Matlock says, "President
Bush planted a landmine under the future U.S.-Russian relationship" when he broke his promise and made that claim.
Bush's broken promise had two significant effects. Psychologically, it created the appearance in the Russian psyche that Gorbachev
had been tricked by America: it eroded trust in America and in the new peace. Politically, it created in the American psyche the
false idea that Russia was a defeated country whose sphere of interest did not need to be considered. Both these perceptions contributed
to the new cold war.
Not only was the broken promise of NATO expansion not the first broken American promise, it was also not the last. In 1997, when
President Clinton made the decision to expand NATO much more than an inch to the east, he at least signed the
Russia-NATO Founding Act , which explicitly
promised that as NATO expanded east, there would be no "permanent stationing of substantial combat forces." This obliterated American
promise planted the third root of the new cold war.
Since that third promise, NATO has, in the words of Stephen Cohen, built up its "permanent land, sea and air power near Russian
territory, along with missile-defense installations." US and NATO weapons and troops have butted right up against Russia's borders,
while anti-missile installations have surrounded it, leading to the feeling of betrayal in Russia and the fear of aggression. Among
the earliest moves of the Trump administration were the moving of NATO troops into Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria and nearby Norway.
Mikhail Gorbachev, who offered the West Russia and cooperation in place of the Soviet Union and Cold War, was rewarded with lies,
broken promises and betrayal. That was the sowing of the first seeds of the new cold war. The second planting happened during the
Yeltsin years that followed. During this stage, the Russian people were betrayed because their hopes for democracy and for an economic
system compatible with the West were both destroyed by American intervention.
The goal, Matlock too gently explains, "had to be a shift of the bulk of the economy to private ownership." What transpired was
what Naomi Klein called in The Shock Doctrine "one of the greatest crimes committed against a democracy in modern history."
The States allowed no gradual transition. Matlock says the "Western experts advised a clean break with the past and a transition
to private ownership without delay." But there was no legitimate private capital coming out of the communist system, so there was
no private money with which to privatize. So, there was only one place for the money to come. As Matlock explains, the urgent
transition allowed "privileged insiders[to] join the criminals who had been running a black market [and to] steal what they could,
as fast as they could." The sudden, uncompromising transition imposed on Russia by the United States enabled, according to Cohen,
"a small group of Kremlin-connected oligarchs to plunder Russia's richest assets and abet the plunging of some two-thirds of its
people into poverty and misery."
The rape of Russia was funded, overseen and ordered by the United States and handed over by President George H.W. Bush
to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Much of their advice, Matlock says generously, "was not only useless, but
sometimes actually damaging."
Sometimes damaging? In the first year, millions lost their entire life savings. Subsidy cuts meant that many Russians didn't get
paid at all. Klein says that by 1992, Russians were consuming 40% less than they were the year before, and one third of them had
suddenly sunk below the poverty line. The economic policies wrestled onto Russia by the US and the transition experts and international
development experts it funded and sent over led to, what Cohen calls, "the near ruination of Russia." Russia's reward for ending
the Cold War and joining the Western economic community was, in Cohen's words, "the worst economic depression in peacetime, the disintegration
of the highly professionalized Soviet middle class, mass poverty, plunging life expectancy [for men, it had fallen below sixty],
the fostering of an oligarchic financial elite, the plundering of Russia's wealth, and more."
By the time Putin came to power in 2000, Cohen says, "some 75% of Russians were living in poverty." 75%! Millions and millions
of Russian lives were destroyed by the American welcoming of Russia into the global economic community.
But before Putin came to power, there was more Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin was a necessity for Clinton and the United States because
Yeltsin was the pliable puppet who would continue to enforce the cruel economic transition. But to continue the interference in,
and betrayal of, the Russian people economically, it would now be necessary to interfere in and betray the Russian democracy.
In late 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin won a year of special powers from the Russian Parliament: for
one year, he was to be, in effect, the dictator of Russia to facilitate the midwifery of the birth of a democratic Russia. In March
of 1992, under pressure from the, by now, impoverished, devastated and discontented population, parliament repealed the dictatorial
powers it had granted him. Yeltsin responded by declaring a state of emergency, re-bestowing upon himself the repealed dictatorial
powers. Russia's Constitutional Court ruled that Yeltsin was acting outside the constitution. But the US sided – against the Russian
people and against the Russian Constitutional Court – with Yeltsin.
Intoxicated with American support, Yeltsin dissolved the parliament that had rescinded his powers and abolished the constitution
of which he was in violation. In a 636-2 vote, the Russian parliament impeached Yeltsin. But, President Clinton again sided with
Yeltsin against the Russian people and the Russian law, backed him and gave him $2.5 billion in aid. Clinton was blocking the Russian
people's choice of leaders.
Yeltsin took the money and sent police officers and elite paratroopers to surround the parliament building. Clinton "praised the
Russian President has (sic) having done 'quite well' in managing the standoff with the Russian Parliament," as The New York Timesreported at the time.
Clinton added that he thought "the United States and the free world ought to hang in there" with their support of Yeltsin against
his people, their constitution and their courts, and judged Yeltsin to be "on the right side of history."
On the right side of history and armed with machine guns and tanks, in October 1993, Yeltsin's troops opened fire on the crowd
of protesters, killing about 100 people before setting the Russian parliament building on fire. By the time the day was over, Yeltsin's
troops had killed approximately 500 people and wounded nearly 1,000. Still, Clinton stood with Yeltsin. He provided
ludicrous cover for Yeltsin's
massacre , claiming that "I don't see that he had any choice . If such a thing happened in the United States, you would have
expected me to take tough action against it." Clinton's Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, said that the US supported Yeltsin's
suspension of parliament in these "extraordinary times."
In 1996, elections were looming, and America's hegemonic dreams still needed Yeltsin in power. But it wasn't going to happen without
help. Yeltsin's popularity was nonexistent, and his approval rating was at about 6%. According to Cohen, Clinton's interference in
Russian politics, his "crusade" to "reform Russia," had by now become
official policy . And so, America
boldly interfered directly in Russian elections . Three American political consultants, receiving "direct assistance from Bill
Clinton's White House," secretly ran Yeltsin's reelection campaign.
As Time magazine
broke the story , "For four months, a group of American political consultants clandestinely participated in guiding Yeltsin's
campaign."
"Funded by the US government," Cohen reports, Americans "gave money to favored Russian politicians, instructed ministers,
drafted legislation and presidential decrees, underwrote textbooks, and served at Yeltsin's reelection headquarters in 1996."
More incriminating still is that Richard Dresner, one of the three American consultants, maintained a direct line to Clinton's
Chief Strategist, Dick Morris. According to
reporting by Sean Guillory , in his book, Behind the Oval Office , Morris says that, with Clinton's approval, he received
weekly briefings from Dresner that he would give to Clinton. Based on those briefings, Clinton would then provide recommendations
to Dresner through Morris.
The US not only helped run Yeltsin's campaign, they helped pay for it. The US backed a $10.2 billion International Monetary Fund
(IMF) loan for Russia, the second-biggest loan the IMF had ever given. The New York Timesreported
that the loan was "expected to be helpful to President Boris N. Yeltsin in the presidential election in June." The Times explained
that the loan was "a vote of confidence" for Yeltsin who "has been lagging well behind in opinion polls" and added that the US Treasury
Secretary "welcomed the fund's decision."
Yeltsin won the election by 13%, and Time magazine's cover declared: "Yanks to the rescue: The secret story of how American
advisers helped Yeltsin win". Cohen reports that the US ambassador to Russia boasted that "without our leadership we would see a
considerably different Russia today." That's a confession of election interference.
Asserting its right as the unipolar victor of a Cold War it never won, betraying the central promise of the negotiated end
of the cold war by engulfing Russia's neighbors, arming those nations against its written and signed word and stealing all Russian
hope in capitalism and democracy by kidnapping and torturing Russian capitalism and democracy, the roots of the new cold war were
not planted by Russian lies and aggression, as the doctrinal Western version teaches, but by the American lies and aggression that
the fact checked, demythologized version of history reveals.
Ted Snider writes on analyzing patterns in US foreign policy and history.
The USA might eventually pay the price for the economic rape and alienation of Russia by
criminal Clinton and his coterie
Notable quotes:
"... Madeline "not so bright" Allbright was the first swan. As well as Clinton attempts to bankrupt and subdue Russia and criminal (in a sense of no permission from the UN) attack on Yugoslavia. Both backfired: Russia became permanently hostile. The fact he and his coterie were not yet tried by something like Nuremberg tribunal is only due to the USA dominance at this stage of history. ..."
"... The truth is that after the dissolution of the USSR the USA foreign policy became completely unhinged. And inside the country the elite became cannibalistic, as there was no external threat to its dominance in the form of the USSR. ..."
"... Still as an imperial state and the center of neoliberal empire the USA relies more on financial instruments and neoliberal comprador elite inside the country. ..."
"The US served as a benevolent hegemon, administering the occasional rap on the knuckles to
those acting in bad faith"
USA foreign policy since 70th was controlled by neocons who as a typical Trotskyites
(neoliberalism is actually Trotskyism for the rich) were/are hell-bent of world domination
and practice gangster capitalism in foreign policy.
Bolton attitude to UN is very symptomatic for the neocons as a whole.
Madeline "not so bright" Allbright was the first swan. As well as Clinton attempts to
bankrupt and subdue Russia and criminal (in a sense of no permission from the UN) attack on
Yugoslavia. Both backfired: Russia became permanently hostile. The fact he and his coterie
were not yet tried by something like Nuremberg tribunal is only due to the USA dominance at
this stage of history.
The truth is that after the dissolution of the USSR the USA foreign policy became
completely unhinged. And inside the country the elite became cannibalistic, as there was no
external threat to its dominance in the form of the USSR.
The USA stated to behave like a typical Imperial state (New Rome, or, more correctly,
London) accepting no rules/laws that are not written by themselves (and when it is convenient
to obey them) with the only difference from the classic imperial states that the hegemony it
not based on the military presence/occupation ( like was the case with British empire)
Although this is not completely true as there are 761 US Military Bases across the planet
and only 46 Countries with no US military presence. Of them, seven countries with 13 New
Military Bases were added since 09/11/2001.In 2001 the US had a quarter million troops posted
abroad.
Still as an imperial state and the center of neoliberal empire the USA relies more
on financial instruments and neoliberal comprador elite inside the country.
With the collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008 the USA centered neoliberal empire
experiences first cracks. Brexit and election of Trump widened the cracks in a sense of
further legitimizing the ruling neoliberal elite (big middle finger for Hillary was addressed
to the elite as whole)
If oil price exceed $100 per barrel there will yet another crack or even repetition of the
2008 Great Recession on a new level (although we may argue that the Great Recession never
ended and just entered in Summers terms "permanent stagnation: phase)
Although currently with a bully at the helm the USA empire still going strong in forcing
vassals and competitors to reconsider their desire to challenge the USA that situation will
not last. Trump currently is trying to neutralize the treat from China by rejecting classic
neoliberal globalization mechanism as well as signed treaties like WTO. He might be
successful in the short run but in the "long run" that undermines the USA centered neoliberal
empire and speed up its demise. .
In the long run the future does not look too bright as crimes committed by the USA during
triumphal period of neoliberalism hangs like albatross around the USA neck.
EU now definitely wants to play its own game as Macron recently stated and which Merkel
tacitly supports. If EU allies with Russia it will became No.1 force in the world with the
USA No. 2. With severe consequences for the USA.
If Russia allied with China the USA Np.1 position will hinge of keeping EU vassals in
check and NATO in place. Without them it will became No.2 with fatal consequences for the
dollar as world reserve currency and sudden change of the USA financial position due to the
level of external debt and requires devaluation of the dollar.
Looks like 75 year after WWII the world started to self-organize a countervailing force
trying to tame the USA with some interest expressed by such players as EU, Russia, China,
India, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia. As well as ( in the past; and possibly
in the future as neoliberal counterrevolutions in both countries probably will end badly) by
Brazil and Argentina.
Only Canada, Australia and probably UK can be counted as the reliable parts of the USA
empire. That's not much.
"... As early as the late 1940's, some of us living in Russia saw that the regime was becoming dangerously remote from the concerns
and hopes of the Russian people. The original ideological and emotional motivation of Russian Communism had worn itself out and become
lost in the exertions of the great war. And there was already apparent a growing generational gap in the regime. ..."
"... By the time Stalin died, in 1953, even many Communist Party members had come to see his dictatorship as grotesque, dangerous
and unnecessary, and there was a general impression that far-reaching changes were in order. ..."
"... Nikita Khrushchev took the leadership in the resulting liberalizing tendencies. He was in his crude way a firm Communist, but
he was not wholly unopen to reasonable argument. His personality offered the greatest hope for internal political liberalization and
relaxation of international tensions. ..."
"... The more America's political leaders were seen in Moscow as committed to an ultimate military rather than political resolution
of Soviet-American tensions, the greater was the tendency in Moscow to tighten the controls by both party and police, and the greater
the braking effect on all liberalizing tendencies in the regime. Thus the general effect of cold war extremism was to delay rather than
hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980's.... ..."
"... In the competition between major powers and/or alliances there are several somewhat complementary aspects of power: economic
or physical aspect to create things of "value" (added by the commerce and industry of the entity), the military power, and moral aspects
of the entity in terms of political and cultural resolve and unity. ..."
Note to Self: The Ten Americans Who Did the Most to Win the Cold War *
Harry Dexter White... George Kennan... George Marshall... Arthur Vandenberg... Paul Hoffman... Dean Acheson... Harry S Truman...
Dwight D. Eisenhower... Gerald Ford... George Shultz
The G.O.P. Won the Cold War? Ridiculous.
By George F. Kennan
The claim heard in campaign rhetoric that the United States under Republican Party leadership "won the cold war" is intrinsically
silly.
The suggestion that any Administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political
upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish. No great country has that sort of influence
on the internal developments of any other one.
As early as the late 1940's, some of us living in Russia saw that the regime was becoming dangerously remote from the concerns
and hopes of the Russian people. The original ideological and emotional motivation of Russian Communism had worn itself out and
become lost in the exertions of the great war. And there was already apparent a growing generational gap in the regime.
These thoughts found a place in my so-called X article in Foreign Affairs in 1947, from which the policy of containment is
widely seen to have originated. This perception was even more clearly expressed in a letter from Moscow written in 1952, when
I was Ambassador there, to H. Freeman Matthews, a senior State Department official, excerpts from which also have been widely
published. There were some of us to whom it was clear, even at that early date, that the regime as we had known it would not last
for all time. We could not know when or how it would be changed; we knew only that change was inevitable and impending.
By the time Stalin died, in 1953, even many Communist Party members had come to see his dictatorship as grotesque, dangerous
and unnecessary, and there was a general impression that far-reaching changes were in order.
Nikita Khrushchev took the leadership in the resulting liberalizing tendencies. He was in his crude way a firm Communist,
but he was not wholly unopen to reasonable argument. His personality offered the greatest hope for internal political liberalization
and relaxation of international tensions.
The downing of the U-2 spy plane in 1960, more than anything else, put an end to this hope. The episode humiliated Khrushchev
and discredited his relatively moderate policies. It forced him to fall back, for the defense of his own political position, on
a more strongly belligerent anti-American tone of public utterance.
The U-2 episode was the clearest example of that primacy of military over political policy that soon was to become an outstanding
feature of American cold war policy. The extreme militarization of American discussion and policy, as promoted by hard-line circles
over the ensuing 25 years, consistently strengthened comparable hard-liners in the Soviet Union.
The more America's political leaders were seen in Moscow as committed to an ultimate military rather than political resolution
of Soviet-American tensions, the greater was the tendency in Moscow to tighten the controls by both party and police, and the
greater the braking effect on all liberalizing tendencies in the regime. Thus the general effect of cold war extremism was to
delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980's....
In the competition between major powers and/or alliances there are several somewhat complementary aspects of power: economic
or physical aspect to create things of "value" (added by the commerce and industry of the entity), the military power, and moral
aspects of the entity in terms of political and cultural resolve and unity.
Early in my time in the service, when I had time to think being at a remote station I decided the west had the marked economic
advantage, particularly as the green revolution permitted some higher level of nutrition security.
Later on I recall discussions where the collapse of the Soviet Union was assured but would take in to the 21st century to occur.
The big question then was "would a nuclear exchange occur in the way of a peaceful collapse".....
The presence of the A Bomb in some ways prevented war in other encouraged intrigue and small scrapes in to each other's spheres.
There was a bit of the Divine in the world getting through the Cold War.
The Berlin wall came down as hoped but 25 years earlier than I expected.
KENNAN Was a lucky guy. He hit the right notes at the right time and then as he got second thoughts and better vision. Like yugoslaving
peoples China in 1949
He was side tracked and then sent out to ivy pastures
Nonsense. The moment to engage was 1953 -54 and yes a goo regime blocked it
But it was Truman that crossed the parallel in 1950 and tried to liberate north Korea
It was Kennedy that preferred brinksmanship to real engagement. Brush wars and regime change to accommodation. Missile racing
to sensible unilateralism
Yes LBJ was an ignorant oaf on foreign policy. But it was Nixon that finally used PRC as Yugo twenty years too late of course
The cold war was invented by democrats and exploited by republicans for domestic shindiggery. Tragicomedy cinescope scaled
Obviously since there is a determined American Cold War effort being waged right now, American historians were mistaken at the
end of the 1980s. There had been no winning of the Cold War, nor even a clear and shared understanding of what the Cold War was
about. If the Cold War was only about balancing the Soviet Union and developing economically far beyond the Soviet Union and Soviet
ideas faltering, that happened. However, there was obviously more or with no Soviet Union to counter we would not now be taking
policy steps to carry on the Cold War.
What democracy they are talking about? Democracy for whom? This Harvard political prostitutes are talking about democracy for oligarchs
which was the nest result of EuroMaydan and the ability of Western companies to buy assets for pennies on the dollar without the control
of national government like happen in xUSSR space after dissolution of the USSR, which in retrospect can be classified as a color revolution
too, supported by financial injection, logistical support and propaganda campaign in major Western MSM.
What Harvard honchos probably does not understand or does not wish to understand is that neoliberalism as a social system lost its
attraction and is in irreversible decline. The ideology of neoliberalism collapsed much like Bolsheviks' ideology. As Politician like
Joe Boden which still preach neoliberalism are widely viewed as corrupt or senile (or both) hypocrites.
The "Collective West" still demonstrates formidable intelligence agencies skills (especially the USA and GB), but the key question
is: "What they are fighting for?"
They are fighting for neoliberalism which is a lost case. Which looks like KGB successes after WWIII. They won many battles and
lost the Cold war.
Not that Bolsheviks in the USSR was healthy or vibrant. Economics was a deep stagnation, alcoholism among working class was rampant,
the standard of living of the majority of population slides each year, much like is the case with neoliberalism after, say, 1991. Hidden
unemployment in the USSR was high -- at least in high teens if not higher. Like in the USA now good jobs were almost impossible to obtain
without "extra help". Medical services while free were dismal, especially dental -- which were horrible. Hospitals were poor as church
rats as most money went to MIC. Actually, like in the USA now, MIC helped to strangulate the economy and contributed to the collapse.
It was co a corrupt and decaying , led by completely degenerated leadership. To put the person of the level of Gorbachov level of political
talent lead such a huge and complex country was an obvious suicide.
But the facts speak for themselves: what people usually get as the result of any color revolution is the typical for any county
which lost the war: dramatic drop of the standard of living due to economic rape of the country.
While far form being perfect the Chinese regime at least managed to lift the standard of living of the majority of the population
and provide employment. After regime change China will experience the same economic rape as the USSR under Yeltsin regime. So in no
way Hong Cong revolution can be viewed a progressive phenomenon despite all the warts of neoliberalism with Chenese characteristics
in mainland China (actually this is a variant of NEP that Gorbachov tried to implement in the USSR, but was to politically incompetent
to succeed)
CHENOWETH: I think it really boils down to four different things. The first is a large and diverse participation that's
sustained.
The second thing is that [the movement] needs to elicit loyalty shifts among security forces in particular, but also other
elites. Security forces are important because they ultimately are the agents of repression, and their actions largely decide
how violent the confrontation with -- and reaction to -- the nonviolent campaign is going to be in the end. But there are other
security elites, economic and business elites, state media. There are lots of different pillars that support the status quo,
and if they can be disrupted or coerced into noncooperation, then that's a decisive factor.
The third thing is that the campaigns need to be able to have more than just protests; there needs to be a lot of variation
in the methods they use.
The fourth thing is that when campaigns are repressed -- which is basically inevitable for those calling for major changes
-- they don't either descend into chaos or opt for using violence themselves. If campaigns allow their repression to throw
the movement into total disarray or they use it as a pretext to militarize their campaign, then they're essentially co-signing
what the regime wants -- for the resisters to play on its own playing field. And they're probably going to get totally crushed.
Wai Sing-Rin @waisingrin • Aug 27
Replying to @ChrisFraser_HKU @edennnnnn_ and 2 others
Anyone who watched the lone frontliner (w translator) sees the frontliners are headed for disaster. They're fighting just
to fight with no plans nor objectives.
They see themselves as heroes protecting the HK they love. No doubt their sincerity, but there are 300 of them left.
Many voice conflicting judgments, but an impartial look back on history produces the unequivocal conclusion: yes,
mistakes and shortcomings were many, but without perestroika the world would have never been what it is today
MOSCOW, April 24. /TASS/. Thirty years after the Soviet leadership under Mikhail Gorbachev embarked on a policy of
reforms that would go down in history under a name sounding very oddly to a foreign ear - perestroika - Russians are
discussing those events of their country's recent history again. Many voice conflicting judgements, but an impartial
look back on history produces the unequivocal conclusion: yes, mistakes and shortcomings were many, but without
perestroika the world would have never been what it is today.
On April 23, 1985 the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party gathered for its historic full-scale meeting to
set course towards what was described as fundamental reorganization and acceleration of the Soviet Union's economic
development after a long period of what was condemned as stagnation. The new course, originally expected to overhaul
and invigorate the Soviet system, ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
"The gist of what happened
then was simple: at the very top a decision was a made the people are free to express their thought in public and for
that they will neither risk losing their life or go to jail or even go jobless," says the founder of the Yabloko
party, Grigory Yavlinsky. "There emerged the freedom of speech. The feeling of fear vanished. Full stop. All other
processes that followed were nothing but consequences. The previous political system was built on falsehoods. The
advent of truth caused a lethal effect on that system, and it fell apart."
"Perestroika's worst problem was there was no strategic planning. The reform plan and its end goal were very
unclear all along," Sergey Filatov, the former chief of staff of Russia's first president Boris Yeltsin told TASS.
"Without a plan the policy was doomed to fail."
And still, Filatov said, perestroika caused a tremendous impact: it triggered reforms and showed the people that
changes were possible even under the old system.
"Perestroika was an intricate process," says Aleksei Makarkin, the first deputy president of the Political
Technologies Centre. "It was first a belated attempt to reform the economy, then the ensuing chaos, and ultimately an
attempt to defuse popular anger with political reform. The process eventually broke bounds. It all ended with the
collapse of the country. Gorbachev merely tried to make that process controllable more or less," Makarkin told TASS.
Gorbachev was forced to launch economic reforms, because the main engine that kept the Soviet economy going was
the export of oil. When oil prices slumped, something had to be done right away," Makarkin recalled. "His
predecessors had drawn up no strategic plans. Nobody dared touch the system. Later, when some steps began to be taken
at last, it turned out that no one had the slightest idea of how to go about that business. Conflicting decisions
followed in quick succession. First, an attempt was made to speed up economic development and diversify the economy
at a time when oil prices plummeted. In 1987 the attempt failed. Other remedies began to be tried. Some traces of a
free market economy began to develop, such as cooperatives in the services and public catering. Some components of a
controlled market economy cropped up."
The rapprochement with the West under Gorbachev was started with a far-reaching aim, Makarkin believes. In that
situation the Soviet economy was no longer capable of carrying the burden of the Cold War and the arms race. "Without
that no rapprochement might have ever happened. Also, there was the war in Afghanistan that had to be curtailed."
"In general, the Gorbachev era in home and foreign policies was that of haste, inconsistency, belated decisions
and forced moves. In the meantime, the people's living standards slumped and protest sentiment soared. Attempts to
woo the general public reached nowhere. In 1987-1988 social discontent soared and Boris Yeltsin emerged as its
embodiment."
"Hoping to ease tensions in society political reforms were declared only to cause centrifugal processes," Makarkin
recalls. "As a result, the Soviet republics began to drift ever farther apart - some before the August 1991 coup, and
others after. A counter-attempt to create something like a federation or confederation drew strong objections from
the hard-line conservatives, which led to the country's utter collapse.
But perestroika should not be painted only in dark colours, Makarkin said.
"One should remember that Gorbachev gave the people freedom - first, economic, and then political. For instance,
the freedom to travel out of the country and back: something everybody takes for granted. It was under Gorbachev that
the Church regained full legitimacy. Lastly, the freedom of speech, which has long become a fact of life."
"Also, Gorbachev largely takes the credit for avoiding a large-scale civil war and chaos and total chaos in a vast
country, however tragic the unrest in Tbilisi, Vilnius and Nagorno-Karabakh of those days may still look these days.
He decided against the extreme scenario implying the use of force, which many interpreted as a sign of weakness. It
should be remembered: those who dared use force merely accelerated the country's collapse."
The policy of perestroika proclaimed in the Soviet Union in 1985 has caused more harm than good, say 55% of
Russians, as follows from a Levada poll held in March. In contrast to this, ten years ago 70% said perestroika was a
bad choice.
"... There had been no winning of the Cold War, nor even a clear and shared understanding of what the Cold War was about. ..."
"... If the Cold War was only about balancing the Soviet Union and developing economically far beyond the Soviet Union and Soviet ideas faltering, that happened. However, there was obviously more or with no Soviet Union to counter we would not now be taking policy steps to carry on the Cold War. ..."
Obviously since there is a determined American Cold War effort being waged right now,
American historians were mistaken at the end of the 1980s.
There had been no winning of the
Cold War, nor even a clear and shared understanding of what the Cold War was about.
If the
Cold War was only about balancing the Soviet Union and developing economically far beyond the
Soviet Union and Soviet ideas faltering, that happened. However, there was obviously more or
with no Soviet Union to counter we would not now be taking policy steps to carry on the Cold
War.
"... No, America lost the Cold War. We may be richer than when it started, but a larger portion of our incomes go to the government . Even worse, the United States now leads the world in imprisonment –not just by rate but in absolute terms as well, with 1 out of every 150 Americans behind bars. This is largely a consequence of the War on Drugs, which is a war the American government wages upon its own citizens. In the years of the Cold War and since, we have become substantially less free. ..."
As everyone should know by now but probably does not, this is the twentieth anniversary of
the fall of the Berlin Wall. The first breach in that wall set off a chain reaction that would
eventually topple Communist governments and liberate people across half of Europe. It would
also end the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Block, substantially diminishing the
possibility for nuclear annihilation. However, when people say that the West–or more
particularly, America–won the Cold War, I'm not exactly sure what they mean.
Of course, America still exists as a country while the Soviet Union does not, but in a war
that is supposedly about ideas and ideals, victory must me something more than outlasting your
opponent.
I think the more appropriate way to look at the matter is to ask: who has benefited the most
from the end of the Cold War? Clearly, it is the peoples of East Germany, Poland, Estonia, etc.
that have gained the most. They are far richer than they were twenty years ago, and more
importantly they are able to speak and think as they please without fear of imprisonment,
torture, and possibly death at the hands of their governments. Even Russia, which is still far
from free, is a much freer place than it was under the Soviets. Dissident journalists do still
turn up missing, but to be known as a dissident journalist in the Soviet Union was almost an
impossibility. The post-Communist states all have a long way to go to complete freedom, but
with few exceptions , they are all now much
closer to that ideal than they were twenty years ago.
But can we say that the people of the United States also won the Cold War? Sadly, I
do not believe so. After World War II, the United States' standing army likely would have
shrunk back to the small peacetime numbers that existed for most of our history if it weren't
for the Cold War. Instead, the U.S. military spread across the world, allegedly to keep the
country free from the horrors of Communism. Ironically, keeping the people of America free
required enslaving a large percentage of her young men through the country's first peacetime
draft. And of course, soldiers must be housed, equipped, fed, and paid, which required a higher
level of taxation than Americans were used to in peacetime. Twenty years ago, the United States
could have reversed this course and reaped the peace dividend, but instead the government
pressed ahead and extended American influence into the former Soviet Block–taking on new
powers and responsibilities along the way.
No, America lost the Cold War. We may be richer than when it started, but a larger portion
of our incomes go to the government .
Even worse, the United States now leads the world in imprisonment
–not just by rate but in absolute terms as well, with 1 out of every 150 Americans behind
bars. This is largely a consequence of the War on Drugs, which is a war the American government
wages upon its own citizens. In the years of the Cold War and since, we have become
substantially less free.
One right that is still largely intact is the Freedom of Religion, but most versions of
American Christianity today bear little resemblance to the teachings found in the Gospels. In
this country today, people tend to worship the American Jesus , more known for killing
"hajis" than offering salvation. Christianity has become a state religion in this country as it
was for the Roman Emperor Constantine, and it is put to the same use of justifying military
power. Perhaps even worse than using the Prince of Peace for war, the president (provided he is
of the right party, of course) is now viewed by most as an avatar of God on Earth if not God
himself. Many American Christians have rendered everything unto Caesar and have nothing left
for God.
The world is a far freer place than it was twenty years ago, but America is not. Kierkegaard
once wrote "What slave in chains is as unfree as a tyrant!" As the tyrant of the world,
America is enslaved to all. Truly, America has gained the world, but lost her soul.
And yet we had plenty of (perhaps more) morality laws before the War on
Drugs
Perhaps the problem is that the government does not defend its borders (well, that and the
intelligence agencies have long funded some operations with drug money look at
Afghanistan!)?
Not everything illegal has a special allure, it really depends on enforcement of the
law.
And, John, a lot of Eastern Europe is NOT better off than it was 20 years ago, particularly
now that their speculative bubbles have burst. The signs are shinier, there are more decent
restaurants, but many other economic, social, and moral declines. And East Europeans have
gained freedom in many ways, but lost it in others.
People forget that many of the anti-Communist movements like the New Forum activists in the
DDR or Solidarnosc in Poland claimed they were pro-socialist (just for a more democratic,
participatory regime). The original point was not joining NATO and mass privatisation, but
rather civil liberties, and, sometimes, true conservative principles (pro-church, rediscovering
a spiritual mission of their people). But church attendance has increased slightly while
(corporal, at least) immorality has increased significantly! What gain is that? Much of the
national infrastructure was stolen by oligarchs who took the money to Switzerland, much others
were sold to foreigners.
Basically, (most of) East Europe has been absorbed into the control of the international
financial elite (or NWO or whatever you prefer to term it).
There are some very secular, more generous welfare states with considerably more civil
liberties. Of course they have their own problems, but that is not the source of our War of
Terror, War on Drugs, USA Patriot Act, etc. Paleoconservatives are too often naifs in
suggesting, essentially, that some lead us on the road to Hell with good intentions. It is
actually direct corruption in our govt that is the source of all our greatest national
catastrophes.
I found a figure for Cuba. The 2005 official statistics put it at about 490 per 100K, so
about 70% the US rate – still high, but no cigar. Oh I see a more recent (2008?) rate of
531, but still keeping pace with the US at about 70% its rate. That is a British univeristy
study – they estimate the Sudanese rate about 1/20 the US rate (so they had a civil war,
but they aren't totalitarian, what did you think?). Zimbabwe is given as about 1/5 the US rate.
The link, if it works to post it here-
Thomas, were you referring to England and the continental welfare
states with their anti free speech laws, confiscatory taxation and intrusive regulation of
every stage of life? Welfare states must be coercive in order to function. That's why
conservatives off all types abhor them.
The percentage of population in incarceration can be a deceptive statistic. States lie about
these things for a start. Totalitarian states like Cuba and China have the option of simply
killing offenders and of course many people just flee state control.
The US has a large degree of incarceration due to the popularity of "Get tough on drug
offender" legislation. We have a large criminal underclass in this country and after decades of
revolving door justice, the public just got fed up. It may not be humane, but it works. That's
democracy for you.
By the way, there is no system more involved in the criminal justice system than our welfare
bureaucracy. Most criminals are born into to welfare, graduate to truancy and addiction and
then crime, all under the watchful eye of social workers, guidance counselors, school
psychologists, court appointed counselors and probation officers, etc. etc. But this shouldn't
take any of the luster off welfare states, right?
Actually, China records their executions, they do not just shoot
criminals on sight. Neither does Cuba. And neither of those countries would qualify as the top
10 or 20 draconian, authoritarian states (i.e., where citizens shake in fear of the police) at
the moment.
England is widely known to be the most surveillance over its population, but it also has the
weakest welfare state in Western Europe!!!! Scandinavia has much more freedom in general and
much stronger welfare. Your attempt to make some sort of correlation is ridiculous. None of
these countries has a PATRIOT ACT, where you can be deemed an enemy and held indefinitely.
Britain has tried several times to enact something similar, but the Lords always block it. It
would be absurd in Germany even.
The United States is simply no longer a beacon of civil liberties even compared with true
welfare states. Sorry.
And if you are worried about the existence of a criminal underclass, you can probably blame
the extreme inequalities of wealth, the co-existence of hyper-First World and quasi-Third World
elements. All of Latin America has the same, though their welfare states are rarely very
advanced. I think you would find the same trend in Africa.
Mind you, I don't want to be like Sweden. I would prefer America to return to the 50s (not
entirely, but overall it would be an improvement). In the 50s there was a more even
redistribution of wealth and less nanny statism because there was more direct dirigisme. The
State was more involved in industrial planning and regulated trade and financial institutions.
Individuals paid less tax because corporations paid more. If the economy is planned such that
productive employment is a priority, then you can maintain a stable working class. If you take
that away, like the US and UK have done, then you get a permanent underclass with no prospects
of a stable life.
The problem with the 1950's is that they inevitably evolve into the
1960's. And soon we're where we are now. That's the way of welfare states, they introduce such
dependency, indolence and corruption that they just grow. But hey they always have their
defenders. As for the lack of a Patriot Act in Europe, you must be kidding. The least you could
do is read the British press. British subjects can be criminally charged for suggesting that
heterosexual couples make better adoptive parents than homosexuals. The French police do as
they please, and always have. The British do have preventative detention.
Nobody said that the Chinese and or Cubans shot people out of hand. But they do shoot people
rather than feed them for long periods, as we do. You can believe their statistics if you want
to.
Our underclass remains a dangerous nuisance despite public education, taxpayer supported
charity care, a multitude of Federal and State programs and affirmative action. Of course we
are importing more every day, adding to the income disparity you speak of. Perhaps we should
deport people to level out the disparity a bit. What do you think?
I like your idea of our no longer being a beacon. It's attracting the wrong sort.
Yes, of course we should deport people. Illegal immigration is not the
source of the US socioeconomic problems, but it compounds them by a serious factor.
Being a former resident of Houston, where parts of the city (probably the most red-voting
major city in the US) were literally crawling with illegals who undercut everyone else's wages
(that's why they are here), I can attest a bit to the corrupting effect this has on everyone
involved.
"... Westad faults Truman for being unwilling or unable to extend Franklin Roosevelt's friendly policy toward the USSR. ..."
"... "The Soviet assistance program for China was not only the biggest Moscow ever undertook outside its own borders," Westad writes. "It was also, in relative terms, the biggest such program undertaken by any country anywhere, including the US Marshall Plan for Europe." Within a decade following this generosity, they almost fought a nuclear war. ..."
"... WESTAD ALSO wrote a book on the fall of détente, for which he distinctly blames Americans. "Nixon and Kissinger had gone further in attempting to manage the Cold War together with the Soviet Union than most Americans were willing to accept," he writes. "Most Americans were simply not willing to tolerate that the United States could have an equal in international affairs, in the 1970s or ever." This is where Gaddis's immersion in American documents might have been helpful. Most Americans, at least on the anti-détente side, were worried not that the Soviet Union was at parity with the United States, but that it had actually exceeded America's capabilities. However wrongheaded and overly alarmist that perspective was, its importance in explaining American behavior should not be overlooked. ..."
"... Westad will have none of it. "Intent to move away from the Cold War as a national emergency, Eisenhower ended up institutionalizing it as policy and doctrine," he writes. "On the Korean War, the new president simply got lucky. . . . The turn toward a policy of massive nuclear retaliation meant preparing for strategic warfare on a scale that so far had seemed unimaginable." Pages later, he adds, ..."
"... Eisenhower lacked the imagination and political will to think about ending the Cold War after Stalin's death. This is a provocative portrayal of Eisenhower, a welcome antidote to the revisionism that can approach hagiography. But it is undercut by Westad's slight documentation. ..."
"... Cold War triumphalism has had pernicious effects on American foreign policy. A straight line can be drawn from the idea that Ronald Reagan's military buildup and assertive rhetoric ended the Cold War to the fantasy that the United States could rebuild the Middle East. The prominence of neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration was due largely to the widespread belief that they had been right in seeing the transformative potential of American power during the Cold War. Though Donald Trump was able, in the Republican primaries in 2016, to counter delusions of American omnipotence with delusions of American seclusion, the messianic streak still runs strong in the Republican Party and in segments of the Democratic Party. Its absence in current political debates should be seen as temporary. When it inevitably arises again, trouble will ensue. "We all lost the cold war," Gorbachev once said. The difficulty arises when one party thinks it won. ..."
Odd Arne Westad, The Cold War: A World History
(New York: Basic Books, 2017), 720 pp., $35.00.
IN 2005
, the Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis released his book,
The Cold War: A New History
. Glowing
reviews of the book followed in the
New York Times
and
Foreign Affairs
. Among the few dissenters was Tony Judt, a
New York University historian who died in 2010. Judt had opposed the Iraq War, when so many other intellectuals -- including
Gaddis -- joined in the delusions that George W. Bush could, should and would democratize the Middle East. By 2005, those fantasies
were discredited by events in Mesopotamia (though Gaddis was unchastened, arguing in the American Interest
as late as 2008
that the senior goal of American foreign policy should be "ending tyranny").
In the
New York Review of Books
, Judt argued that "John Lewis Gaddis has written a history of America's cold war: as
seen from America, as experienced in America, and told in a way most agreeable to many American readers." However brilliant his
works had been during the Cold War, Gaddis became an American triumphalist once the Berlin Wall collapsed. He had comparatively
little understanding of the Soviet experience and, most egregiously, didn't seem to care much about the enormous damage both
superpowers inflicted on what was then called the Third World. The result, Judt argued, was that the Cold War was "a story still to
be told."
With Odd Arne Westad's new book, the story is now told. Westad is the coauthor of several books on the Cold War, as well as
coeditor of the three-volume Cambridge History of the Cold War
. He also wrote
The Global Cold War: Third World
Interventions and the Making of Our Times
, which won the Bancroft Prize. As its title indicates,
The Global Cold War
suggested that the Cold War was very much a globe-spanning conflict, migrating into areas far beyond the borders of the two
superpowers.
His new book integrates that focus on the developing world with a more traditional emphasis on the great powers. It is aimed at a
general rather than a scholarly audience, with far fewer footnotes or archival research than his previous works (more on that
later).
The Cold War: A World History
is told chronologically, but unlike most books on the subject, it begins with the
right period.
THE FIRST
well-regarded book on the war written from a post–Berlin Wall perspective was Martin Walker's
Cold
War,
published in 1994. Like so many others to come, it began with the dissension in the Allied ranks in the closing years of
World War II. By beginning with an earlier period, Westad advances beyond that approach. He is able to devote some attention to the
ideological sources of the struggle, which began with Lenin's interpretation of communism, prioritizing global revolution and
antagonism toward the noncommunist world. "The Cold War was born from the global transformations of the late nineteenth century and
was buried as a result of tremendously rapid changes a hundred years later," he writes. Those changes include decolonization, the
ascension of the United States to world power and the gradual decline of scientific socialism, as well as the two world wars. "The
Great War jumpstarted the destinies of the two future Cold War Superpowers. It made the United States the global embodiment of
capitalism and it made Russia a Soviet Union, a permanent challenge to the capitalist world." Westad also makes the
thought-provoking claim, rather unusual in a book on the Cold War, that
it is therefore quite possible that the Cold War will be reduced in significance by future historians, who from their vantage
point will attach more significance to the origins of Asian economic power, or the beginning of space exploration, or the
eradication of smallpox.
Westad proceeds from there through all the stops along the way to the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. Separate chapters
examine India, China, the Middle East and Latin America, as well as summaries of Richard Nixon's diplomacy and the reigns of
Kennedy, Brezhnev and Gorbachev. That he manages to do all this in largely sequential fashion is doubly impressive.
The Cold War
evinces a lifetime of research and thought on the subject. Compelling ideas and valuable insights appear
frequently, such as: "In spite of their attractiveness on a global scale, neither the Soviet nor the US system was ever fully
replicated elsewhere." Or the explanation for communism's appeal in Vietnam: "One reason, ironically, was the integration of
Vietnamese elites into French culture and education, from whence the post-1914 generation took over the radicalization that was
prevalent among French youth, too." Or: "In Asia as in Europe, US policy in the early Cold War was more oriented toward the
expansion of capitalism as such than toward a unique preservation of US national economic advantage or the interests of specific US
companies."
Westad's assessment is that some sort of conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union was inevitable once the common
foe of Nazi Germany was extinguished. "Leaders of the two countries had seen each other as adversaries ever since the Russian
Revolution of 1917, and in some cases even before that," he writes. Illustrative of his measured approach throughout the book,
Westad assigns blame for the conflict to both parties, though not so much that he is unable to make moral distinctions. Stalin's
determination to establish control in Eastern Europe, particularly in Poland, contributed greatly to the breakdown of good relations
with Britain and the United States. But, he writes, "it was containment that made postwar conflict into a Cold War." The United
States was unwilling to grant the Soviets a traditional sphere of influence, let alone see them as a comparable power deserving of
commensurate respect. Seen from 2017, it might seem absurd that so many Europeans, even in England, looked upon the Soviet Union
with admiration and gratitude. But, however much Americans like to forget it, it was the Red Army that "tore the guts out of the
German military machine," in Winston Churchill's colorful phrase.
Westad faults Truman for being unwilling or unable to extend Franklin Roosevelt's friendly policy toward the USSR. Stalin might
have hunkered down and developed foreign-policy paranoia regardless of Truman's behavior, he concedes. "But the intensity of the
conflict, including the paranoia that it later produced on both sides, might have been significantly reduced if more attempts had
been made by the stronger power to entice Moscow toward forms of cooperation." This is somewhat unfair to Truman. The day he was
sworn in as president after Roosevelt's death, Truman said in a statement he intended "to carry on as he believed the President
would have done." There is little reason to doubt his sincerity. In From Roosevelt to Truman
, University of Notre Dame
professor Wilson Miscamble credibly argued that Truman began his presidency with open-mindedness toward the Soviets but was
convinced by events that cooperation was impossible. He wasn't alone.
ASIA, MEANWHILE
, experienced rapid decolonization. Both the United States and the Soviet Union were resolutely
opposed to traditional European imperialism, however much they acted as imperialist powers in their own regions. Combined with the
destitution of the former colonial powers, this meant that Asian nations were freer to pursue their own destinies. Of course, in
Japan and Korea, those destinies were determined by their occupiers, who molded these societies in their own images. It is a sign of
Westad's attentiveness to facts that, without ever succumbing to anything resembling American chauvinism, he can write something as
direct as: "The Korean War came from Stalin's change of mind. If he had not given the go-ahead to Kim, there would have been no
war."
Westad betrays no romanticism toward the Soviet Union or its communist admirers -- that might seem like a low bar, but there are
still scholars like Bruce Cumings who look fondly on the Marxist regimes -- but the book makes the clear-eyed observation,
Only by industrializing fast could a country become socialist and modern. The policy had an obvious appeal: in countries on
the European periphery, where there was a profound sense of having fallen behind, and in countries outside of Europe, such as China,
Korea, and Vietnam, rapid industrialization seemed indeed to be the way forward.
Westad might have added that the Soviet Communist Party's untouchable command of power was similarly appealing to political
leaders and intellectuals worldwide.
Immediately prior to
The Cold War
, Westad's latest book was a study of China's foreign policy since 1750. His mastery of
the subject is evident in a chapter called "China's Scourge." It is valuable not only for a discussion of how the Chinese Communist
Party managed to win the civil war against the Nationalists, but also for a succinct reminder of why and how swiftly relations
dissolved between the CCP and the Soviets. "The Soviet assistance program for China was not only the biggest Moscow ever undertook
outside its own borders," Westad writes. "It was also, in relative terms, the biggest such program undertaken by any country
anywhere, including the US Marshall Plan for Europe." Within a decade following this generosity, they almost fought a nuclear war.
Similarly incisive here is a chapter on India. Often neglected in general histories of the Cold War, India was for a while the
leader of the Non-Aligned nations. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was progressive, but intent on keeping his newly independent
country truly independent. This, of course, infuriated the Americans, for whom any friendliness with the USSR was interpreted as
hostility to them. And yet, when India's moral purity conflicted with its conflict with China, nationalism prevailed, leading to a
brief war. "In spite of its many efforts, even a country as a significant as India was never able to fully break away from the
global conflict molding its policies," Westad concludes.
WESTAD ALSO
wrote a book on the fall of détente, for which he distinctly blames Americans. "Nixon and Kissinger
had gone further in attempting to manage the Cold War together with the Soviet Union than most Americans were willing to accept," he
writes. "Most Americans were simply not willing to tolerate that the United States could have an equal in international affairs, in
the 1970s or ever." This is where Gaddis's immersion in American documents might have been helpful. Most Americans, at least on the
anti-détente side, were worried not that the Soviet Union was at parity with the United States, but that it had actually exceeded
America's capabilities. However wrongheaded and overly alarmist that perspective was, its importance in explaining American behavior
should not be overlooked.
Indeed, Westad's decision to reduce the research shown to the readers in this book makes some of his unorthodox judgments
difficult to credit. Most conspicuously, Westad assesses Dwight Eisenhower harshly, but without offering enough support for his
claims. In the late 1950s and 1960s, the evaluation of Ike was decidedly mixed. He was too complacent, it was said, too moderate and
timid. He favored a strategic posture built around nuclear weapons that led to an arms race. He failed to confront Joe McCarthy and
McCarthyism. He initiated the first of many ill-considered CIA interventions in foreign countries, in Guatemala and Iran. And he
added a religious dimension to the Cold War, which elevated the conflict beyond the already-dangerous levels that existed when he
took power in 1953.
That perception gave way in the 1980s to a consideration that Eisenhower was not complacent, but subtle. The opening of archives
in the 1970s convinced many that his was, as the political scientist Fred Greenstein put it in his 1982 book of the same name, "the
hidden-hand presidency." The popular historian Stephen Ambrose did much to further this view, first in 1981's
Ike's Spies:
Eisenhower and the Espionage Establishment
, and then in a biography, released in two volumes in 1983 and 1984. (Writing in the
New Republic
in 2006, the journalist John Judis observed that Ambrose's books "changed many a liberal's view of the general,"
counting himself among them.)
The revisionist view of Eisenhower has now become orthodoxy. He routinely numbers among historians' rankings of the top ten
presidents. Far from sharing the contemporary perception of him as popular but ineffectual -- "It's just like Eisenhower. The worse I
do, the more popular I get," JFK said after the Bay of Pigs disaster -- we like Ike as much as the people who wore his campaign
buttons. Celebrity architect Frank Gehry designed an Eisenhower memorial that Congress has funded to the tune of $100 million, to
sit across from the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, on Washington's Independence Avenue.
Most scholars lean toward the view that Ike was a first-rate Cold War strategist. He balanced the budget thrice, halting the
unsustainable economic and military buildup that resulted from the Korean War. He set diplomatic precedents by meeting with Soviet
leaders and organizing purposeful summits. And he outflanked domestic hysteria, establishing a bipartisan commitment to a strategy
of containment. Predominant is the view expressed by Robert Bowie and Richard Immerman in their book, Waging Peace: How
Eisenhower Shaped a Cold War Strategy
:
Later events . . . have enhanced appreciation of his prudent and sober judgment. In a turbulent and dangerous stage of
East-West relations, with an untested and erratic Soviet leadership and a changing strategic environment, Eisenhower managed a
succession of crises and set a course that preserved both security and peace.
Westad will have none of it. "Intent to move away from the Cold War as a national emergency, Eisenhower ended up
institutionalizing it as policy and doctrine," he writes. "On the Korean War, the new president simply got lucky. . . . The turn
toward a policy of massive nuclear retaliation meant preparing for strategic warfare on a scale that so far had seemed
unimaginable." Pages later, he adds,
If the president was not a Cold War hysteric, neither was he someone who could conceive of a world without the confrontation
with the Soviet Union. Eisenhower lacked the imagination and political will to think about ending the Cold War after Stalin's death. This is a provocative portrayal of Eisenhower, a welcome antidote to the revisionism that can approach hagiography. But it is
undercut by Westad's slight documentation.
Cold War triumphalism has had pernicious effects on American foreign policy. A straight line can be drawn from the idea that
Ronald Reagan's military buildup and assertive rhetoric ended the Cold War to the fantasy that the United States could rebuild the
Middle East. The prominence of neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration was due largely to the widespread belief that
they had been right in seeing the transformative potential of American power during the Cold War. Though Donald Trump was able, in
the Republican primaries in 2016, to counter delusions of American omnipotence with delusions of American seclusion, the messianic
streak still runs strong in the Republican Party and in segments of the Democratic Party. Its absence in current political debates
should be seen as temporary. When it inevitably arises again, trouble will ensue. "We all lost the cold war," Gorbachev once said.
The difficulty arises when one party thinks it won.
Jordan Michael Smith is the author of the Kindle single
Humanity: How Jimmy Carter Lost an Election and Transformed the
Post-Presidency
.
Harry Dexter White: Treasury Assistant Secretary* who was the major force behind the
Bretton Woods Conference and the institutional reconstruction of the post-World War II world
economy. He accepted enough of John Maynard Keynes's proposals to lay the groundwork for the
greatest generation of economic growth the world has ever seen. It was the extraordinary
prosperity set in motion by the Bretton Woods' System and institutions--the "Thirty Glorious
Years"--that demonstrated that political democracy and the mixed economy could deliver and
distribute economic prosperity.
George Kennan: Author of the "containment" strategy that won the Cold War.
Argued--correctly--that World War III could be avoided if the Western Alliance made clear its
determination to "contain" the Soviet Union and World Communism, and that the internal
contradictions of the Soviet Union would lead it to evolve into something much less dangerous
than Stalin's tyranny.
George Marshall: Architect of victory in World War II. Post-World War II Secretary of
State who proposed the Marshall Plan, another key step in the economic and institutional
reconstruction of Western Europe after World War II.
Arthur Vandenberg: Leading Republican Senator from Michigan who made foreign policy truly
bipartisan for a few years. Without Vandenberg, it is doubtful that Truman, Marshall,
Acheson, and company would have been able to muster enough Congressional support to do their
work.
Paul Hoffman: Chief Marshall Plan administrator. The man who did the most to turn the
Marshall Plan from a good idea to an effective aid program.
Dean Acheson: Principal architect of the post-World War II Western Alliance. That
Britain, France, West Germany, Italy, and the United States reached broad consensus on how to
wage Cold War is more due to Dean Acheson's diplomatic skill than to any single other
person.
Harry S Truman: The President who decided that the U.S. had to remain engaged
overseas--had to fight the Cold War--and that the proper way to fight the Cold War was to
adopt Kennan's proposed policy of containment. His strategic choices were, by and large, very
good ones.
Dwight D. Eisenhower: As first commander-in-chief of NATO, played an indispensable role
in turning the alliance into a reality. His performance as President was less satisfactory:
too many empty words about "rolling back" the Iron Curtain, too much of a willingness to try
to skimp on the defense budget by adopting "massive retaliation" as a policy, too much trust
in the erratic John Foster Dulles.
Gerald Ford: In the end, the thing that played the biggest role in the rise of the
dissident movement behind the Iron Curtain was Gerald Ford's convincing the Soviet Union to
sign the Helsinki Accords. The Soviet Union thought that it had gained worldwide recognition
of Stalin's land grabs. But what it had actually done was to commit itself and its allies to
at least pretending to observe norms of civil and political liberties. And as the Communist
Parties of the East Bloc forgot that in the last analysis they were tyrants seated on thrones
of skulls, this Helsinki commitment emboldened their opponents and their governments'
failures to observe it undermined their own morale.
George Shultz: Convinced Ronald Reagan--correctly--that Mikhail Gorbachev's "perestroika"
and "glasnost" were serious attempts at reform and liberalization, and needed to be taken
seriously. Without Shultz, it is unlikely that Gorbachev would have met with any sort of
encouragement from the United States--and unlikely that Gorbachev would have been able to
remain in power long enough to make his attempts at reform irreversible.
*Also, almost surely
an "Agent of Influence" and perhaps an out-and-out spy for Stalin's Russia. If so, never did
any intelligence service receive worse service from an agent than Stalin's Russia did from
Harry Dexter White....
I'm reading "The
Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World
Order (Council on Foreign Relations Books (Princeton University Press))" by Benn Steil and
wanted to share this quote with you.
"As regards the economics White advocated, they were hardly Marxist. They were by this time
what would be described as thoroughly Keynesian. He insisted that government should take an
active role in supporting economic activity; certainly more so than was orthodox before the
Great Depression, but he never pushed for broad government control of the means of production.
His writings on international monetary affairs express a concern with the need to fashion a
system that "reduces the necessity of restrictions on private enterprise."As for White's
domestic politics, these were mainstream New Deal progressive, and there is no evidence that he
admired communism as a political ideology."
ReplyFebruary 15, 2019 at 12:49
jorgensen said...
Vannevar Bush pushed for government support of science after the Second
World War and should get some credit for America's scientific dominance through the Cold War.
ReplyFebruary 16, 2019 at 15:38
andres said... The above list is old hat, so to speak. I would add the following two
lists:
Russians Who Did the Most to Win the Cold War (for both sides):
1. Georgi Zhukov (Was an unbelievable s.o.b. during WWII, but did the right thing having the
Red Army side with Khruschev and Malenkov against Beria). 2. Nikita Khruschev (secret speech, ousting of Stalin's old cronies and final unwillingness to
go to war over Cuba outweigh Hungary and U-2 incident, imo). 3. Aleksandr Solshenitsyn (self-explanatory). 4. Boris Pasternak (Dr. Zhivago is a better read than The Gulag Archipelago). 5. Roy Medvedev (Let History Judge). 6. Vasili Arkhipov (Don't Push the Button I). 7. Andrei Sakharov (self-explanatory). 8. Stanislav Petrov (Don't Push the Button II). 9. Mikhail Gorbachev (glasnost plus withdrawal from Afghanistan). 10. Boris Yeltsin (lousy president, but energetic opposition to August 1991 coup was
vital).
Americans Who Tried Their Best to Make the U.S. Lose the Cold War.
1. Douglas MacArthur. 2. John Foster Dulles. 3. Allen Dulles. 4. Barry Goldwater. 5. Robert McNamara/McGeorge Bundy/Maxwell Taylor/W.W. Rostow (joint award for Vietnam) 6. William Westmoreland (made it even worse). 7. Richard Nixon (carpet bomber in chief, plus undermined 1968 Vietnam peace talks). 8. Henry Kissinger (took over from JF Dulles as military coup enabler in chief, and nearly
pushed India to Russia's side after giving a blank check to Pakistan). 9. Ronald Reagan (was clearly pointed toward WWIII before Schultz and GHW Bush brought him
around).
(There are lots more, but I've tried to limit the list to those who were either in the
executive branch or came close (Goldwater). LBJ could also be included, but it is still being
argued whether he led his cabinet or his cabinet led him into Vietnam).
ReplyFebruary 16, 2019 at 22:52
""Certain key unknown figures in the Federal Reserve may have 'conspired' with key unknown
figures at the Bank of New York to create a situation where $240 billion in off balance sheet
securities created in 1991 as part of an official covert operation to overthrow the Soviet
Union, could be cleared without publicly acknowledging their existence. These securities,
originally managed by Cantor Fitzgerald, were cleared and settled in the aftermath of
September 11th
through the BoNY. The $100 billion account balance bubble reported by the Wall Street
Journalas being experienced in the BoNY was tip of a three day operation, when these
securities were moved from off-balance-sheet to the balance sheet.
Thatcher was an English politico. It is not what she said, but what she did that counts. She is probably down in Dante's Inferno,
Ring 8, sub-rings 7-10. (Frauds and false councilors.) See, oh wayward sinners:
http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/circle8b.html
Ah, you think that Milton should be at the bottom, eh? Then, I hope that he knows how to ice skate. (He was the worst kind
of 'class traitor.' [His parents were small store owner/managers.])
Ring 8 of the Inferno is for 'frauds' of all sorts, sub-rings 7-10 are reserved for Thieves, Deceivers, Schismatics, and Falsifiers.
Maggie should feel right at home there.
The USA centered global neoliberal empire falls from grace at alarming speed.
Just the discussion of this possibility would be unthinkable in 90th -- the period of triumphal advance of neoliberalism all over
the globe. So thinks did change although it is unclear what is that direction of the social change -- neo-fascism or some kind of return
to the New Del Capitalism (if so who will replace previous, forged by Great Depression political alignment between trade unions and
management against the financial oligarchy, which financial oligarchy managed to broke using neoliberalism as the Trojan horse and bribing
CEOs)
Om a was original fascist movements were also a protest against the rule of financial oligarchy. Even anti-Semitism in Germany was
a kind of perverted protest against financial oligarchy as well. They were quickly subverted and in Germany anti-Semitism degenerated
into irrational hatred and genocide, , but the fact remains. Just looks at
NSDAP program of 1920 . Now we have somewhat
similar sentiments with Wexner and Meta group in the USA. To say that they do not invoke any sympathy is an understatement.
The problem with empires that they do not only rob the "other people". They rob their own people as well, and rob them hard. The
USSR people were really robbed by Soviet military industrial complex and Soviet globalist -- to the far greater extent then the USA
people now. People were really as poor as church rats. Epidemic of alcoholism in the USA resembles the epidemic of narcoaddtion in the
USA --- both are signs of desire then there is no jobs and now chances.
Like the collapse of the USSR was the result of the collapse of bolshevism, the collapse of the USA can be the result of the collapse
of neoliberalism. Whether it will take 10 or 50 years is unclear, but the general tendency is down.
The competitors has grown much strong now and they want their place under then sub. That means squeezing the USA. Trump did agrat
job in alientaing the US and that was probably the most important step is dismantling the USA empire that was taken. Add to that trade
war with China and we have the situation that is not favorable to the USA politically in two important parts of the globe.
Add to this Brexit and we have clear tendency of states to reassert their sovereignty, which start hurting the USA based multinationals.
The only things that work in favor of the USA is that currently there is no clear alternative to neoliberalism other then some kind
of restoration of the New Deal capitalism or neo-fasist dictatorship.
Notable quotes:
"... Self-discipline, self sacrifice and self restraint are the prices which must be paid for a civilization to survive, much less flourish, and Americans are increasingly unwilling to pay up. The America of a generation or two down the road will have the social cohesion of El Salvador. ..."
"... Being that history is always written by the tyrant of the time (which in our case was definitely behind the two last empires and a big player in Rome as and Spain as well) people are also led to believe that empire is a desireable state of cicumstance. It never was. Its the ambitions and conquistador actions of the collective psychopath. They feed on the strength of civilizations and utilize it for megalomaniac ambitions over power of others and power over everything. ..."
"... Those of you hoping for the end of American Empire need to think about what would replace it. ..."
"... You are completely delusional. The world is not better off under American stewardship. We don't need and shouldn't want anything to replace it. We don't need and shouldn't want any empire ruling the world. We would be better off without any state at all, so we could finally be free people. ..."
"... And no it probably wouldn't be better off under the Chinese. Although if the world stopped respecting American IP law, that would be a huge positive step forward. ..."
Years ago, Doug Casey mentioned in a correspondence to me, "Empires fall from grace with alarming speed."
Every now and then, you receive a comment that, although it may have been stated casually, has a lasting effect, as it offers
uncommon insight. For me, this was one of those and it's one that I've kept handy at my desk since that time, as a reminder.
I'm from a British family, one that left the UK just as the British Empire was about to begin its decline. They expatriated to
the "New World" to seek promise for the future.
As I've spent most of my life centred in a British colony – the Cayman Islands – I've had the opportunity to observe many British
contract professionals who left the UK seeking advancement, which they almost invariably find in Cayman. Curiously, though, most
returned to the UK after a contract or two, in the belief that the UK would bounce back from its decline, and they wanted to be on
board when Britain "came back."
This, of course, never happened. The US replaced the UK as the world's foremost empire, and although the UK has had its ups and
downs over the ensuing decades, it hasn't returned to its former glory.
And it never will.
If we observe the empires of the world that have existed over the millennia, we see a consistent history of collapse without renewal.
Whether we're looking at the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Spanish Empire, or any other that's existed at one time, history
is remarkably consistent: The decline and fall of any empire never reverses itself; nor does the empire return, once it's fallen.
But of what importance is this to us today?
Well, today, the US is the world's undisputed leading empire and most Americans would agree that, whilst it's going through a
bad patch, it will bounce back and might even be better than ever.
Not so, I'm afraid. All empires follow the same cycle. They begin with a population that has a strong work ethic and is self-reliant.
Those people organize to form a nation of great strength, based upon high productivity.
This leads to expansion, generally based upon world trade. At some point, this gives rise to leaders who seek, not to work in
partnership with other nations, but to dominate them, and of course, this is when a great nation becomes an empire. The US began
this stage under the flamboyant and aggressive Teddy Roosevelt.
The twentieth century was the American century and the US went from victory to victory, expanding its power.
But the decline began in the 1960s, when the US started to pursue unwinnable wars, began the destruction of its currency and began
to expand its government into an all-powerful body.
Still, this process tends to be protracted and the overall decline often takes decades.
So, how does that square with the quote, "Empires fall from grace with alarming speed"?
Well, the preparation for the fall can often be seen for a generation or more, but the actual fall tends to occur quite rapidly.
What happens is very similar to what happens with a schoolyard bully.
The bully has a slow rise, based upon his strength and aggressive tendency. After a number of successful fights, he becomes
first revered, then feared. He then takes on several toadies who lack his abilities but want some of the spoils, so they do his
bidding, acting in a threatening manner to other schoolboys.
The bully then becomes hated. No one tells him so, but the other kids secretly dream of his defeat, hopefully in a shameful
manner.
Then, at some point, some boy who has a measure of strength and the requisite determination has had enough and takes on the
bully.
If he defeats him, a curious thing happens. The toadies suddenly realise that the jig is up and they head for the hills, knowing
that their source of power is gone.
Also, once the defeated bully is down, all the anger, fear and hatred that his schoolmates felt for him come out, and they
take great pleasure in his defeat.
And this, in a nutshell, is what happens with empires.
A nation that comes to the rescue in times of genuine need (such as the two World Wars) is revered. But once that nation morphs
into a bully that uses any excuse to invade countries such as Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and Syria, its allies may continue to bow
to it but secretly fear it and wish that it could be taken down a peg.
When the empire then starts looking around for other nations to bully, such as Iran and Venezuela, its allies again say nothing
but react with fear when they see the John Boltons and Mike Pompeos beating the war drums and making reckless comments.
At present, the US is focusing primarily on economic warfare, but if this fails to get the world to bend to its dominance, the
US has repeatedly warned, regarding possible military aggression, that "no option is off the table."
The US has reached the classic stage when it has become a reckless bully, and its support structure of allies has begun to de-couple
as a result.
At the same time that allies begin to pull back and make other plans for their future, those citizens within the empire who tend
to be the creators of prosperity also begin to seek greener pastures.
History has seen this happen countless times. The "brain drain" occurs, in which the best and most productive begin to look elsewhere
for their future. Just as the most productive Europeans crossed the Pond to colonise the US when it was a new, promising country,
their present-day counterparts have begun moving offshore.
The US is presently in a state of suspended animation. It still appears to be a major force, but its buttresses are quietly disappearing.
At some point in the near future, it's likely that the US government will overplay its hand and aggress against a foe that either
is stronger or has alliances that, collectively, make it stronger.
The greatest (so called) threats to America- the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, ISIS, ( fill in the blank for
the latest overseas bogeyman-of-the-week ) pale into a wisp beside the ongoing disintegration of American traditional family life.
Self-discipline, self sacrifice and self restraint are the prices which must be paid for a civilization to survive, much less
flourish, and Americans are increasingly unwilling to pay up. The America of a generation or two down the road will have the social
cohesion of El Salvador.
You also cant warn people about the collapse of empire either. People notoriously go into denial about it and it shocks the
**** out of everybody. Since empires bluff and bluster at the end its all to easy for people want to believe.
Being that history is always written by the tyrant of the time (which in our case was definitely behind the two last empires
and a big player in Rome as and Spain as well) people are also led to believe that empire is a desireable state of cicumstance.
It never was. Its the ambitions and conquistador actions of the collective psychopath. They feed on the strength of civilizations
and utilize it for megalomaniac ambitions over power of others and power over everything.
Those of you hoping for the end of American Empire need to think about what would replace it. if you think that the world would
enter the age of Aquarius and peace will rule the planet you are extremely naive and stupid. If you think that the Chinese would
be more benign rulers you are mistaken. The only reason China doesn't use its military to dominate other countries is because
it is kept in check by the US.
You are completely delusional. The world is not better off under American stewardship. We don't need and shouldn't want anything
to replace it. We don't need and shouldn't want any empire ruling the world. We would be better off without any state at
all, so we could finally be free people.
And no it probably wouldn't be better off under the Chinese. Although if the world stopped respecting American IP law, that
would be a huge positive step forward.
In the real world, Chinese terrorists are just as bad as American terrorists. Despite the most popular hypnosis gripping the
American psyche, you can't have liberty or justice as long as either one is in charge. Whether the Chinese would be worse is debatable.
It's not like America has some great track record to compete against. Their reign has been a complete disaster for human rights.
If China became the new empire we wouldnt live under it. It would be at least 100 years out. This empire will screw everybody
epically first, plus we have decline weather patterns with super solar grand minimum. Also those people's who may see that next
empire will deal with whatever circumstances present themselves and they wont give one **** what we think about it.
Basically power has kept moving west. Nobody will forget the depravity of this one. If written about accurately this one will
be remembered most for the medical tyranny and intentional damage it did to human beings through injections and modified good
supply, as well as moral depravity and proxy sadistic terrorism. Remember empire backed terrorist groups trafficked children and
harvested organs. You can miss it if you want, few will.
I do not _hope_ for an end of the American Empire, and I dread what is going to replace it. Howsoever, no empire lasts forever,
and our empire is near its end. The Chinese are relentlessly cruel, and that's in their genotype. I probably won't live to see
them take over the scraps and bits and pieces of our former empire. Those who are alive and in the prime of their lives when that
happens will suffer unimaginably while they live, and their blood will cry out from the grave after they die. It makes me so heart-sick
I can't bear to think about it for long, but our progeny will be forced to live it without let or hindrance.
Lets find out the whole details of what they have done to our biology and our children's first before we say how cruel China
might be. For starters look at what US and British did in Africa compared to China and Russia's involvement there. They are doing
deals and not killing anybody, same with Venezuela.
Where else you going to go? What nation ISN'T broke? Europe is going to hell. So is South America. Africa has always been hell.
Asia? Look what's going down in Hong Kong. China's broke. Make no mistake, the USA is in decline. But so is the rest of the world...
regardless of what is printed China is not falling, they have a plan and have only advanced it. The debt side will not hurt
them because they have been poor before and they have a route to success. They do not have resources but the industrial side is
needed everywhere in the world. We are talking about a nation that literally prospered off of our garbage and resells it back
to us! Think about it we use something up and pay them to take it away, they recycle it and resell it to us again and moved a
nation 4x our population forward!
You really think debt will hurt them, especially the way the US determines debt! A huge portion of it is in the infrastructucture
in China and along the BRI which will have returns over time, just as if we in the states rebuilt all our infrastructure by living
wage employment rather than MIC investment!
Yes, all are broke. Assisted suicides of countries all over the world. Emphasise on "assisted".
Nations have been demoralized (the US most certainly, check Yuri Bezmenov) we are in destabilization phase already, collapse
has to be next, it is unavoidable now. This will not end well, ignore at your own risk!
I am not talking about countries, just some Life Hedge Regions left in the world. People with brains and resources, you don
need a Life Hedge Property! Away from Northern Hemisphere, away from Ring of Fire, etc... Get in touch. lifehedge(at)
protonmail.com
What got America into trouble was when Americans who thought of themselves as being "exceptional" became exceptionally stupid.
The best and the brightest have already left America. Any wonder why we now depend on Russia to send our astronauts up on their
rockets into space, or depend on China, South Korea, and Japan for our electronic products, or why better health care is found
in other places outside the U.S., why our educational system has become poorer than what it was 60 years ago, etc.,?
When we decided to financialize everything and make nothing but investments we crippled our advancement.
When we decided to take the brightest minds in the world and recruit them into the US and then rather than advance the world
with true science, we offer them lucrative money to enter financial markets to use their knowledge in that field.
We take the ones with morals and principles that choose to actually remain in science and then corrupt them over time with
money/fame to regurgetate whatever their contractor chooses or lose funding for their projects.
We have corrupted every aspect of advancement and now just use our fake printed money to force the desperate to bend to our
will.
Good read on the subject of empires Sir John Glubb - The fate of empires and Search for survival.
We are probably near the end of the American Empire. And a fascinating by product of the HK protests is that we may well be near the end of Chinese Communism.
Nothing moves forward in a straight line. They move up and down. Empires are no exception. The Romans had their ups and downs
throughout the course of their empire. You never know when a down cycle is the end but people who want it to end will always write
articles like this.
American dominance might be drawing to an end....or it might be gearing up to go another 200 years. Nobody knows so it's a
waste of time to speculate.
"... By the late 1990s, national income had fallen by more than 50 percent(compare that with the 27 percent drop in output during the great American depression), investment by 80 percent, real wages by half, and meat and dairy herds by 75 percent. . . . while epidemics of cholera and typhus . . . re-emerged, millions of children suffer[ed] from malnutrition and adult life expectancy . . . plunged." Several of the oligarchs were prosecuted and harassed by Putin's government between 2000 and 2004, before an unofficial agreement was struck to permit most of them to keep their lives and their fortunes as long as they demurred from opposing Putin's political power. ..."
Mikhail Khodorkovsky was found guilty of fraud related to his control of Siberian oil fields through his Yukos corporation and was
sentenced to nine years in prison on this date in 2005. Khodorkovsky, who was behind bars until Vladimir Putin pardoned him in 2013,
is half-Jewish (on his father's side).
Many of the Russian oligarchs, most of whom exploited their political connections during the privatization years under Boris Yeltsin's
highly corrupt government to become hugely wealthy, are similarly half-Jewish or Jewish, including Boris Berezovsky, who took over
Russia's main television channel and died under uncertain circumstances (likely suicide) in 2013; Alexander Abramov, a steel magnate;
Mikhail Fridman, a banker; Roman Abramovich, a younger billionaire investor; Viktor Vekselberg, an aluminum tycoon; and Leonid Mikhelson,
a natural-gas billionaire, and a half-dozen others.
The shock-capitalism that vaulted these men to the Forbes list of billionaires is known in Russia as the katastroika
and "brought in its wake mass pauperisation and unemployment," writes Seumas Milne in The Guardian , "wild extremes of
inequality; rampant crime; virulent antisemitism and ethnic violence; combined with legalised gangsterism on a heroic scale and precipitous
looting of public assets. . . .
By the late 1990s, national income had fallen by more than 50 percent(compare that with the 27 percent drop in output during
the great American depression), investment by 80 percent, real wages by half, and meat and dairy herds by 75 percent. . . . while
epidemics of cholera and typhus . . . re-emerged, millions of children suffer[ed] from malnutrition and adult life expectancy . .
. plunged." Several of the oligarchs were prosecuted and harassed by Putin's government between 2000 and 2004, before an unofficial
agreement was struck to permit most of them to keep their lives and their fortunes as long as they demurred from opposing Putin's
political power.
"The oligarchs, idiotically rich in a country that was largely poor, and given to parading their wealth in a manner that makes
American hip-hoppers look like an especially reticent community of Amish farmers, could certainly have given any former Soviet citizen
pause to wonder, as he queued for beetroot, what the proletarian revolution had been for. The oligarchs, not content with buying
companies, villas, yachts, planes and the most beautiful of Russia's beautiful women, also bought power. In 1996, they connived to
engineer the re-election of the politically and physically ailing Boris Yeltsin. In 2000, they helped steer Yeltsin's successor into
power -- Vladimir Putin, a saturnine former spook with the KGB, and its descendant organisation, the FSB. This, as Russian Godfathers
demonstrates, may have been the moment at which the oligarchs out-clevered themselves." –Andrew Mueller, The Guardian
"... A new opinion poll released by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal last Sunday shows that 70% of Americans are "angry" because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power. Both Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren have also reflected on this sentiment during their campaigns. Sanders has said that we live in a "corrupt political system designed to protect the wealthy and the powerful." Warren said it's a "rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else." ..."
A new opinion poll released by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal last Sunday shows that 70% of Americans are "angry" because
our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power. Both Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth
Warren have also reflected on this sentiment during their campaigns. Sanders has said that we live in a "corrupt political system
designed to protect the wealthy and the powerful." Warren said it's a "rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks
dirt on everyone else."
A New York Times opinion article written by the political scientist Greg Weiner felt compelled to push back on this message, writing
a column with the title, The Shallow Cynicism of 'Everything Is Rigged'. In his column, Weiner basically makes the argument that
believing everything is corrupt and rigged is a cynical attitude with which it is possible to dismiss political opponents for being
a part of the corruption. In other words, the Sanders and Warren argument is a shortcut, according to Weiner, that avoids real political
debate.
Joining me now to discuss whether it makes sense to think of a political system as rigged and corrupt, and whether the cynical
attitude is justified, is someone who should know a thing or two about corruption: Bill Black. He is a white collar criminologist,
former financial regulator, and associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He's also the
author of the book, The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One. Thanks for joining us again, Bill.
BILL BLACK: Thank you.
GREG WILPERT: As I mentioned that the outset, it seems that Sanders and Warren are in effect taking an open door, at least when
it comes to the American public. That is, almost everyone already believes that our political and economic system is rigged. Would
you agree with that sentiment that the system is corrupt and rigged for the rich and against pretty much everyone else but especially
the poor? What do you think?
BILL BLACK: One of the principal things I study is elite fraud, corruption and predation. The World Bank sent me to India for
months as an anti-corruption alleged expert type. And as a financial regulator, this is what I dealt with. This is what I researched.
This is a huge chunk of my life. So I wouldn't use the word, if I was being formal in an academic system, "the system." What I would
talk about is specific systems that are rigged, and they most assuredly are rigged.
Let me give you an example. One of the most important things that has transformed the world and made it vastly more criminogenic,
much more corrupt, is modern executive compensation. This is not an unusual position. This is actually the normal position now, even
among very conservative scholars, including the person who was the intellectual godfather of modern executive compensation, Michael
Jensen. He has admitted that he spawned unintentionally a monster because CEOs have rigged the compensation system. How do they do
that? Well, it starts even before you get hired as a CEO. This is amazing stuff. The standard thing you do as a powerful CEO is you
hire this guy, and he specializes in negotiating great deals for CEOs. His first demand, which is almost always given into, is that
the corporation pay his fee, not the CEO. On the other side of the table is somebody that the CEO is going to be the boss of negotiating
the other side. How hard is he going to negotiate against the guy that's going to be his boss? That's totally rigged.
Then the compensation committee hires compensation specialists who–again, even the most conservative economists agree it is a
completely rigged system. Because the only way they get work is if they give this extraordinary compensation. Then, everybody in
economics admits that there's a clear way you should run performance pay. It should be really long term. You get the big bucks only
after like 10 years of success. In reality, they're always incredibly short term. Why? Because it's vastly easier for the CEO to
rig the short-term reported earnings. What's the result of this? Accounting profession, criminology profession, economics profession,
law profession. We've all done studies and all of them say this perverse system of compensation causes CEOs to (a) cheat and (b)
to be extraordinarily short term in their perspective because it's easier to rig the short-term reported results. Even the most conservative
economists agree that's terrible for the economy.
What I've just gone through is a whole bunch of academic literature from over 40-plus years from top scholars in four different
fields. That's not cynicism. That's just plain facts if you understand the system. People like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders,
they didn't, as you say, kick open an open door. They made the open door. It's not like Elizabeth Warren started talking about this
six months ago when she started being a potential candidate. She has been saying this and explaining in detail how individual systems
are rigged in favor of the wealthy for at least 30 years of work. Bernie Sanders has been doing it for 45 years. This is what the
right, including the author of this piece who is an ultra-far right guy, fear the most. It's precisely what they fear, that Bernie
and Elizabeth are good at explaining how particular systems are rigged. They explain it in appropriate detail, but they're also good
in making it human. They talk the way humans talk as opposed to academics.
That's what the right fear is more than anything, that people will basically get woke. In this, it's being woke to how individual
systems have been rigged by the wealthy and powerful to create a sure thing to enrich them, usually at our direct expense.
GREG WILPERT: I think those are some very good examples. They're mostly from the realm of economics. I want to look at one from
the realm of politics, which specifically Weiner makes. He cites Sanders, who says that the rich literally buy elections, and Weiner
counters this by saying that, "It is difficult to identify instances in American history of an electoral majority wanting something
specific that it has not eventually gotten." That's a pretty amazing statement actually, I think, for him to say when you look at
the actual polls of what people want and what people get. He then also adds, "That's not possible to dupe the majority with advertising
all of the time." What's your response to that argument?
BILL BLACK: Well, actually, that's where he's trying to play economist, and he's particularly bad at economics. He was even worse
at economics than he is at political science, where his pitch, by the way is–I'm not overstating this–corruption is good. The real
problem with Senator Sanders and Senator Warren is that they're against corruption.
Can you fool many people? Answer: Yes. We have good statistics from people who actually study this as opposed to write op-eds
of this kind. In the great financial crisis, one of the most notorious of the predators that targeted blacks and Latinos–we actually
have statistics from New Century. And here's a particular scam. The loan broker gets paid more money the worse the deal he gets you,
the customer, and he gets paid by the bank. If he can get you to pay more than the market rate of interest, then he gets a kickback,
a literal kickback. In almost exactly half of the cases, New Century was able to get substantially above market interest rates, again,
targeted at blacks and Latinos.
We know that this kind of predatory approach can succeed, and it can succeed brilliantly. Look at cigarettes. Cigarettes, if you
use them as intended, they make you sick and they kill you. It wasn't that very long ago until a huge effort by pushback that the
tobacco companies, through a whole series of fake science and incredible amounts of ads that basically tried to associate if you
were male, that if you smoked, you'd have a lot of sex type of thing. It was really that crude. It was enormously successful with
people in getting them to do things that almost immediately made them sick and often actually killed them.
He's simply wrong empirically. You can see it in US death rates. You can see it in Hell, I'm overweight considerably. Americans
are enormously overweight because of the way we eat, which has everything to do with how marketing works in the United States, and
it's actually gotten so bad that it's reducing life expectancy in a number of groups in America. That's how incredibly effective
predatory practices are in rigging the system. That's again, two Nobel Laureates in economics have recently written about this. George
Akerlof and Shiller, both Nobel Laureates in economics, have written about this predation in a book for a general audience. It's
called Phishing with a P-H.
GREG WILPERT: I want to turn to the last point that Weiner makes about cynicism. He says that calling the system rigged is actually
a form of cynicism. And that cynicism, the belief that everything and everyone is bad or corrupt avoids real political arguments
because it tires everyone you disagree with as being a part of that corruption. Would you say, is the belief that the system is rigged
a form of cynicism? And if it is, wouldn't Weiner be right that cynicism avoids political debate?
BILL BLACK: He creates a straw man. No one has said that everything and everyone is corrupt. No one has said that if you disagree
with me, you are automatically corrupt. What they have given in considerable detail, like I gave as the first example, was here is
exactly how the system is rigged. Here are the empirical results of that rigging. This produces vast transfers of wealth to the powerful
and wealthy, and it comes at the expense of nearly everybody else. That is factual and that needs to be said. It needs to be said
that politicians that support this, and Weiner explicitly does that, says, we need to go back to a system that is more openly corrupt
and that if we have that system, the world will be better. That has no empirical basis. It's exactly the opposite. Corruption kills.
Corruption ruins economies.
The last thing in the world you want to do is what Weiner calls for, which he says, "We've got to stop applying morality to this
form of crime." In essence, he is channeling the godfather. "Tell the Don it wasn't personal. It was just business." There's nothing
really immoral in his view about bribing people. I'm sorry. I'm a Midwesterner. It wasn't cynicism. It was morality. He says you
can't compromise with corruption. I hope not. Compromising with corruption is precisely why we're in this situation where growth
rates have been cut in half, why wage growth has been cut by four-fifths, why blacks and Latinos during the great financial crisis
lost 60% to 80% of their wealth in college-educated households. That's why 70% of the public is increasingly woke on this subject.
GREG WILPERT: Well, we're going to leave it there. I was speaking to Bill Black, associate professor of economics and law at the
University of Missouri, Kansas City. Thanks again, Bill, for having joined us today.
BILL BLACK: Thank you.
GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Well, Sanders certainly knows that elections are rigged. But he's not quite right when he says that money does the rigging.
It would be more accurate to say that powerful people are powerful because they're criminals, and they're rich because they're
criminals.
Money is a side effect, not the driver. Specific example: Hillary and Bernie are in the same category of net worth, but Bernie
isn't powerful. The difference is that Bernie ISN'T willing to commit murder and blackmail to gain power.
> Hillary and Bernie are in the same category of net worth
Clinton's net worth (says Google) is $45 million; Sanders $2.5 million. So, an order of magnitude difference. I guess that
puts Sanders in the 1% category, but Clinton is much closer to the 0.1% category than Sanders.
There's also a billion-dollar foundation in the mix.
We had our choice of two New York billionaires in the last presidential election. How is this not accounted for? It's like
the bond market, the sheer weight carries its own momentum.
Very similar to CEO's. I may not own a private jet, but if the company does, and I control the company, I have the benefit
of a private jet. I don't need to own the penthouse to live in it.
"We came, we saw, he died. Tee hee hee!"
"Did it have anything to do with your visit?"
"I'm sure it did."
From a non-legal perspective at least, that makes her an accessory to murder, doesn't it?
Is it fair to say the entire system is rigged when enough interconnected parts of it are rigged that no matter where one turns,
one finds evidence of corruption? Because like it or not, that's where we are as a country.
Yes. And it is also fair to say, and has been said by lots of cynics over the centuries, that both democracy and capitalism
sow the seeds of their own destruction.
Burns me to see yet another "water is not wet" argument being foisted by the NYT, hard to imagine another reason the editorial
board pushed for this line *except* to protect the current corrupt one percenters who call their shots. Once Liz The Marionette
gets appointed we might get some fluff but the rot will persist, eventually rot becomes putrefaction and the polity dies. Gore
Vidal called America and Christianity "death cults".
"Due to technical difficulties, comments are unavailable"
Pisses me off that I gave the propaganda rag of note a click and didn't even get the joy of the comments section. I'm sure
there's some cynical reason why
The other thing is that the NYT runs this pretty indefensible piece by a guy who is a visiting scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute. Just how often does NYT -- whose goal,
according to its
executive editor, "should be to understand different views" -- run a piece from anyone who is leftwing? What's the ratio of pro-establishment,
pro-Washington consensus pieces to those that are not? Glenn Greenwald
points out that the political spectrum at the NYT op-ed page "spans the small gap from establishment centrist Democrats
to establishment centrist Republicans." That, in itself, is consistent with the premise that the system is, indeed, rigged.
I think we have to drill down another level and ask ourselves a more fundamental question "why is cynicism necessarily bad
to begin with?" Black's response of parsing to individual systems as being corrupt is playing into the NYT authors trap, sort
to speak.
This NYT article is another version of the seemingly obligatory attribute of the american character; we must ultimately be
optimistic and have hope. Why is that useful? Or maybe more importantly, to whom is that useful? What is the point?
In my mind (and many a philosopher), cynicism is a very healthy, empowering response to a world whose institutional configuration
is such that it will to fuck you over whenever it is expedient to do so.
Furthermore, the act of voting lends legitimacy to an institution that is clearly not legitimate. The institution is very obviously
very corrupt. If you really want to change the "system" stop giving it legitimacy; i.e. be cynical, don't vote. The whole thing
is a ruse. Boycott it .
Some may say, in a desperate attempt to avoid being cynical, "well, the national level is corrupt but we need to increase engagement
at the community level via local elections ", or something like that. This is nothing more than rearranging the chairs on the
deck of the titanic. And collecting signature isn't going to help anymore than handing out buckets on the titanic would.
So, to answer my own rhetorical question above, "to whom is it useful to not be cynical?" It is useful to those who want things
to continue as they currently are.
So, be cynical. Don't vote. It is an empowering and healthy way to kinda say "fuck you" to the corrupt and not become corrupted
yourself by legitimizing it. The best part about it is that you don't have to do anything.
Viva la paz (Hows that for a non cynical salutation?)
Uh this sounds like the ultimate allowing things to continue as they currently are, do you really imagine the powers that be
are concerned about a low voting rate, and we have one, they don't care, they may even like it that way. Do you really imagine
they care about some phantom like perceived legitimacy? Where is the evidence of that?
Politicians do care about staying in office and will respond on some issues that will cost them enough votes to get booted
from office. But it has to be those particular issues in their own backyard; otherwise, they just kind of limp along with the
lip service collecting their paychecks.
IMO, it is sheer idiocy to not vote. If you are a voter, politicians will pay some attention to you at least. If you don't
vote, you don't even exist to them.
"I don't think it should be legal at ALL to become a corporate lobbyist if you've served in Congress," said Ocasio-Cortez.
"At minimum there should be a long wait period."
"If you are a member of Congress + leave, you shouldn't be allowed to turn right around&leverage your service for a lobbyist check.
I don't think it should be legal at ALL to become a corporate lobbyist if you've served in Congress."
–AOC, as reported by NakedCapitalism on May 31, 2019
I try to be despairing, but I can't keep up.
Attributed to a generation or two after Lily Tomlin's quote about cynicism.
Out of curiosity, would it be cynical to question that political scientist's grant funding or other sources of income? These
days, I feel inclined to look at what I'll call the Sinclair Rule* , added to Betteridge's, Godwin's and all those other, ahem,
modifications to what used to be an expectation that communication was more or less honest.
* Sinclair Rule, where you add a interpretive filter based on Upton's famous quote: It is difficult to get a man to understand
something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
It's good to look at funding sources. But it's kind of a slander to those who must work for a living when assuming it's paychecks
(which we need to live in this system) that corrupt people.
If it's applied to the average working person, maybe it's often true, maybe it has a tendency to push in that direction, but
if you think there are no workers that realize the industry they are working in might be destructive, that they may be exploited
by such systems but have little choice etc. etc., come now there are working people who are politically aware and do see a larger
picture, they just don't have a lot of power to change it much of the time. Does the average working person's salary depend on
his not understanding though? No, of course not, it merely depends on him obeying. And obeying enough to keep a job, not always
understanding, is what a paycheck buys.
With all the evidence of everyday life (airplanes, drug prices, health insurance, Wall Street, CEO pay, the workforce changes
in the past 20 years if you've been working those years etc) this Greg better be careful as he might be seen as a Witch to be
hanged and burned in Salem, Ma a few hundred years ago.
It's cynical to say it's cynical to believe the system is corrupt.
Greg Weiner is cynic, and his is using his cynicism to dismiss the political arguments of people he disagrees with.
And just this week, I found out I couldn't even buy a car unless I'd be willing to sign a mandatory binding arbitration agreement.
I was ready to pay and sign all the paperwork, and they lay a document in front of me that reserves for the dealer the right to
seek any remedy against me if I harm the dealer (pay with bad check, become delinquent on loan, fail to provide clean title on
my trade); but forces me to accept mandatory binding arbitration, with damages limited to the value of the car, for anything the
dealer might do wrong.
It is not cynical at all when even car dealers now want a permission slip for any harm they might do to me.
Okay, a few more. We are literally facing the possibility of a mass extinction in large part because of dishonesty on the par
of oil companies, politicians, and people paid to make bad arguments.
"Assad (and by implication Assad's forces alone) killed 500,000 Syrians."
"Israel is just defending itself."
I can't squeeze the dishonesty about the war in Yemen into a short slogan, but I know from personal experience that getting
liberals to care when it was Obama's war was virtually impossible. Even under Trump it was hard, until Khashoggi's murder. On
the part of politicians and think tanks this was corruption by Saudi money. With ordinary people it was the usual partisan tribal
hypocrisy.
The motivator is "
Gap Psychology
," the human desire to distance oneself from those below (on any scale), and to come nearer to those above.
The rich are rich because the Gap below them is wide, and the wider the Gap, the richer they are .
And here is the important point: There are two ways the rich widen the Gap: Either gain more for themselves or make sure
those below have less.
That is why the rich promulgate the Big Lie that the federal government (and its agencies, Social Security and Medicare) is
running short of dollars. The rich want to make sure that those below them don't gain more, as that would narrow the Gap.
Negative sum game, where one wins but the other has to lose more so the party of the first part feels even better about winning.
There is an element of sadism, sociopathy and a few other behaviors that the current systems allow to be gamed even more profitably.
If you build it, or lobby to have it built, they will come multiple times.
A successful society should be responsive to both threats and opportunities. Any major problems to that society are assessed
and changes are made, usually begrudgingly, to adapt to the new situation. And this is where corruption comes into it. It short
circuits the signals that a society receives so that it ignores serious threats and elevates ones that are relatively minor but
which benefit a small segment of that society. If you want an example of this at work, back in 2016 you had about 40,000 Americans
dying to opioids each and every year which was considered only a background issue. But a major issue about that time was who gets
to use what toilets. Seriously. If it gets bad enough, a society gets overwhelmed by the problems that were ignored or were deferred
to a later time. And I regret to say that the UK is going to learn this lesson in spades.
'Sanders has said that we live in a "corrupt political system designed to protect the wealthy and the powerful." Warren said
it's a "rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else."'
Yet the rest of the article focuses almost entirely on internal US shenanigans. When it comes to protecting wealth and power,
George Kennan hit the nail on the head in 1948, with "we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3 of its population.
This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the
object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships, which will permit us
to maintain this position of disparity." This, which has underpinned US policy ever since, may not be corrupt in the sense of
illegal, but it certainly seems corrupt in the sense of morally repugnant to me.
About Kennan's comment. That's interesting because no one questioned the word "wealth". Even tho' we had only 6.3% of the world's
population we had 50% of the wealth. The point of that comment had to be that we should "spread the wealth" and we did do just
that. Until we polluted the entire planet. I'd like some MMT person to take a long look at that attitude because it is so simplistic.
And not like George Kennan at all who was sophisticated to the bone. But that's just more proof of a bred-in-the-bone ignorance
about what money really is. In this case Kennan was talking about money, not wealth. He never asked Nepal for advice on gross
national happiness, etc. Nor did he calculate the enormous debt burden we would incur for our unregulated use and abuse of the
environment. That debt most certainly offsets any "wealth" that happened.
Approaching from the opposite direction, if someone were to say "I sincerely believe that the USA has the most open & honest
political system and the fairest economic system in human history" would you not think that person to be incredibly naive (or,
cynically, a liar)?
There has been, for at least the last couple of decades. a determined effort to do away with corruption – by defining it away.
"Citizens United" is perhaps the most glaring example but the effort is ongoing; that Weiner op-ed is a good current example.
What is cynical is everyone's response when point out that the system is corrupt. They all say " always has been, always will be so just deal with it ".
Strawmannirg has got to be the most cynical behavior in the world. Weiner is the cynic. I think Liz's "the system is rigged
" comment invites discussion. It is not a closed door at all. It is a plea for good capitalism. Which most people assume is possible.
It's time to define just what kind of capitalism will work and what it needs to continue to be, or finally become, a useful economic
ideology. High time.
Another thing. Look how irrational the world, which is now awash in money, has become over lack of liquidity. There's a big
push now to achieve an optimum flow of money by speeding up transaction time. The Fed is in the midst of designing a new real-time
digital payments system. A speedy accounting and record of everything. Which sounds like a very good idea.
But the predators are
busy keeping pace – witness the frantic grab by Facebook with Libra. Libra is cynical. To say the least. The whole thing a few
days ago on the design of Libra was frightening because Libra has not slowed down; it has filed it's private corporation papers
in Switzerland and is working toward a goal of becoming a private currency – backed by sovereign money no less! Twisted. So there's
a good discussion begging to be heard: The legitimate Federal Reserve v. Libra. The reason we are not having this discussion is
because the elite are hard-core cynics.
It is apparent that the caricature of the Soviet Union in both productions is really a stand-in for the present-day Russian government
under Vladimir Putin. As only American exceptionalism could permit, Hollywood did not hold the same disdain for his predecessor,
Boris Yeltsin, whose legacy of high inflation and national debt have since been eliminated. In fact, most have forgotten that the
same filmdom community outraged about Russia's supposed interference in the 2016 U.S. election made a celebratory movie back in 2003,
Spinning Boris , which practically boasted about the instrumental role the West played in Yeltsin's 1996 reelection in Russia.
The highly unpopular alcoholic politician benefited from a near universal media bias as virtually all the federation's news outlets
came under the control of the 'oligarchs' (in America known simply as billionaires) which his economic policies of mass privatization
of state industry enriched overnight.
Yeltsin initially polled at less than 10% and was far behind Communist Party candidate Gennady Zyuganov until he became the recipient
of billions from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) thanks to his corrupt campaign manager, Anatoly Chubais, now one of the most
hated men in all of Russia. After the purging of votes and rampant ballot-box stuffing, Yeltsin successfully closed the gap between
his opponent thanks to the overt U.S. meddling.
Spinning Boris was directed by Roger Spottiswoode, who previously helmed an installment in the James Bond series, Tomorrow
Never Dies . The 1997 entry in the franchise is one of thousands of Hollywood films and network television shows exposed by journalists
Matthew Alford and Tom Secker as having been influenced or directly assisted by the Pentagon and CIA in their must-read book National
Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood. Based on evidence from documents revealed in Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requests, their investigation divulges the previously unknown extent to which the national security complex
has gone in exerting control over content in the film industry. While it has always been known that the military held sway over movies
that required usage of its facilities and equipment to be produced, the level of impact on such films in the pre-production and editing
stages, as well as the control over non-military themed flicks one wouldn't suspect to be under supervision by Washington and Langley,
is exhaustively uncovered.
As expected, Hollywood and the military-industrial complex's intimate relationship during the Cold War is featured prominently
in Alford and Secker's investigative work. It is unclear whether HBO or Netflix sought US military assistance or were directly involved
with the national security state in their respective productions, but these are just two recent examples of many where the correlated
increase in geopolitical tensions with Moscow is reflected. The upcoming sequel to DC's Wonder Woman set to be released next
year , Wonder Woman 1984, featuring the female superhero " coming into conflict with the Soviet Union during the Cold War
in the 1980s ", is yet another. Reprising her role is Israeli actress and IDF veteran is Gal Gadot as the title character, ironically
starring in a blockbuster that will demonize the Eurasian state which saved her ethnicity from extinction. Given the Pentagon's involvement
in the debacle surounding 2014's The Interview which provoked very real tensions with North Korea, it is likely they are at
least closely examining any entertainment with content regarding Russia, if not directly pre-approving it for review.
Ultimately, the Western panic about its imperial decline is not limited to assigning blame to Moscow. Sinophobia has manifested
as well in recent films such as the 2016 sci-fi film Arrival where the extra-terrestrials who reach Earth seem more interested
in communicating with Beijing as the global superpower than the U.S. However, while the West forebodes the return of Russia and China
to greater standing, you can be certain its real fear lies elsewhere. The fact that Chernobyl and Stranger Things are
as preoccupied with portraying socialism in a bad light as they are in rendering Moscow nefarious shows the real underlying trepidation
of the ruling elite that concerns the resurgence of class consciousness. The West must learn its lesson that its state of perpetual
war has caused its own downfall or it could attempt a last line of defense that would inevitably conscript all of humanity to its
death as the ruling class nearly did to the world in 1914 and 1939.
"... There's a rocky road ahead for Larry Summers. Summers introduces Epstein into the Harvard fold, but becomes reckless with his newly-refined Neoliberalism and his opinions concerning "lady scholars." ..."
** A footnote on Larry Summers seems important here:
Harvard-trained economists have been running the US economy for a very long time, and continue
to do so. Summers began his ascent as a professor of economics at Harvard University, leaving
shortly before Bill Clinton won the Presidency. He was clearly the Neoliberal seed planted for
the New American Century.
In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United
States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted
to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In
1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury.
While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American
response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the
Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the Harvard Institute for International
Development and American-advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states,
and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the
Glass-Steagall Act.
At This Point the Ball is Passed to the Bush Team Republicans, while the Democrats Sit Back
and Wait for 2008.
There's now a Treasury surplus to transfer to the wealthy, and the necessary deregulation
for Wall Street empowerment is in place. The Soviet era had ended and Russia is ended forever.
The world is finally primed to be seized by the One Exceptional Power. It's 2001, and we are
standing on the threshold of the New American Century . Time to throw a flash-bang of chaos
onto the world stage and trigger the booming War Economy that will carry us directly to global
control.
There's a rocky road ahead for Larry Summers. Summers introduces Epstein into the
Harvard fold, but becomes reckless with his newly-refined Neoliberalism and his opinions
concerning "lady scholars."
Following the end of Clinton's term, Summers served as the 27th President of Harvard
University from 2001 to 2006. Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a
no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty, which resulted in large part from Summers's conflict
with Cornel West, financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with
Andrei Shleifer, and a 2005 speech in which he suggested that the under-representation of
women in science and engineering could be due to a "different availability of aptitude at the
high end", and less to patterns of discrimination and socialization. Remarking upon political
correctness in institutions of higher education, Summers said in 2016:
There is a great deal of absurd political correctness. Now, I'm somebody who believes
very strongly in diversity, who resists racism in all of its many incarnations, who thinks
that there is a great deal that's unjust in American society that needs to be combated, but
it seems to be that there is a kind of creeping totalitarianism in terms of what kind of
ideas are acceptable and are debatable on college campuses.
After his departure from Harvard, Summers cooled his jets on Wall Street, positioning
himself to be called back into the game when it was Team Democrat's turn in 2008.
Summers worked as a managing partner at the hedge fund D. E. Shaw & Co., and as a
freelance speaker at other financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase,
Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. Summers rejoined public service during the
Obama administration, serving as the Director of the White House United States National
Economic Council for President Barack Obama from January 2009 until November 2010, where he
emerged as a key economic decision-maker in the Obama administration's response to the Great
Recession.
Jeffery Epstein continued to weave himself into the fabric of government like a good
psychopath would. He was by no means the only one.
"... Maher was right. I've been saying for decades -- since Brezhnev was still alive -- that the Soviet Union was a functional theocracy. ..."
"... In practice, the USSR behaved exactly like a brutal totalitarian theocracy would. They had an impersonal god (the theory of history that would lead inevitably to heaven on Earth) which the government treated as the source of their authority and their justification for everything they did in the name of the Revolution. ..."
"... They had a state church (the Communist Party -- no rivals allowed) that you needed to join to get anywhere in society. They had prophets (look what they did with Lenin after his death), saints (heroes of the Revolution), idols, sacred texts that could not be challenged, brutal suppression of other religions, witch hunts for heretics (anyone who opposed the Revolution). ..."
"... So yes: the USSR turned "communism" into their de facto state religion. ..."
To this day, Maher's response still leaves me dumbfounded: "I would say that's a secular
religion." Before Douthat could ask what the hell a secular religion is, Maher changed the
subject. The meaning of Maher's nonsensical statement was clear: everything Maher doesn't
like is religion.
Maher was right. I've been saying for decades -- since Brezhnev was still alive --
that the Soviet Union was a functional theocracy. Sure, they didn't use God or angels or
miracles in their rhetoric, but that's just surface trappings.
In practice, the USSR behaved exactly like a brutal totalitarian theocracy would. They
had an impersonal god (the theory of history that would lead inevitably to heaven on Earth)
which the government treated as the source of their authority and their justification for
everything they did in the name of the Revolution.
They had a state church (the Communist Party -- no rivals allowed) that you needed to
join to get anywhere in society. They had prophets (look what they did with Lenin after his
death), saints (heroes of the Revolution), idols, sacred texts that could not be challenged,
brutal suppression of other religions, witch hunts for heretics (anyone who opposed the
Revolution).
So yes: the USSR turned "communism" into their de facto state religion. No, they
didn't include personified invisible spirits in their ideology. But if it looks like a duck,
walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....
"... The purpose of a military conquest is to take control of foreign economies, to take control of their land and impose tribute. The genius of the World Bank was to recognize that it's not necessary to occupy a country in order to impose tribute, or to take over its industry, agriculture and land. Instead of bullets, it uses financial maneuvering. As long as other countries play an artificial economic game that U.S. diplomacy can control, finance is able to achieve today what used to require bombing and loss of life by soldiers ..."
"... It was set up basically by the United States in 1944, along with its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Their purpose was to create an international order like a funnel to make other countries economically dependent on the United States ..."
"... American diplomats insisted on the ability to veto any action by the World Bank or IMF. The aim of this veto power was to make sure that any policy was, in Donald Trump's words, to put America first. "We've got to win and they've got to lose." ..."
"... The World Bank was set up from the outset as a branch of the military, of the Defense Department. John J. McCloy (Assistant Secretary of War, 1941-45), was the first full-time president ..."
"... Many countries had two rates: one for goods and services, which was set normally by the market, and then a different exchange rate that was managed for capital movements. That was because countries were trying to prevent capital flight. They didn't want their wealthy classes or foreign investors to make a run on their own currency – an ever-present threat in Latin America. ..."
"... The IMF and the World Bank backed the cosmopolitan classes, the wealthy. Instead of letting countries control their capital outflows and prevent capital flight, the IMF's job is to protect the richest One Percent and foreign investors from balance-of-payments problems ..."
"... The IMF enables its wealthy constituency to move their money out of the country without taking a foreign-exchange loss ..."
"... Wall Street speculators have sold the local currency short to make a killing, George-Soros style. ..."
"... When the debtor-country currency collapses, the debts that these Latin American countries owe are in dollars, and now have to pay much more in their own currency to carry and pay off these debts. ..."
"... Local currency is thrown onto the foreign-exchange market for dollars, lowering the exchange rate. That increases import prices, raising a price umbrella for domestic products. ..."
"... Instead, the IMF says just the opposite: It acts to prevent any move by other countries to bring the debt volume within the ability to be paid. It uses debt leverage as a way to control the monetary lifeline of financially defeated debtor countries. ..."
"... This control by the U.S. financial system and its diplomacy has been built into the world system by the IMF and the World Bank claiming to be international instead of an expression of specifically U.S. New Cold War nationalism. ..."
"... The same thing happened in Greece a few years ago, when almost all of Greece's foreign debt was owed to Greek millionaires holding their money in Switzerland ..."
"... The IMF could have seized this money to pay off the bondholders. Instead, it made the Greek economy pay. It found that it was worth wrecking the Greek economy, forcing emigration and wiping out Greek industry so that French and German bondholding banks would not have to take a loss. That is what makes the IMF so vicious an institution. ..."
"... America was able to grab all of Iran's foreign exchange just by the banks interfering. The CIA has bragged that it can do the same thing with Russia. If Russia does something that U.S. diplomats don't like, the U.S. can use the SWIFT bank payment system to exclude Russia from it, so the Russian banks and the Russian people and industry won't be able to make payments to each other. ..."
"... You can't create the money, especially if you're running a balance of payments deficit and if U.S. foreign policy forces you into deficit by having someone like George Soros make a run on your currency. Look at the Asia crisis in 1997. Wall Street funds bet against foreign currencies, driving them way down, and then used the money to pick up industry cheap in Korea and other Asian countries. ..."
"... This was also done to Russia's ruble. The only country that avoided this was Malaysia, under Mohamed Mahathir, by using capital controls. Malaysia is an object lesson in how to prevent a currency flight. ..."
"... Client kleptocracies take their money and run, moving it abroad to hard currency areas such as the United States, or at least keeping it in dollars in offshore banking centers instead of reinvesting it to help the country catch up by becoming independent agriculturally, in energy, finance and other sectors. ..."
"... But in shaping the World Trade Organization's rules, the United States said that all countries had to promote free trade and could not have government support, except for countries that already had it. We're the only country that had it. That's what's called "grandfathering". ..."
"The purpose of a military conquest is to take control of foreign economies, to take control of their land and impose
tribute. The genius of the World Bank was to recognize that it's not necessary to occupy a country in order to impose tribute,
or to take over its industry, agriculture and land. Instead of bullets, it uses financial maneuvering. As long as other countries
play an artificial economic game that U.S. diplomacy can control, finance is able to achieve today what used to require bombing
and loss of life by soldiers."
I'm Bonnie Faulkner. Today on Guns and Butter: Dr. Michael Hudson. Today's show: The IMF and World Bank: Partners In Backwardness
. Dr. Hudson is a financial economist and historian. He is President of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trend,
a Wall Street Financial Analyst, and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.
His most recent books include " and Forgive them Their Debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance
to the Jubilee Year "; Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy , and J Is for
Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception . He is also author of Trade, Development and Foreign Debt
, among many other books.
We return today to a discussion of Dr. Hudson's seminal 1972 book, Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire
, a critique of how the United States exploited foreign economies through the IMF and World Bank, with a special emphasis on
food imperialism.
... ... ...
Bonnie Faulkner : In your seminal work form 1972, Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire ,
you write: "The development lending of the World Bank has been dysfunctional from the outset." When was the World Bank set up and
by whom?
Michael Hudson : It was set up basically by the United States in 1944, along with its sister institution, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF). Their purpose was to create an international order like a funnel to make other countries economically dependent
on the United States. To make sure that no other country or group of countries – even all the rest of the world – could not
dictate U.S. policy. American diplomats insisted on the ability to veto any action by the World Bank or IMF. The aim of this
veto power was to make sure that any policy was, in Donald Trump's words, to put America first. "We've got to win and they've got
to lose."
The World Bank was set up from the outset as a branch of the military, of the Defense Department. John J. McCloy (Assistant
Secretary of War, 1941-45), was the first full-time president. He later became Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank (1953-60).
McNamara was Secretary of Defense (1961-68), Paul Wolfowitz was Deputy and Under Secretary of Defense (1989-2005), and Robert Zoellick
was Deputy Secretary of State. So I think you can look at the World Bank as the soft shoe of American diplomacy.
Bonnie Faulkner : What is the difference between the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the IMF? Is
there a difference?
Michael Hudson : Yes, there is. The World Bank was supposed to make loans for what they call international development.
"Development" was their euphemism for dependency on U.S. exports and finance. This dependency entailed agricultural backwardness
– opposing land reform, family farming to produce domestic food crops, and also monetary backwardness in basing their monetary system
on the dollar.
The World Bank was supposed to provide infrastructure loans that other countries would go into debt to pay American engineering
firms, to build up their export sectors and their plantation sectors by public investment roads and port development for imports
and exports. Essentially, the Bank financed long- investments in the foreign trade sector, in a way that was a natural continuation
of European colonialism.
In 1941, for example, C. L. R. James wrote an article on "Imperialism in Africa" pointing out the fiasco of European railroad
investment in Africa: "Railways must serve flourishing industrial areas, or densely populated agricult5ural regions, or they must
open up new land along which a thriving population develops and provides the railways with traffic. Except in the mining regions
of South Africa, all these conditions are absent. Yet railways were needed, for the benefit of European investors and heavy industry."
That is why, James explained "only governments can afford to operate them," while being burdened with heavy interest obligations.
[1] What was "developed" was Africa's
mining and plantation export sector, not its domestic economies. The World Bank followed this pattern of "development" lending without
apology.
The IMF was in charge of short-term foreign currency loans. Its aim was to prevent countries from imposing capital controls to
protect their balance of payments. Many countries had a dual exchange rate: one for trade in goods and services, the other rate
for capital movements. The function of the IMF and World Bank was essentially to make other countries borrow in dollars, not in
their own currencies, and to make sure that if they could not pay their dollar-denominated debts, they had to impose austerity on
the domestic economy – while subsidizing their import and export sectors and protecting foreign investors, creditors and client
oligarchies from loss.
The IMF developed a junk-economics model pretending that any country can pay any amount of debt to the creditors if it just impoverishes
its labor enough. So when countries were unable to pay their debt service, the IMF tells them to raise their interest rates to bring
on a depression – austerity – and break up the labor unions. That is euphemized as "rationalizing labor markets." The rationalizing
is essentially to disable labor unions and the public sector. The aim – and effect – is to prevent countries from essentially following
the line of development that had made the United States rich – by public subsidy and protection of domestic agriculture, public
subsidy and protection of industry and an active government sector promoting a New Deal democracy. The IMF was essentially promoting
and forcing other countries to balance their trade deficits by letting American and other investors buy control of their commanding
heights, mainly their infrastructure monopolies, and to subsidize their capital flight.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Now, Michael, when you began speaking about the IMF and monetary controls, you mentioned that there
were two exchange rates of currency in countries. What were you referring to?
MICHAEL HUDSON : When I went to work on Wall Street in the '60s, I was balance-of-payments economist for Chase Manhattan,
and we used the IMF's monthly International Financial Statistics every month. At the top of each country's statistics would
be the exchange-rate figures. Many countries had two rates: one for goods and services, which was set normally by the market,
and then a different exchange rate that was managed for capital movements. That was because countries were trying to prevent capital
flight. They didn't want their wealthy classes or foreign investors to make a run on their own currency – an ever-present threat
in Latin America.
The IMF and the World Bank backed the cosmopolitan classes, the wealthy. Instead of letting countries control their capital
outflows and prevent capital flight, the IMF's job is to protect the richest One Percent and foreign investors from balance-of-payments
problems.
The World Bank and American diplomacy have steered them into a chronic currency crisis. The IMF enables its wealthy constituency
to move their money out of the country without taking a foreign-exchange loss. It makes loans to support capital flight out
of domestic currencies into the dollar or other hard currencies. The IMF calls this a "stabilization" program. It is never effective
in helping the debtor economy pay foreign debts out of growth. Instead, the IMF uses currency depreciation and sell-offs of public
infrastructure and other assets to foreign investors after the flight capital has left and currency collapses. Wall Street speculators
have sold the local currency short to make a killing, George-Soros style.
When the debtor-country currency collapses, the debts that these Latin American countries owe are in dollars, and now have
to pay much more in their own currency to carry and pay off these debts. We're talking about enormous penalty rates in domestic
currency for these countries to pay foreign-currency debts – basically taking on to finance a non-development policy and to subsidize
capital flight when that policy "fails" to achieve its pretended objective of growth.
All hyperinflations of Latin America – Chile early on, like Germany after World War I – come from trying to pay foreign debts
beyond the ability to be paid. Local currency is thrown onto the foreign-exchange market for dollars, lowering the exchange
rate. That increases import prices, raising a price umbrella for domestic products.
A really functional and progressive international monetary fund that would try to help countries develop would say: "Okay, banks
and we (the IMF) have made bad loans that the country can't pay. And the World Bank has given it bad advice, distorting its domestic
development to serve foreign customers rather than its own growth. So we're going to write down the loans to the ability to be paid."
That's what happened in 1931, when the world finally stopped German reparations payments and Inter-Ally debts to the United States
stemming from World War I.
Instead, the IMF says just the opposite: It acts to prevent any move by other countries to bring the debt volume within
the ability to be paid. It uses debt leverage as a way to control the monetary lifeline of financially defeated debtor countries.
So if they do something that U.S. diplomats don't approve of, it can pull the plug financially, encouraging a run on their currency
if they act independently of the United States instead of falling in line. This control by the U.S. financial system and its
diplomacy has been built into the world system by the IMF and the World Bank claiming to be international instead of an expression
of specifically U.S. New Cold War nationalism.
BONNIE FAULKNER : How do exchange rates contribute to capital flight?
MICHAEL HUDSON : It's not the exchange rate that contributes. Suppose that you're a millionaire, and you see that your
country is unable to balance its trade under existing production patterns. The money that the government has under control is pesos,
escudos, cruzeiros or some other currency, not dollars or euros. You see that your currency is going to go down relative to the
dollar, so you want to get our money out of the country to preserve your purchasing power.
This has long been institutionalized. By 1990, for instance, Latin American countries had defaulted so much in the wake of the
Mexico defaults in 1982 that I was hired by Scudder Stevens, to help start a Third World Bond Fund (called a "sovereign high-yield
fund"). At the time, Argentina and Brazil were running such serious balance-of-payments deficits that they were having to pay 45
percent per year interest, in dollars, on their dollar debt. Mexico, was paying 22.5 percent on its tesobonos .
Scudders' salesmen went around to the United States and tried to sell shares in the proposed fund, but no Americans would buy
it, despite the enormous yields. They sent their salesmen to Europe and got a similar reaction. They had lost their shirts on Third
World bonds and couldn't see how these countries could pay.
Merrill Lynch was the fund's underwriter. Its office in Brazil and in Argentina proved much more successful in selling investments
in Scudder's these offshore fund established in the Dutch West Indies. It was an offshore fund, so Americans were not able to buy
it. But Brazilian and Argentinian rich families close to the central bank and the president became the major buyers. We realized
that they were buying these funds because they knew that their government was indeed going to pay their stipulated interest charges.
In effect, the bonds were owed ultimately to themselves. So these Yankee dollar bonds were being bought by Brazilians and other
Latin Americans as a vehicle to move their money out of their soft local currency (which was going down), to buy bonds denominated
in hard dollars.
BONNIE FAULKNER : If wealthy families from these countries bought these bonds denominated in dollars, knowing that they
were going to be paid off, who was going to pay them off? The country that was going broke?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Well, countries don't pay; the taxpayers pay, and in the end, labor pays. The IMF certainly doesn't want
to make its wealthy client oligarchies pay. It wants to squeeze ore economic surplus out of the labor force. So countries are told
that the way they can afford to pay their enormously growing dollar-denominated debt is to lower wages even more.
Currency depreciation is an effective way to do this, because what is devalued is basically labor's wages. Other elements of
exports have a common world price: energy, raw materials, capital goods, and credit under the dollar-centered international monetary
system that the IMF seeks to maintain as a financial strait jacket.
According to the IMF's ideological models, there's no limit to how far you can lower wages by enough to make labor competitive
in producing exports. The IMF and World Bank thus use junk economics to pretend that the way to pay debts owed to the wealthiest
creditors and investors is to lower wages and impose regressive excise taxes, to impose special taxes on necessities that labor
needs, from food to energy and basic services supplied by public infrastructure.
BONNIE FAULKNER: So you're saying that labor ultimately has to pay off these junk bonds?
MICHAEL HUDSON: That is the basic aim of IMF. I discuss its fallacies in my Trade Development and Foreign Debt
, which is the academic sister volume to Super Imperialism . These two books show that the World Bank and IMF were viciously
anti-labor from the very outset, working with domestic elites whose fortunes are tied to and loyal to the United States.
BONNIE FAULKNER : With regard to these junk bonds, who was it or what entity
MICHAEL HUDSON : They weren't junk bonds. They were called that because they were high-interest bonds, but they weren't
really junk because they actually were paid. Everybody thought they were junk because no American would have paid 45 percent interest.
Any country that really was self-reliant and was promoting its own economic interest would have said, "You banks and the IMF have
made bad loans, and you've made them under false pretenses – a trade theory that imposes austerity instead of leading to prosperity.
We're not going to pay." They would have seized the capital flight of their comprador elites and said that these dollar bonds were
a rip-off by the corrupt ruling class.
The same thing happened in Greece a few years ago, when almost all of Greece's foreign debt was owed to Greek millionaires
holding their money in Switzerland. The details were published in the "Legarde List." But the IMF said, in effect that its
loyalty was to the Greek millionaires who ha their money in Switzerland. The IMF could have seized this money to pay off the
bondholders. Instead, it made the Greek economy pay. It found that it was worth wrecking the Greek economy, forcing emigration and
wiping out Greek industry so that French and German bondholding banks would not have to take a loss. That is what makes the IMF
so vicious an institution.
BONNIE FAULKNER : So these loans to foreign countries that were regarded as junk bonds really weren't junk, because
they were going to be paid. What group was it that jacked up these interest rates to 45 percent?
MICHAEL HUDSON : The market did. American banks, stock brokers and other investors looked at the balance of payments of
these countries and could not see any reasonable way that they could pay their debts, so they were not going to buy their bonds.
No country subject to democratic politics would have paid debts under these conditions. But the IMF, U.S. and Eurozone diplomacy
overrode democratic choice.
Investors didn't believe that the IMF and the World Bank had such a strangle hold over Latin American, Asian, and African countries
that they could make the countries act in the interest of the United States and the cosmopolitan finance capital, instead of in
their own national interest. They didn't believe that countries would commit financial suicide just to pay their wealthy One Percent.
They were wrong, of course. Countries were quite willing to commit economic suicide if their governments were dictatorships propped
up by the United States. That's why the CIA has assassination teams and actively supports these countries to prevent any party coming
to power that would act in their national interest instead of in the interest of a world division of labor and production along
the lines that the U.S. planners want for the world. Under the banner of what they call a free market, you have the World Bank and
the IMF engage in central planning of a distinctly anti-labor policy. Instead of calling them Third World bonds or junk bonds, you
should call them anti-labor bonds, because they have become a lever to impose austerity throughout the world.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Well, that makes a lot of sense, Michael, and answers a lot of the questions I've put together to ask
you. What about Puerto Rico writing down debt? I thought such debts couldn't be written down.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's what they all said, but the bonds were trading at about 45 cents on the dollar, the risk of their
not being paid. The Wall Street Journal on June 17, reported that unsecured suppliers and creditors of Puerto Rico, would
only get nine cents on the dollar. The secured bond holders would get maybe 65 cents on the dollar.
The terms are being written down because it's obvious that Puerto Rico can't pay, and that trying to do so is driving the population
to move out of Puerto Rico to the United States. If you don't want Puerto Ricans to act the same way Greeks did and leave Greece
when their industry and economy was shut down, then you're going to have to provide stability or else you're going to have half
of Puerto Rico living in Florida.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Who wrote down the Puerto Rican debt?
MICHAEL HUDSON : A committee was appointed, and it calculated how much Puerto Rico can afford to pay out of its taxes.
Puerto Rico is a U.S. dependency, that is, an economic colony of the United States. It does not have domestic self-reliance. It's
the antithesis of democracy, so it's never been in charge of its own economic policy and essentially has to do whatever the United
States tells it to do. There was a reaction after the hurricane and insufficient U.S. support to protect the island and the enormous
waste and corruption involved in the U.S. aid. The U.S. response was simply: "We won you fair and square in the Spanish-American
war and you're an occupied country, and we're going to keep you that way." Obviously this is causing a political resentment.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You've already touched on this, but why has the World Bank traditionally been headed by a U.S. secretary
of defense?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Its job is to do in the financial sphere what, in the past, was done by military force. The purpose of
a military conquest is to take control of foreign economies, to take control of their land and impose tribute. The genius of the
World Bank was to recognize that it's not necessary to occupy a country in order to impose tribute, or to take over its industry,
agriculture and land. Instead of bullets, it uses financial maneuvering. As long as other countries play an artificial economic
game that U.S. diplomacy can control, finance is able to achieve today what used to require bombing and loss of life by soldiers.
In this case the loss of life occurs in the debtor countries. Population growth shrinks, suicides go up. The World Bank engages
in economic warfare that is just as destructive as military warfare. At the end of the Yeltsin period Russia's President Putin said
that American neoliberalism destroyed more of Russia's population than did World War II. Such neoliberalism, which basically is
the doctrine of American supremacy and foreign dependency, is the policy of the World Bank and IMF.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why has World Bank policy since its inception been to provide loans for countries to devote their land
to export crops instead of giving priority to feeding themselves? And if this is the case, why do countries want these loans?
MICHAEL HUDSON : One constant of American foreign policy is to make other countries dependent on American grain exports
and food exports. The aim is to buttress America's agricultural trade surplus. So the first thing that the World Bank has done is
not to make any domestic currency loans to help food producers. Its lending has steered client countries to produce tropical export
crops, mainly plantation crops that cannot be grown in the United States. Focusing on export crops leads client countries to become
dependent on American farmers – and political sanctions.
In the 1950s, right after the Chinese revolution, the United States tried to prevent China from succeeding by imposing grain
export controls to starve China into submission by putting sanctions on exports. Canada was the country that broke these export
controls and helped feed China.
The idea is that if you can make other countries export plantation crops, the oversupply will drive down prices for cocoa and
other tropical products, and they won't feed themselves. So instead of backing family farms like the American agricultural policy
does, the World Bank backed plantation agriculture. In Chile, which has the highest natural supply of fertilizer in the world from
its guano deposits, exports guano instead of using it domestically. It also has the most unequal land distribution, blocking it
from growing its own grain or food crops. It's completely dependent on the United States for this, and it pays by exporting copper,
guano and other natural resources.
The idea is to create interdependency – one-sided dependency on the U.S. economy. The United States has always aimed at being
self-sufficient in its own essentials, so that no other country can pull the plug on our economy and say, "We're going to starve
you by not feeding you." Americans can feed themselves. Other countries can't say, "We're going to let you freeze in the dark by
not sending you oil," because America's independent in energy. But America can use the oil control to make other countries freeze
in the dark, and it can starve other countries by food-export sanctions.
So the idea is to give the United States control of the key interconnections of other economies, without letting any country
control something that is vital to the working of the American economy.
There's a double standard here. The United States tells other countries: "Don't do as we do. Do as we say." The only way it can
enforce this is by interfering in the politics of these countries, as it has interfered in Latin America, always pushing the right
wing. For instance, when Hillary's State Department overthrew the Honduras reformer who wanted to undertake land reform and feed
the Hondurans, she said: "This person has to go." That's why there are so many Hondurans trying to get into the United States now,
because they can't live in their own country.
The effect of American coups is the same in Syria and Iraq. They force an exodus of people who no longer can make a living under
the brutal dictatorships supported by the United States to enforce this international dependency system.
BONNIE FAULKNER : So when I asked you why countries would want these loans, I guess you're saying that they wouldn't,
and that's why the U.S. finds it necessary to control them politically.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's a concise way of putting it Bonnie.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why are World Bank loans only in foreign currency, not in the domestic currency of the country to which
it is lending?
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's a good point. A basic principle should be to avoid borrowing in a foreign currency. A country
can always pay the loans in its own currency, but there's no way that it can print dollars or euros to pay loans denominated in
these foreign currencies.
Making the dollar central forces other countries to interface with the U.S. banking system. So if a country decides to go its
own way, as Iran did in 1953 when it wanted to take over its oil from British Petroleum (or Anglo Iranian Oil, as it was called
back then), the United States can interfere and overthrow it. The idea is to be able to use the banking system's interconnections
to stop payments from being made.
After America installed the Shah's dictatorship, they were overthrown by Khomeini, and Iran had run up a U.S. dollar debt under
the Shah. It had plenty of dollars. I think Chase Manhattan was its paying agent. So when its quarterly or annual debt payment came
due, Iran told Chase to draw on its accounts and pay the bondholders. But Chase took orders from the State Department or the Defense
Department, I don't know which, and refused to pay. When the payment was not made, America and its allies claimed that Iran was
in default. They demanded the entire debt to be paid, as per the agreement that the Shah's puppet government had signed. America
simply grabbed the deposits that Iran had in the United States. This is the money that was finally returned to Iran without interest
under the agreement of 2016.
America was able to grab all of Iran's foreign exchange just by the banks interfering. The CIA has bragged that it can do
the same thing with Russia. If Russia does something that U.S. diplomats don't like, the U.S. can use the SWIFT bank payment system
to exclude Russia from it, so the Russian banks and the Russian people and industry won't be able to make payments to each other.
This prompted Russia to create its own bank-transfer system, and is leading China, Russia, India and Pakistan to draft plans
to de-dollarize.
BONNIE FAULKNER : I was going to ask you, why would loans in a country's domestic currency be preferable to the country
taking out a loan in a foreign currency? I guess you've explained that if they took out a loan in a domestic currency, they would
be able to repay it.
MICHAEL HUDSON : Yes.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Whereas a loan in a foreign currency would cripple them.
MICHAEL HUDSON : Yes. You can't create the money, especially if you're running a balance of payments deficit and if
U.S. foreign policy forces you into deficit by having someone like George Soros make a run on your currency. Look at the Asia crisis
in 1997. Wall Street funds bet against foreign currencies, driving them way down, and then used the money to pick up industry cheap
in Korea and other Asian countries.
This was also done to Russia's ruble. The only country that avoided this was Malaysia, under Mohamed Mahathir, by using capital
controls. Malaysia is an object lesson in how to prevent a currency flight.
But for Latin America and other countries, much of their foreign debt is held by their own ruling class. Even though it's denominated
in dollars, Americans don't own most of this debt. It's their own ruling class. The IMF and World Bank dictate tax policy to Latin
America – to un-tax wealth and shift the burden onto labor. Client kleptocracies take their money and run, moving it abroad
to hard currency areas such as the United States, or at least keeping it in dollars in offshore banking centers instead of reinvesting
it to help the country catch up by becoming independent agriculturally, in energy, finance and other sectors.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You say that: "While U.S. agricultural protectionism has been built into the postwar global system at
its inception, foreign protectionism is to be nipped in the bud." How has U.S. agricultural protectionism been built into the postwar
global system?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Under Franklin Roosevelt the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 called for price supports for crops
so that farmers could earn enough to invest in equipment and seeds. The Agriculture Department was a wonderful department in spurring
new seed varieties, agricultural extension services, marketing and banking services. It provided public support so that productivity
in American agriculture from the 1930s to '50s was higher over a prolonged period than that of any other sector in history.
But in shaping the World Trade Organization's rules, the United States said that all countries had to promote free trade
and could not have government support, except for countries that already had it. We're the only country that had it. That's what's
called "grandfathering". The Americans said: "We already have this program on the books, so we can keep it. But no other country
can succeed in agriculture in the way that we have done. You must keep your agriculture backward, except for the plantation crops
and growing crops that we can't grow in the United States." That's what's so evil about the World Bank's development plan.
BONNIE FAULKNER : According to your book: "Domestic currency is needed to provide price supports and agricultural extension
services such as have made U.S. agriculture so productive." Why can't infrastructure costs be subsidized to keep down the economy's
overall cost structure if IMF loans are made in foreign currency?
MICHAEL HUDSON : If you're a farmer in Brazil, Argentina or Chile, you're doing business in domestic currency. It doesn't
help if somebody gives you dollars, because your expenses are in domestic currency. So if the World Bank and the IMF can prevent
countries from providing domestic currency support, that means they're not able to give price supports or provide government marketing
services for their agriculture.
America is a mixed economy. Our government has always subsidized capital formation in agriculture and industry, but it insists
that other countries are socialist or communist if they do what the United States is doing and use their government to support the
economy. So it's a double standard. Nobody calls America a socialist country for supporting its farmers, but other countries are
called socialist and are overthrown if they attempt land reform or attempt to feed themselves.
This is what the Catholic Church's Liberation Theology was all about. They backed land reform and agricultural self-sufficiency
in food, realizing that if you're going to support population growth, you have to support the means to feed it. That's why the United
States focused its assassination teams on priests and nuns in Guatemala and Central America for trying to promote domestic self-sufficiency.
BONNIE FAULKNER : If a country takes out an IMF loan, they're obviously going to take it out in dollars. Why can't they
take the dollars and convert them into domestic currency to support local infrastructure costs?
MICHAEL HUDSON : You don't need a dollar loan to do that. Now were getting in to MMT. Any country can create its own currency.
There's no reason to borrow in dollars to create your own currency. You can print it yourself or create it on your computers.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Well, exactly. So why don't these countries simply print up their own domestic currency?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Their leaders don't want to be assassinated. More immediately, if you look at the people in charge of
foreign central banks, almost all have been educated in the United States and essentially brainwashed. It's the mentality of foreign
central bankers. The people who are promoted are those who feel personally loyal to the United States, because they that that's
how to get ahead. Essentially, they're opportunists working against the interests of their own country. You won't have socialist
central bankers as long as central banks are dominated by the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements.
BONNIE FAULKNER : So we're back to the main point: The control is by political means, and they control the politics and
the power structure in these countries so that they don't rebel.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's right. When you have a dysfunctional economic theory that is destructive instead of productive,
this is never an accident. It is always a result of junk economics and dependency economics being sponsored. I've talked to people
at the U.S. Treasury and asked why they all end up following the United States. Treasury officials have told me: "We simply buy
them off. They do it for the money." So you don't need to kill them. All you need to do is find people corrupt enough and opportunist
enough to see where the money is, and you buy them off.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You write that "by following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food blackmail." What
is food blackmail?
MICHAEL HUDSON : If you pursue a foreign policy that we don't like -- for instance, if you trade with Iran, which we're
trying to smash up to grab its oil -- we'll impose financial sanctions against you. We won't sell you food, and you can starve.
And because you've followed World Bank advice and not grown your own food, you will starve, because you're dependent on us, the
United States and our Free World Ó allies. Canada will no longer follow its own policy independently of the United States,
as it did with China in the 1950s when it sold it grain. Europe also is falling in line with U.S. policy.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You write that: "World Bank administrators demand that loan recipients pursue a policy of economic dependency
above all on the United States as food supplier." Was this done to support U.S. agriculture? Obviously it is, but were there other
reasons as well?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Certainly the agricultural lobby was critical in all of this, and I'm not sure at what point this became
thoroughly conscious. I knew some of the World Bank planners, and they had no anticipation that this dependency would be the result.
They believed the free-trade junk economics that's taught in the schools' economics departments and for which Nobel prizes are awarded.
When we're dealing with economic planners, we're dealing with tunnel-visioned people. They stayed in the discipline despite its
unreality because they sort of think that abstractly it makes sense. There's something autistic about most economists, which is
why the French had their non-autistic economic site for many years. The mentality at work is that every country should produce what
it's best at – not realizing that nations also need to be self-sufficient in essentials, because we're in a real world of economic
and military warfare.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why does the World Bank prefer to perpetrate world poverty instead of adequate overseas capacity to
feed the peoples of developing countries?
MICHAEL HUDSON : World poverty is viewed as solution , not a problem. The World Bank thinks of poverty as low-priced
labor, creating a competitive advantage for countries that produce labor-intensive goods. So poverty and austerity for the World
Bank and IMF is an economic solution that's built into their models. I discuss these in my Trade, Development and Foreign Debt
book. Poverty is to them the solution, because it means low-priced labor, and that means higher profits for the companies bought
out by U.S., British, and European investors. So poverty is part of the class war: profits versus poverty.
BONNIE FAULKNER : In general, what is U.S. food imperialism? How would you characterize it?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Its aim is to make America the producer of essential foods and other countries producing inessential
plantation crops, while remaining dependent on the United States for grain, soy beans and basic food crops.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Does World Bank lending encourage land reform in former colonies?
MICHAEL HUDSON : No. If there is land reform, the CIA sends its assassination teams in and you have mass murder, as you
had in Guatemala, Ecuador, Central America and Columbia. The World Bank is absolutely committed against land reform. When the Forgash
Plan for a World Bank for Economic Acceleration was proposed in the 1950s to emphasize land reform and local-currency loans, a Chase
Manhattan economist to whom the plan was submitted warned that every country that had land reform turned out to be anti-American.
That killed any alternative to the World Bank.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Does the World Bank insist on client governments privatizing their public domain? If so, why, and what
is the effect?
MICHAEL HUDSON : It does indeed insist on privatization, pretending that this is efficient. But what it privatizes are
natural monopolies – the electrical system, the water system and other basic needs. Foreigners take over, essentially finance them
with foreign debt, build the foreign debt that they build into the cost structure, and raise the cost of living and doing business
in these countries, thereby crippling them economically. The effect is to prevent them from competing with the United States and
its European allies.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Would you say then that it is mainly America that has been aided, not foreign economies that borrow
from the World Bank?
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's why the United States is the only country with veto power in the IMF and World Bank – to make
sure that what you just described is exactly what happens.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why do World Bank programs accelerate the exploitation of mineral deposits for use by other nations?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Most World Bank loans are for transportation, roads, harbor development and other infrastructure needed
to export minerals and plantation crops. The World Bank doesn't make loans for projects that help the country develop in its own
currency. By making only foreign currency loans, in dollars or maybe euros now, the World Bank says that its clients have to repay
by generating foreign currency. The only way they can repay the dollars spent on American engineering firms that have built their
infrastructure is to export – to earn enough dollars to pay back for the money that the World Bank or IMF have lent.
This is what John Perkins' book about being an economic hit man for the World Bank is all about. He realized that his job was
to get countries to borrow dollars to build huge projects that could only be paid for by the country exporting more – which required
breaking its labor unions and lowering wages so that it could be competitive in the race to the bottom that the World Bank and IMF
encourage.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You also point out in Super Imperialism that mineral resources represent diminishing assets,
so these countries that are exporting mineral resources are being depleted while the importing countries aren't.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's right. They'll end up like Canada. The end result is going to be a big hole in the ground. You've
dug up all your minerals, and in the end you have a hole in the ground and a lot of the refuse and pollution – the mining slag and
what Marx called the excrements of production.
This is not a sustainable development. The World Bank only promotes the U.S. pursuit of sustainable development. So naturally,
they call their "Development," but their focus is on the United States, not the World Bank's client countries.
BONNIE FAULKNER : When Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire was originally published in
1972, how was it received?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Very positively. It enabled my career to take off. I received a phone call a month later by someone from
the Bank of Montreal saying they had just made $240 million on the last paragraph of my book. They asked what it would cost to have
me come up and give a lecture. I began lecturing once a month at $3,500 a day, moving up to $6,500 a day, and became the highest-paid
per diem economist on Wall Street for a few years.
I was immediately hired by the Hudson Institute to explain Super Imperialism to the Defense Department. Herman Kahn said
I showed how U.S. imperialism ran rings around European imperialism. They gave the Institute an $85,000 grant to have me go to the
White House in Washington to explain how American imperialism worked. The Americans used it as a how-to-do-it book.
The socialists, whom I expected to have a response, decided to talk about other than economic topics. So, much to my surprise,
it became a how-to-do-it book for imperialists. It was translated by, I think, the nephew of the Emperor of Japan into Japanese.
He then wrote me that the United States opposed the book being translated into Japanese. It later was translated. It was
received very positively in China, where I think it has sold more copies than in any other country. It was translated into Spanish,
and most recently it was translated into German, and German officials have asked me to come and discuss it with them. So the book
has been accepted all over the world as an explanation of how the system works.
BONNIE FAULKNER : In closing, do you really think that the U.S. government officials and others didn't understand how
their own system worked?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Many might not have understood in 1944 that this would be the consequence. But by the time 50 years went
by, you had an organization called "Fifty Years Is Enough." And by that time everybody should have understood. By the time Joe Stiglitz
became the World Bank's chief economist, there was no excuse for not understanding how the system worked. He was amazed to find
that indeed it didn't work as advertised, and resigned. But he should have known at the very beginning what it was all about. If
he didn't understand how it was until he actually went to work there, you can understand how hard it is for most academics to get
through the vocabulary of junk economics, the patter-talk of free trade and free markets to understand how exploitative and destructive
the system is.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Michael Hudson, thank you very much.
MICHAEL HUDSON : It's always good to be here, Bonnie. I'm glad you ask questions like these.
I've been speaking with Dr. Michael Hudson. Today's show has been: The IMF and World Bank: Partners in Backwardness. Dr.
Hudson is a financial economist and historian. He is president of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trend, a Wall
Street financial analyst and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. His 1972
book, Super Imperialism : The Economic Strategy of American Empire , a critique of how the United States exploited foreign economies
through the IMF and World Bank, the subject of today's broadcast, is posted in PDF format on his website at michael-hudson.com.
He is also author of Trade, Development and Foreign Debt , which is the academic sister volume to Super Imperialism. Dr. Hudson
acts as an economic advisor to governments worldwide on finance and tax law. Visit his website at michael-hudson.com.
Guns and Butter is produced by Bonnie Faulkner, Yarrow Mahko and Tony Rango. Visit us at
gunsandbutter.org to listen to past programs, comment on shows, or join
our email list to receive our newsletter that includes recent shows and updates. Email us at
[email protected]. Follow us
on Twitter at #gandbradio.
"... Mao only understood power. He sensed Khrushchev as 'weak' and acted as if he wanted to be the new Stalin. He also made international statements that made the US-USSR relations much worse. He berated Khrushchev for seeking co-existence with the West and pressed on for more World Revolution. ..."
"... It was all so stupid. China and Russia could have gotten along well if not for Mao's impetuosity. Of course, Khrushchev could be reckless, contradictory, and erratic, and his mixed signals to the West also heightened tensions. Also, he was caught between a rock and a hard place where the Eastern Bloc was concerned. He wanted to de-Stalinize, but this could lead to events like the Hungarian Uprising. ..."
Abrams is giving the West too much credit for the Sino-Soviet rift of the late 5os and 60s.
That was NOT the doing of the CIA or Western Europe. It was 90% the fault of Mao who tried
to shove Khrushchev aside as the head of world communism. Because Stalin had treated Mao
badly, Khrushchev wanted to make amends and treated Mao with respect. But Mao turned out to
be a total a-hole. There are two kinds of people: Those who appreciate friendly gestures and
those who seek kindness as 'weakness'.
It's like Hitler saw Chamberlain's offer as weakness and pushed ahead. Being kind is nice,
but one should never be kind to psychopaths, and Khrushchev was nice to the wrong person.
Mao only understood power. He sensed Khrushchev as 'weak' and acted as if he wanted to be
the new Stalin. He also made international statements that made the US-USSR relations much
worse. He berated Khrushchev for seeking co-existence with the West and pressed on for more
World Revolution.
He also ignored Soviet advice not to attempt radical economic policies (that were soon to
bring China to economic ruin -- at least Stalin's collectivization led to rise of industry;
in contrast, Mao managed to destroy both agriculture and heavy industry).
When Stalin was alive, he didn't treat Mao with any respect, and Mao disliked Stalin but
still respected him because Mao understood Power. With Stalin gone, Khrushchev showed Mao
some respect, but Mao felt no respect for Khrushchev who was regarded as a weakling and
sucker.
It was all so stupid. China and Russia could have gotten along well if not for Mao's
impetuosity. Of course, Khrushchev could be reckless, contradictory, and erratic, and his
mixed signals to the West also heightened tensions. Also, he was caught between a rock and a
hard place where the Eastern Bloc was concerned. He wanted to de-Stalinize, but this could
lead to events like the Hungarian Uprising.
Anyway, Putin and Xi, perhaps having grown up in less turbulent times, are more stable and
mature in character and temperament than Mao and Khrushchev. They don't see the Russo-China
relations as a zero sum game of ego but a way for which both sides can come to the table
halfway, which is all one can hope for.
"... "The neoliberal economic plan is to suck the wealth out of the working class and funnel it up to the top 10%, especially the 1%. How to keep the working class from noticing the theft? How about divide and conquer? ..."
"... "Meanwhile, our ruling overlords pick their next puppet, let us all "vote" on computerized machines, and then the talking heads announce the "winner".And it all starts over. Just about covers it.. ..."
"... Do you remember that one of the first things that he did when first elected was to gather the oligarchs and make them sign in !public! that from now on they will start paying taxes, treat their workers as humans and not mess in politics. The famous moment when Deripaska forgot to give Putin back his pen, the "please, give me my pen back" by Putin and the scared look on Deripaska's face? ..."
"... How much taxes did Yukos/Khodorkovsky pay? Anyone aware of the famous scheme where crude oil was classified in accounting as "earthen liquid", then bought from subsiduaries for nothing, so no taxes were paid. And now Gazprom or Rosneft announce that they have an annual income of 100 billion USD (figures are as an example) and that they paid 50 billion of it as taxes to the state? ..."
"... The situation in Russia in Putin's early years was so dire that there was no other future but breakup and misery. You make your conclusions. ..."
"... Seems a lot of folks think these "Russian Oligarchs" just showed up out of the blue.Russia was a communist country so how did a few 20/30 year olds communists manage to become billionaire oligarchs in 10 years or less after the fall of communism? My guess is money from the west supplied to a few to buy up Russia for less than pennies on the dollar. ..."
"... This is a good video on the rise of the oligarchs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLNKqbwec0s ..."
"... It is some time since I watched it, but a big part of how the oligarchs came to control most of the state assets was in the way Anatoly Chubais went about privatisation. From memory all citizens were given paper that gave them part ownership of state assets. The wannabe oligarchs snapped these up for peanuts and owned the bulk of what were state assets. ..."
"... Putin is in the role of mediator between these power centers. He also tries to rally the population (Russians know what revolution means) by religion, "traditional values", the promise of security and stability, and yes - Make Russia Great Again - therefore - Peter the Great. ..."
"... The problem is that Russian oligarchy is without legitimacy. Most oligarchy world wide is based on historical robbery but in Russia it is within this generation . They used to be part of the Soviet nomenklatura Communist Party network. It IS conceivable to litigate the riches robbed from the people in the 1990's (and has been done to oligarchs "not close to Putin") and the only shield between "the oligarchs" and Russians considering this idea is Putin's popularity and "Russian conservatism". ..."
"The neoliberal economic plan is to suck
the wealth out of the working class and funnel it up to the top 10%, especially the 1%. How
to keep the working class from noticing the theft? How about divide and conquer?
Absolutely
right on target..
@21 also with;
"Meanwhile, our ruling overlords pick their next puppet, let
us all "vote" on computerized machines, and then the talking heads announce the "winner".And
it all starts over. Just about covers it..
At the end of the interview, Putin is asked to name someone he admires (I might have
misremembered so do correct me if that wasn't the question). His answer surprised me - Peter
the Great. That answer surprised me as there are some things about Peter the Great that
wouldn't seem so admirable, but then I suppose much flowed from his reign.
Dostoievski did
have roots in the liberalism of the day, being a Saint Petersburg resident and all, and his
great talent was achieved thanks to the Europeanization which Peter helped bring about for
Russia. His, Dostoievski's novels draw on European literature but bring to it a quality that
is uniquely Russian. So too does their classical music, the ballet, opera - and Russian's
know full well that their own Tchaikovski and many of their great dancers were and are gay.
Do you then condemn and reject? No, you do not. They are great artists; you cannot. There's
the depth of Russian complexity - it is both east and west and its Christianity, as well as
its atheism, is too.
It was Dostoievski after all, who found solace in the belief that the Russian people were
the source of Russia's greatness, while embracing the slavic heritage; so indeed there is an
interesting mixture there of elite and not so elite, which refuses really to be categorized
as this or that 'ism'. It's like the idea of multipolarity - all fervent beliefs are to be
respected but not one dominating over all the rest.
C I eh? , Jun 29, 2019 3:58:10 AM |
112BG , Jun 29, 2019 4:18:59 AM |
113
Has everybody forgotten the mess Russia was in during the late 90s? The Russians have not.
In 1999, Shamil Basaev and his gang were on the verge of taking over Dagestan and
completely cutting Russian land connection to the Eastern parts of the Caucasus. After it
became clear how serious the situation was, Putin became Prime minister and on New Year's day
Yeltsin resigned transferring power to Putin.
The first thing Putin did as acting president was to visit the troops in Chechnya and
raise morale. In two years, the war was basically over, the rest being mop-up ops only.
Do you remember that one of the first things that he did when first elected was to gather
the oligarchs and make them sign in !public! that from now on they will start paying taxes,
treat their workers as humans and not mess in politics. The famous moment when Deripaska
forgot to give Putin back his pen, the "please, give me my pen back" by Putin and the scared
look on Deripaska's face?
Didn't Putin say in the early 2000s:"It is best for you to keep your money in Russia. Or
you may found yourself choked by dust chasing for your money fruitlessly in Western courts"?
Oh, the irony, 15 years later...
How much taxes did Yukos/Khodorkovsky pay? Anyone aware of the famous scheme where crude
oil was classified in accounting as "earthen liquid", then bought from subsiduaries for
nothing, so no taxes were paid. And now Gazprom or Rosneft announce that they have an annual
income of 100 billion USD (figures are as an example) and that they paid 50 billion of it as
taxes to the state?
The situation in Russia in Putin's early years was so dire that there was no other future
but breakup and misery. You make your conclusions.
Seems a lot of folks think these "Russian Oligarchs" just showed up out of the blue.Russia was a communist country so how did a few 20/30 year olds communists manage to become
billionaire oligarchs in 10 years or less after the fall of communism? My guess is money from
the west supplied to a few to buy up Russia for less than pennies on the dollar.
Putin described Oligarchs as people that influence the government in ways that create even
more wealth for themselves. In that regard he said there are no more oligarchs in Russia.
It is some time since I watched it, but a big part of how the oligarchs came to control
most of the state assets was in the way Anatoly Chubais went about privatisation. From memory
all citizens were given paper that gave them part ownership of state assets. The wannabe
oligarchs snapped these up for peanuts and owned the bulk of what were state assets.
I don't know about "coddling". But it is clear that - apart from the military-industrial
complex, the securitiy services and state controlled oil and gas, this is where the power is
in Russia.
Putin is in the role of mediator between these power centers. He also tries to rally the
population (Russians know what revolution means) by religion, "traditional values", the
promise of security and stability, and yes - Make Russia Great Again - therefore - Peter the
Great.
The problem is that Russian oligarchy is without legitimacy. Most oligarchy world wide is
based on historical robbery but in Russia it is within
this generation . They used to be part of the Soviet nomenklatura Communist Party
network. It IS conceivable to litigate the riches robbed from the people in the 1990's (and
has been done to oligarchs "not close to Putin") and the only shield between "the oligarchs"
and Russians considering this idea is Putin's popularity and "Russian conservatism".
These high-profile cases suggest that Russian legal outcomes, while unpredictable if one
goes by the content of the law, are entirely predictable if one knows the preferences of
the political sovereign: the Kremlin always wins.
However, this predictability is exaggerated. Outside a few very salient cases, the
Kremlin either does not reveal its preferences or simply has no preferences.
When the Kremlin's position is uncertain, lower-level political actors, the prosecution,
and judges try to guess the politically correct outcome and this guessing game introduces
significant unpredictability into the legal regime. In addition, when political actors vie
for relative power within the regime, they often seek to demonstrate that power by
influencing court decisions in politically relevant cases.
Consider the frequent conflicts between mayors of major cities and regional governors.
These conflicts are often fought vicariously through court cases, with each side attempting
to mobilize enough political resources up the power ladder to secure a victory in court.
Judges face the tough task of interpreting the signals that come from judicial superiors
and the extrajudicial actors to deliver a decision that would be acceptable to whoever
represents power (vlast') in that concrete case.
add to 132 - So the only security for Russian oligarchs is to legalize their riches abroad -
which they have done - or - if forced to keep their capital in Russia because of sanctions -
Putin.
The proposed legislation that was known as Rotenberg's Law (after Italy sanctioned Arkady
Rotenberg's properties in that country) passed a first reading in the Duma in October 2014.
That is not the same as being declared law:
there is a second reading in the Duma the legislation should have undergone and passed, and
that second reading appears not to have been done . Objections to the legislation were
raised by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court, and
the Minister for Economic Development at the time (late 2014) also raised concerns.
It seems odd that every business venture that might need some government funding or
funding to develop necessary infrastructure has to undergo deliberation twice by lower houses
in a country's parliament and then passed through the senate or its equivalent before the
venture can go ahead?
If business people talk to Putin or people close to him, that does not mean their venture
can go ahead without being put to tender or subjected to scrutiny to see that it complies
with current regulations. I merely observed that it seems that business people who happen to
meet Putin or talk to him about a venture they might have, seem to get tarred with the "Putin
crony" brush.
The Moscow Times is an English-language weekly newspaper with a small circulation (about
55,000) which is given away for free. For several years it was published by a Finnish company
(Sanoma Corporation). The newspaper is currently owned by a Dutch-based owner and its CEO
runs a catering business for commercial airlines. For a leading English-language Russian
newspaper, The Moscow Times seems to have a poor business model.
If we consider economics to be an objective science, its rules should also have universal
significance and use, despite differences in societal order. However, socialists of the materialist
camp are committed to the idea that common ownership of the means of production would change the
way economic laws unfold under socialism.
Basically, they reject the notion of the
universality and objectivity of economic rules by suggesting that the laws would change along with
a change to the social formation.
Thus,
communists adhered to the Marxian idea that socialism would rectify a "surplus
value" law, end the "exploitation" of workers, and efficiently regulate the production,
distribution, and consumption aspects of the economy.
They sought to eliminate the market
regulatory mechanism and replace it with directives of the central planning authority. Bolsheviks
enthusiastically got down to business: they eradicated private property, collectivized everything
and everyone, and implemented an official planned economy.
Did it effectively turn off market relations as they thought it would?
No. In contrast to the common perception, socialism has been unable to kill the market economy.
The market went underground and turned into a black market. Black markets existed in capitalist
countries as well, but they worked underground because they dealt in illegal commodities and
services. The black market under socialism served the same purpose, but the list of commodities and
services included mostly items of everyday and innocent consumption that people under capitalism
could easily purchase in stores. Virtually all groups of personal consumption products found their
way to the black market at some time and in some places. Everything from jar lids to toilet paper
was subject to black-market relations.
Despite the proclaimed planned economy, people were engaged in market relations on all levels
and trusted more the price of the goods and services that were established by the market and not
dictated by the government. The official exchange rate of the ruble to the dollar was 0.66 to 1 in
1980. But nobody except party nomenclature was able to enjoy such a favorable exchange rate. At the
same time, the black market offered 4 rubles for 1 American dollar.
There was no production of jeans in the Soviet Union, but like all their peers abroad,
Soviet youth wore jeans.
The price was 180–250 rubles for a pair depending on the brand,
which was almost twice as much as the monthly wage of an entry-level engineer. A visiting nurse
charged 1 ruble for one injection if a patient lived below the fifth floor. The price reached 1.5
rubles for patients who lived on the fifth floor and up. A plumber happily repaired a faucet for
just a bottle of vodka.
Two Prices for Everything
Therefore, in the Soviet Union, any significant goods had two price tags: one real and
another virtual.
The state set the first price through some obscure methods; the usual
mechanism of supply and demand established the second price on the market. If you were lucky, after
several hours of standing in a queue, you could purchase goods at the state price. However, due to
the chronic lack of everything for everyone, the same product could be bought on the black market
at a much higher price. The virtual price became real on the black market and reflected the actual
value of the goods for the buyer. The presence of two price tags is a confirmation of the thesis of
Ludwig von Mises regarding the impossibility of economic calculations under socialism. At the same
time, this is proof of the immortality and immutability of the economic laws of the free market,
even under a totalitarian regime.
Therefore, two economic systems and two sets of prices
co-exist under socialism.
People were forced to use the services of the black market,
even under the penalty of
severe punishment, including up to the death penalty.
Almost the entire society was
engaged in various corruption schemes to support a certain standard of living. There was a
paradoxical situation when the shelves of the supermarkets were empty, but refrigerators at home
were more or less full. The black market was filled with smuggled goods from abroad, as well as
commodities produced in underground workshops. But more often, everyday products were specifically
kept from retail to create a shortage and sell them on the black market at a speculative price.
Socialism had undermined the normal flows of production, distribution, and consumption by ignoring
the objective laws of economics. Nevertheless, an underground market and the intrinsic
entrepreneurial spirit of the people helped them survive the socialist madness.
Regardless of the proclaimed successes of the Soviet economy reported by Communist party
leaders, the socialist economy was unable to compete with its capitalist counterparts.
Communists decided to create a system that somehow mimicked the work that a free market had
successfully and automatically performed for centuries. Thus, they introduced socialist competition
that was supposed to replace free market competition. Surely enough, it was an inadequate and
unfortunate replacement.
The rewards for winners in the capitalist competition were far
higher than for the winners under socialism.
For example, the capitalist winner enjoyed a
significant increase in well-being.
Moreover, the principal winner of the free market competition was society as a whole. This is a
natural feature of a free market economy and the main reason why the evolution of human societies
selected this mode of production. A competition during socialism gave to the winners some
publicity, a certificate of honor, maybe a trip to a "sanatorium" (that is, a health spa), and
other bagatelles that people usually did not appreciate. But most importantly, society as a whole
did not enjoy a significant improvement in well-being.
People were not sufficiently stimulated and were underpaid, which explained the lower labor
productivity compared to capitalist countries. Moreover, this is despite the notion that the means
of production, at last, belong to the workers themselves. People had a famous saying that can be
considered the quintessence of Soviet-style socialism:
"They [the government] pretend
to pay, and we pretend to work."
Socialism is a set of systems that try to
artificially inhibit the free flow of
objective economic laws by creating subjective barriers in the form of specific legislation and
punitive policies
. Socialists mistakenly think that if they assault private property and
market relations, the economic laws will also change. They have taken up the task which, in
principle, has no rational solution. Nothing good comes from the idea of ignoring or violating the
fundamental laws of economics. These laws still exist, regardless of opinions and neglect to
recognize their real character and the impossibility of changing them.
Socialism disrupts the evolutionary process and leads society to a dead end.
The desperate economic situation of ordinary folks in
Venezuela
,
Cuba
,
and North Korea -- the remnants of socialist undertakings -- is a direct result of building a society
in defiance of the natural action of the fundamental law of economics. As a rule, socialist regimes
were buying time by employing slave labor, plunder, coercion, and everything else that an
aggressive totalitarian regime could offer. However, in the end, the means of socialistic life
support was exhausted, and than returning to the natural and healthy market relations, where the
laws of economics work for the benefit of the human race.
The same laws of market economics have worked in different human societies: from pre-historic to
post-industrial, but
still socialists continue to entertain the idea of tampering with
these forces of nature.
So easy to say when you so blithely ignore the historical injustices, the inequality of
opportunity and the theft - the first person to claim a parcel of land as their own exclusive
property was committing an act of theft.
It's not entrepreneurial; it's base rent-seeking and
it was a violent act of forced approbriation by denying natural rights to others.
The
subsequent claims to title are enforced by the threat of violence through the emergence of a
pervasive state.
A modern example is the oligarchs who carved up the commons in a collapsing and
disintegrating Soviet Union. Their's was an act of theft committed against society and the
common good. Your definition of freedom is predicated on theft and is a denial of natural
freedoms,
The question about the causes of the collapse and destruction of the Soviet Union – is not idle. It does not lose its relevance
today, 22 years after occurred the death of the Soviet Union . Why? because some on the basis of this event concluded that, say,
the capitalist model of the economy more competitive, more efficient and has no alternatives. American political scientist
Francis Fukuyama after the collapse of the Soviet Union even hastened to declare that it was the "End of history": humanity has reached the
highest and last stage of its development in the form of a universal, global capitalism. The relevance of studying the shadow economy,
ssco opinion of this kind of political scientists, sociologists and economists, discussing the socialist economic model does not
deserve attention.
Better to focus on improving the capitalist model of the economy, i. E. A model that targets all members of society to the enrichment,
and a means of enrichment (profit) is the exploitation of one person by another. However, there are such "Natural" attributes of
the capitalist model of social and income inequality, competition, cyclical crises, bankruptcies, unemployment and the like. All
proposed improvements are aimed only at mitigating the inhuman consequences of capitalism that is reminiscent of utopian attempts
to limit the appetite of a wolf devouring a sheep. We proceed from the fact that the key socio-economic characteristics of the socialist
model are welfare for all members of society (goal), public ownership of the means of production (the main means), income generation
solely for labor, planned nature of the economy, centralization of management, command positions of the state in the economy, the
social consumption funds, the limited nature of commodity-money relations and so on. While this refers to the well-being not only
in the form of products and services that are vital (biological) needs of the person.
This would also include public safety and defense, education, culture, conditions of work and rest. Of course, socialism – not
only the economy and social relations. It also implies a certain type of political power, ideology, a high level of spiritually-moral
development of society and another. High moral and spiritual requests should assume that there are higher goals in relation to socio-economic
objectives.
But let's focus now is on the socio-economic aspect of the socialist model. So the erosion of the socialist model began long before
the tragic events of december 1991, when it signed the infamous agreement on the division of the ussr in the bialowieza forest. It
was already the final act of the political order. It is not only the date of death of the ussr, and date of full legalization of
a new socio-economic model, which is called "Capitalism". However, implicitly capitalism germinated in the depths of soviet society
for nearly three decades.
The soviet economy de facto has acquired the traits of a mixed. It combined socialist and capitalist structures. However, some
foreign researchers and politicians said that de facto in the Soviet Union there was a complete restoration of capitalism in the
1960-ies – 1970-ies. The restoration of capitalism was linked to the emergence and development in the bowels of the ussr the so-called
shadow or "Second" economy.
In particular, in the early 1960-ies member of the german communist party willy dickhut began publishing their articles, which
stated that since coming to power in our country n. With. Khrushchev happened (not started, but it happened!) the restoration of
capitalism in the ussr. The shadow economy functioned on the principles different from the socialist. Anyway, she was tied to corruption,
embezzlement of state property, receipt of unearned income, in violation of the laws (or use of "Holes" in the legislation). Not
to be confused with the shadow economy "Informal" economy, which is not contrary to the laws and principles of the socialist system,
but complemented the economy "Official".
First of all, this self-employment – for example, the work of the farmer on the plot or the citizen in his summer cottage. And
in the best of times (under stalin) widely developed the so-called fishing cooperation, which was occupied by production of consumer
goods and services. In the Soviet Union state and party authorities chose to ignore the phenomenon of the shadow economy. No, of
course, the police had uncovered and suppressed various operations in the sphere of the shadow economy. But the leaders of the ussr,
commenting on this kind of history, fobbed off with phrases such as "Exception", "Some shortcomings", "Defects", "Bugs" and the like.
For example, in the early 1960-ies of the then first deputy of the ussr council of ministers anastas mikoyan has identified black
market in the Soviet Union as "A handful of some dirty foam appearing on the surface of our society. "The shadow economy of the ussr:
acincinnati some serious research shadow ("Second") economy in the ussr was conducted until the late 1980-ies. Abroad, such studies
came first. First of all we should mention the work of american sociologist gregory grossman (university of california), which was
called "Destructive independence. The historical role of genuine trends in soviet society".
She became widely known after was published in 1988 in the book "The light at the end of the tunnel" (university of berkeley,
edited by stephen f. Cohen). However, the first article of grossman on this topic appeared in 1977 and was called "The second economy
in the ussr (journal problems of communism, september-october 1977). You can also mention the book emigrated to the United States
, the soviet lawyer konstantin simis "Corruption in the Soviet Union – the secret underground world of soviet capitalism", published
in 1982. The author in the 1970-ies is closely in contact with some shady businessman, a lawyer which he performed at the trials.
However, quantitative assessments of shadow ("Second") economy k. Simes does not. Later appeared the work of american sociologists
and economists of Russian origin Vladimir tremlia and michael alexeev. Since 1985, gregory grossman and Vladimir treml produce periodic
collections of the "Second economy" of the ussr. Releases continued until 1993, only 51 were published a study involving 26 authors.
Many studies represented surveys of families of immigrants from the Soviet Union (a total of 1061 family). To studies have also
used surveys of emigrants from other socialist countries, the official statistics of the ussr, publications in mass media and scientific
journals of the Soviet Union . Despite the differences in some quantitative estimates of the individual authors, these differences
were not fundamental. The differences arose due to the fact that some authors considered "Informal economy", the other – the shadow
economy; however, their definitions of both economies could not match. Here are some results of these studies. 1.
In 1979 the illicit manufacture of wine, beer and other alcoholic beverages, as well as speculative resale of alcoholic beverages
produced in the "First economy", provided the income, equal to 2. 2% of gnp (gross national product). 2. In the late 1970-ies in
the ussr was flourishing black market gasoline. From 33 to 65% of purchases of gasoline in urban areas of the country, individual
owners of cars had petrol sold by drivers of public enterprises and organizations (gasoline were sold at a price below the state).
3. In the soviet hairdresser 'left' incomes exceeded the amounts that customers have paid through cash.
This is just one example of what some state-owned enterprises de facto belonged to the "Second" economy. 4. In 1974 the share
of employment in private and home gardens accounted for almost a third of the total working time in agriculture. And this was almost
10% of the total working time in the soviet economy. 5. In the 1970-ies, about a quarter of agricultural products produced on private
plots, much of it was directed at kolkhoz markets. 6.
In the late 1970's, around 30% of all income of the urban population was obtained through various types of private activity –
both legal and illegal. 7. By the end of 1970-ies the proportion of people employed in the "Second economy", reached 10-12% of the
total workforce in the ussr. At the end of 1980-ies there appeared a number of works on the shadow and "Second" economy in the ussr.
First and foremost is the publication of the soviet economist tatyana results and director of the research institute of the state
planning commission valery rutgajzer. Here is the data from the t.
The results of the "Shadow economy of the ussr". The annual value of illegally produced goods and services in the early 1960-ies
amounted to about 5 billion rubles, and in the end of 1980-ies was already reached 90 billion rubles. At current prices, the gnp
of the ussr was (in billions of rubles): in 1960 – 195; in 1990, 701. Thus, the economy of the ussr for thirty years has increased
3. 6 times, and the shadow economy – 14 times.
If in 1960 the shadow economy relative to official gdp was 3. 4%, while by 1988 this figure rose to 20%. However, in 1990 it was
equal to 12. 5%. This decline was due to changes in soviet legislation, which transferred to discharge a legal a range of economic
activities, which were previously considered illegal. The number of employed in the shadow economy, estimated to be the results,
in the beginning of 1960-ies was 6 million people, and in 1974 their number increased to 17-20 million people (6-7% of the population).
In 1989, the such shadow was already 30 million people, or 12% of the population of the ussr. The threats and consequences of the
development of the shadow economy in sssri american and soviet researchers pay attention to some features of the shadow economy and
its impact on the overall situation in the Soviet Union .
He made a fortune in the chaotic world of 1990s Russian capitalism, then took a place at
the heart of the British establishment
Striding the halls of an English stately home, dressed in full costume as Victorian
prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, Len Blavatnik was celebrating his 60th birthday.
Grammy-winner Bruno Mars sang. Guests -- some in frock coats, others dressed as Leo Tolstoy,
Rasputin or Chinese emissaries -- mixed with rock stars, celebrities and business
tycoons.
Themed as an imaginary conference chaired by Disraeli, the June 2017 party was
emblematic of Blavatnik's extraordinary rise from his birth in Soviet Ukraine to one of the
UK's richest people
####
A lot more at the link.
So why did Abramovic get the bum rush? He's kept his head down, not made waves, behaved
himself and spent a lot of money in the UK (Chelsea FC) which the above FT article sniffs at
as unworthy (snobs), but the Brit government still stiffed his visa and he hasn't been back
to the UK even though he now also has I-sraeli citizenship that affords him visa-free entry
to the UK. Is it because the UK and others need some oligarchs on the side just in case their
dream comes true and they need to parachute in some reliable Russians? That wouldn't
surprise me. Government in waiting. Maybe Abramovic said "No." Wrong answer.
Леонид
Валентинович
Блаватник (Сэр
Леонард
Блаватник;
англ. Sir Leonard Blavatnik или Len Blavatnik;
род. 14 июня 1957,
Одесса --
американский и
британский
предприниматель
и промышленник
еврейского
происхождения.
В 2015 году
возглавил
список
богатейших
людей
Великобритании
Russian Wiki
Leonid Valentinovich Blavatnik (Sir Leonard Blavatnik or Len Blavatnik); born 14 June
1957, Odessa – American and British entrepreneur and industrialist of Jewish ancestry.
In 2015, headed a list of the richest people in Great Britain
"... And again, a Mr. Jim Mellon a for real billionaire, several times over I should think, the same guy who carpetbagged Russia after the collapse of the CCCP. His gleanings were called “privatization”… of poor mother Russia. ..."
Tainted tenure indeed! No one asks the right questions anymore. For example, where did all
that Brexit cash come from? As I commented previously at CONSORTIUMNEWS and it is redacted
here; “The Panama Papers signaled a need for radical change(s) in the EU banking laws.
Hiding money, legit or not from, fair and open taxation, has become increasingly difficult
for the upper crust….”
The BREXIT cash originated, no surprise folks, from a
Gibraltar based firm, where a Mr Arron Banks (big bucks Banks) a guy with money to burn, with
corporate holdings in the Isle of Man and too, one of his buddies, an Alan Kentish of the STM
group specializing in, oh you’ll love this, offshore wealth preservation! LOL
And
again, a Mr. Jim Mellon a for real billionaire, several times over I should think, the same
guy who carpetbagged Russia after the collapse of the CCCP. His gleanings were called
“privatization”… of poor mother Russia. Well, to make a long story short, Mr Kentish, the original pro-BREXITeer was arrested in Gibraltar under the UK’s Crime
Act for such suspicious money funneling(s). My oh my Ms May, what strange political
bedfellows you seem to have!
Jake
says: Next New Comment May 22, 2019 at 3:27 pm
GMT 100 Words This is good writing: "The KGB plotters of 1991 had thought that
post-Communist Russia would be treated by the West like the prodigal son, with a fattened calf
being slaughtered for the welcome feast. To their disappointment, the stupid bastards
discovered that their country was to play the part of the fattened calf at the feast, and they
were turned from unseen rulers into billionaires' bodyguards.
Parachuting Harvard mafia on Russia was a more powerful weapon and led to more destruction of Russian economy then direct
bombardment would
Notable quotes:
"... Concerning the capability of wrecking finances of other states, USA is not a slouch, the most powerful weapon is economic advise. If I interpret news correctly, it were experts of Goldman Sachs that help Greek government to borrow about twice as much as they could handle in the long run. The wreckage in Russia was as impressive, but, alas, hard to repeat, so now it remains to carp about their "bad behavior". ..."
I think that at least some weapon systems that USA makes or develops can be indeed
superior. The most acute loss from the approach of "invest in over-extending and un-balancing
the opponent" is that USA, while powerful, cannot do everything in the same time.
My favorite comparison chart is timeliness of subway systems in major metropolitan areas.
Honestly, I cannot find it, because the search is swamped with the tales of woe of subway
commuters in NYC. As befits the greatest financial center, cultural metropolis etc. etc., NYC
has a transportation system that is comparable in its extend to other metropolitan areas like
Tokyo, Paris or London. However, the performance is uninspiring. On the chart in NYT that I
can't find out at the moment, only Mexico City had a lower percentage of train rides delayed
by less than 10 minutes. I checked Moscow that has a larger subway system (compared to NY)
and which was not on the chart. They pride themselves with frequency of delays that is 5
times smaller than in Paris (50 times smaller than in NYC?). Moscovites can actually plan
their daily lives assuming that their commutes will arrive on time.
This is the most glaring example of a lost opportunity to take care of domestic needs, but
the quality of education, healthcare etc. is mediocre compared with the rest of OECD,
although there is always the southern neighbor that saves USA from being dead last.
Incidentally, NYC subway is not exactly underfunded, instead, it may have the most
irrational management among major metropolitan areas which accurately reflects deficiencies
of American political system. Bloated costs are pervasive across many areas, surely in
military, healthcare and broadly meant policing, and their originate in lobbo-cracy, a
plethora of lobbies grabbing chunks of monies either directly spent or (mis)regulated by the
government. The activity of these lobbies is tightly regulated by elaborate rules, but the
end effect is as if USA were pathetically corrupted (say, half as corrupted as Nigeria).
Concerning the capability of wrecking finances of other states, USA is not a slouch, the
most powerful weapon is economic advise. If I interpret news correctly, it were experts of
Goldman Sachs that help Greek government to borrow about twice as much as they could handle
in the long run. The wreckage in Russia was as impressive, but, alas, hard to repeat, so now
it remains to carp about their "bad behavior".
Sanctions are also powerful when directed at small/medium size economies. Russia, although
disparaged as "a smaller economy than Italy", but in actuality, Italy has "GDP per capity
PPP" that is 40% larger than Russia, and Russia has 2.4 times larger population, so quite a
bit larger economy in terms of "purchasing parity", and the most glaring domestic production
deficiency are fruit and vegetables that, according to latest news, have a number of
potential suppliers that are most glad when they can sell their produce.
"... Skripal was just one more effort to tighten sanctions against Putin's allies in the Russian oligarchy and isolate Trump from foreign policy initiatives not approved by the Deep State. ..."
"... The significance of the NY Times story, then, is that, inadvertently it reinforces the reality that in the matter of Russiagate and Trump all roads lead to London, the Tory Establishment, which has been living off US-Russian tensions for seventy years and security agencies doing what the CIA cannot do for itself. ..."
Craig Murray has a piece on this today. There is nothing very new in what he writes but he
sees the significance of this story, which is not about ducks or children or Donald Trump's
personality but a concerted and thorough campaign, carried out largely by British state
actors, to deepen the 'west's' isolation of Russia.
The real story of both the Cold War and the continually recurring propaganda stories about
the "millions" of "victims of communism" is that the Soviet Union was manipulated throughout
its history by capitalist control over the international economy. Like a demonic organist
capitalist governments pulled out all the stops to control the moods and the policies of a
state that the Bolsheviks never did get to rule.
In the end the Politburo gave in and did what the 'west' had always been wanted which is
to hand over the country, lock, stock and population to the cannibals of capital.
The result being what was probably, after the 1930-45 war, the largest kill off of
Russians in modern history: Yeltsin plus Harvard Business School being responsible for many
more deaths than even the intoxicated propagandist Robert Conquest ever dreamed of.
It is that total control over Russia, through the manipulation of its economy, and the
direction of its capitalists, that is behind the long series of sanctions, which are being
added to every day: their purpose is to re-invent Yeltsinism, re-empower the Fifth Column in
the Kremlin, and, in a stroke, re-establish the inevitable and eternal hegemony of the
Washington centered Empire.
In this work the assistance of the 'cousins'in MI6 and GCHQ, plus the entire British
military establishment has been crucial in a period in which the subservience of POTUS to the
Deep State was, thanks to the underestimation of his electoral chances, very much in
question. During a period in which Trump had to be tamed and brought under control the UK
Establishment's assistance in coming up with a series of highly publicised interventions was
crucia l.
Lysias points out that Haspel had acted as the CIA's Head of Station in London in 2016. It
was in London that the entire "Russiagate" nonsense was put together, with British based
actors continually prodding Congress, the media and the Democrats to act on revelations
regarding Papadopolous, Mifsud, Stefan Halper.
Skripal was just one more effort to
tighten sanctions against Putin's allies in the Russian oligarchy and isolate Trump from
foreign policy initiatives not approved by the Deep State.The significance of the
NY Times story, then, is that, inadvertently it reinforces the reality that in the matter of
Russiagate and Trump all roads lead to London, the Tory Establishment, which has been living
off US-Russian tensions for seventy years and security agencies doing what the CIA cannot do
for itself.
"... Privatization typically enriches the politically connected few who secure lucrative rents by sacrificing the national or public interest for private profit, even when privatization may not seem to benefit them. ..."
"... For example, following Russian voucher privatization and other Western recommended reforms, for which there was a limited domestic constituency then, within three years (1992-1994), the Russian economy had collapsed by half, and adult male life expectancy fell by six years. It was the greatest such recorded catastrophe in the last six millennia of recorded human history. ..."
"... Soon, a couple of dozen young Russian oligarchs had taken over the commanding heights of the Russian economy; many then monetized their gains and invested abroad, migrating to follow their new wealth. Much of this was celebrated by the Western media as economic progress. ..."
<img
src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />
Has
Privatization Benefitted the Public? Posted on April 7,
2019 by Jerri-Lynn Scofield Jerri-Lynn
here. Another succinct post by Jomo Kwame Sundaram that makes clear the "benefits" of
privatization are not evenly distributed, and in fact, typically, "many are even worse off"
when the government chooses to transfer ownership of the family silver.
Note that SOE is the acronym for state owned enterprise.
For those interested in the topic, see also another short post by the same author from last
September, debunking other arguments to promote the privatization fairy, Revisiting
Privatization's Claims .
By Jomo Kwame Sundaram, former UN Assistant Secretary General for Economic Development.
Originally published at Inter Press
Service
In most cases of privatization, some outcomes benefit some, which serves to legitimize the
change. Nevertheless, overall net welfare improvements are the exception, not the rule.
Never is everyone better off. Rather, some are better off, while others are not, and
typically, many are even worse off. The partial gains are typically high, or even negated by
overall costs, which may be diffuse, and less directly felt by losers.
Privatized Monopoly Powers
Since many SOEs are public monopolies, privatization has typically transformed them into
private monopolies. In turn, abuse of such market monopoly power enables more rents and
corporate profits.
As corporate profits are the private sector's yardstick of success, privatized monopolies
are likely to abuse their market power to maximize rents for themselves. Thus, privatization
tends to burden the public, e.g., if charges are raised.
In most cases, privatization has not closed the governments' fiscal deficits, and may even
worsen budgetary problems. Privatization may worsen the fiscal situation due to loss of revenue
from privatized SOEs, or tax evasion by the new privatized entity.
Options for cross-subsidization, e.g., to broaden coverage are reduced as the government is
usually left with unprofitable activities while the potentially profitable is acquired by the
private sector. Thus, governments are often forced to cut essential public services.
In most cases, profitable SOEs were privatized as prospective private owners are driven to
maximize profits. Fiscal deficits have often been exacerbated as new private owners use
creative accounting to avoid tax, secure tax credits and subsidies, and maximize retained
earnings.
Meanwhile, governments lose vital revenue sources due to privatization if SOEs are
profitable, and are often obliged to subsidize privatized monopolies to ensure the poor and
underserved still have access to the privatized utilities or services.
Privatization Burdens Many
Privatization burdens the public when charges or fees are not reduced, or when the services
provided are significantly reduced. Thus, privatization often burdens the public in different
ways, depending on how market power is exercised or abused.
Often, instead of trying to provide a public good to all, many are excluded because it is
not considered commercially viable or economic to serve them. Consequently, privatization may
worsen overall enterprise performance. 'Value for money' may go down despite ostensible
improvements used to justify higher user charges.
SOEs are widely presumed to be more likely to be inefficient. The most profitable and
potentially profitable are typically the first and most likely to be privatized. This leaves
the rest of the public sector even less profitable, and thus considered more inefficient, in
turn justifying further privatizations.
Efficiency Elusive
It is often argued that privatization is needed as the government is inherently inefficient
and does not know how to run enterprises well. Incredibly, the government is expected to
subsidize privatized SOEs, which are presumed to be more efficient, in order to fulfil its
obligations to the citizenry.
Such obligations may not involve direct payments or transfers, but rather, lucrative
concessions to the privatized SOE. Thus, they may well make far more from these additional
concessions than the actual cost of fulfilling government obligations.
Thus, privatization of profitable enterprises or segments not only perpetuates exclusion of
the deserving, but also worsens overall public sector performance now encumbered with remaining
unprofitable obligations.
One consequence is poorer public sector performance, contributing to what appears to be a
self-fulfilling prophecy. To make matters worse, the public sector is then stuck with financing
the unprofitable, thus seemingly supporting to the privatization prophecy.
Benefits Accrue to Relatively Few
Privatization typically enriches the politically connected few who secure lucrative rents by
sacrificing the national or public interest for private profit, even when privatization may not
seem to benefit them.
Privatization in many developing and transition economies has primarily enriched these few
as the public interest is sacrificed to such powerful private business interests. This has, in
turn, exacerbated corruption, patronage and other related problems.
For example, following Russian voucher privatization and other Western recommended reforms,
for which there was a limited domestic constituency then, within three years (1992-1994), the
Russian economy had collapsed by half, and adult male life expectancy fell by six years. It was
the greatest such recorded catastrophe in the last six millennia of recorded human history.
Soon, a couple of dozen young Russian oligarchs had taken over the commanding heights of the
Russian economy; many then monetized their gains and invested abroad, migrating to follow their
new wealth. Much of this was celebrated by the Western media as economic
progress.
Yes it does. I've now added a sentence to my introduction to make that clear. I noticed
the omission when I was uploading the post, but wasn't sure whether readers would be
confused.
As a rule of thumb, I'd say that any privatisations that require the introduction of
convoluted pseudo-market structures or vast new regulatory bureaucracies or which derive most
of their ongoing income from the public sector are likely to be contrary to the long-term
public interest. In the UK, unfortunately, all these ships sailed a long time ago
After the recent Chicago municipal elections, I wrote up some notes on the reasons for the
discontent. This article by Sundaram explains exactly how these schemes work. Further, you
can apply his criteria of subsidies for the rich, skimming, and disinheriting the middle
class and poor to all of the following instances in Chicago.
If I may–some for instances of how Sundaram's observations turn up in U.S.
cities:
Chicago is the proving grounds for thirty or so years of the Democrats' surrender to
neoliberalism and austerity politics. Let us not forget, brethren and sistren, that Rahm is
the Spawn of Bill + Hill as well as dear friend and advisor of Obama. So there is the work of
Daley to undo and the work of the Clintonians to undo. It will take more than one term for
Lightfoot.
Consider:
–Parking meters and enforcement have been privatized, starving the city of funds and,
more importantly, of its police power.
–Taxes have been privatized in TIFs, where money goes and is never heard from
again.
–There have been attempts to privatize the park system in the form of the Lucas museum
and the current Obama Theme Park imbroglio, involving some fifty acres of park land.
–The school system has been looted and privatized. The Democrats are big fans of
charter schools (right, "Beto"), seeing them as ways to skim money off the middle class and
the poor.
–Fare collection on public transit has been privatized using a system so deliberately
rudimentary and so deliberately corrupt that it cannot tell you at point of service how much
you have paid as fare.
–Boeing was enticed to Chicago with tax breaks. Yes, that Boeing, the one that now
deliberately puts bad software in your airplane.
–Property tax assessment has been an opaque system and source of skimming for
lawyers.
–Zoning: Eddie Burke, pond scum, is just the top layer of pollution.
–And as we have made our descent, all of these economic dogmata have been enforced by
petty harassment of the citizenry (endless tickets) and an ever-brutal police force.
And yet: The current Republican Party also supports all of these policies, so let's not
pretend that a bunch of Mitch McConnell lookalikes are headed to Chicago to reform it.
Providing professional services i.e. architecture, engineering, etc. for a public entity,
local or federal, does not yield unreasonable profits. Typically, the public agencies have
their own staff to monitor and cost control a project. The professional services provided to
private developers yields far more profit- oftentimes twice the profits associated with
public agency work. Most professional services companies will transition their work to the
public agencies during a recession.
At any rate, especially in Illinois, privatizing the work to avoid pension liabilities is
no longer a choice. Michael Madigan pension promises will require the public to maintain a
public service budget with no staff to fill potholes. Essentially, these are the no work jobs
made popular by the Soprano crew twenty years ago.
Discussion of the downside of the privatization of public services is merely an
oscillation from discussing the weather, the Bears or any other kitchen table discussion
– nothing more than pleasant small talk to pass the time.
Privatization, at any cost, is no longer a choice. We have abused the pension system and
now the public must pay for private companies to provide the most basic services.
The question is, what can one do to help arrest this wholesale theft of public resources
and their expropriation into the hands of well connected. " Public", as in, it is the working
public over the last 100 or 200 years that created (or paid for), the electricity grid, or
public schools, or entire armed or police forces
I keep thinking that perhaps an Act could or should be introduced here in UK (same for the
States, i suppose), which should ensure that all politicians that enable any type of
privatisation of public resources or PFI arrangement (yes that old chesnut), should be made
personally responsible for the results therof.
And any losses to the public accidentally or "accidentally" occasioned by such
commandeering over public resources, to be treated like deliberate misappropriation by the
said public officials.
With the financial and custodial penalties as may be appropriate.
Anybody out there with similar thoughts or should i really try harder and give up on
drugs?
Michael Hudson, to his immense credit, explains the pernicious effects of privatization of
common goods repeatedly throughout his work, and demonstrates that it has been with us at
least as long as the ancient practice of land alienation and rural usury.
Natural monopolies ought to be nationalised, full stop.
I support public ownership of natural monopolies, however it would be helpful if these
pieces contained data, case studies or footnoted entries providing some empirical evidence of
the author's thesis.
This article comes at a time when the clarion call for privatizing Eskom, SA's electricity
utility, is hitting deafening levels. To the private sector, efficiency = maximizing profits
by making the "bloated" enterprise lean (aka cutting the workforce) and quite literally mean
(aka cutting services to "unprofitable" segments of the market, iow, the poor and
vulnerable). When profits soar because the holy grail of efficiency is achieved, the
mainstream business press brings out the champagne and toasts this "success" as proof that
the previously "moribund" (they always exaggerate the state of things) monopolistic monolith
has been given a new lease on life by privatizing it and the template is set for rescuing
other "ailing" SOEs.
The drawbacks are never laid out as cleary as they are in this article and the plight of
those worst affected, whether laid-off workers or those whose services have been cut, never
makes it into the headlines.
And then there is prison privatization where the burden of operation and maintaining the
institution should clearly be on the public so as to be constant reminder of the burden,
among others reasons. The motivations by private prison operators to reduce services and
costs out of site of the pesky prying eyes of the public are manifold.
Privatization is a great way to avoid having user fees wasted by providing services, and
instead put to better use funding the re-election campaigns of politicians supporting
privatization. Plus, it provides much-needed consulting fees for former politicians as well
as job-creating 7-figure salaries for the CEOs,
(/snark, if you couldn't tell)
On a side note, the Dilbert comic strip is written about private industry ,
There was a rudimentary plan
put forward last June that recommended some pretty substantial privatizations of U.S.
government assets and services which include:
-Privatizing the US Post Office ( through an Initial Public Offering or outright sale to a
private entity ).
-Sell off U.S. government owned electricity transmission lines ( U.S. government owns 14% of
this nations power transmission lines through TVA, Southwestern Power Administration, Western
Area Power Administration, and Bonneville Power Administration ).
-Spin-off the Federal Aviation Administrations air traffic control operations into a private
nonprofit entity.
-Spin-off the Department of Transportations operations of the Saint Lawrence Seaways Locks
and Channels into a private non-profit entity.
-End the federal conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then regulate a new system of
private guarantors for their MBS securities.
At heart, the problem with privatization is that marketing to a government-employed
purchaser or "purchase influencer" is ridiculously cheap, due to their poor accountability
strictures.
This is abetted by the Katamari Damacy process (self-accretionary tendency) of money and
power.
In Oz the electricity grids were privatized as they would be cheaper that way – or
so people were told. Instead, the cost of electricity has risen sharply over the years to the
point that it is effecting elections on both the State and Federal level as the price hikes
are so controversial. A problem is that those companies have to pay back the loans used to
buy the public electricity grids and as well, the senior management award themselves sky-high
wages because they are totally worth it. These are factors that were never present when it
was publicly owned. And just to put the boot in, those very same companies have been
'gold-plating' the electricity grid for their gain-
Meanwhile, whatever money the governments made selling their electricity companies has
been long spent on white elephants or buying themselves re-elections by giving out goodies to
voters.
buying themselves re-elections by giving out goodies to voters.
I don't reside in the states, so I don't see much of the detail of daily life. What are
these "goodies" of which you speak? In what I am able to read on the internet, people aren't
being given goodies any more. At least the old-time politicians handed out jobs, and turkeys
at Christmas. The current crop do hand out jobs to their kids and immediate family, but not
so much to anyone else.
Academics have different interests from practitioners. Publications, tenure and mentoring
students are university responsibilities, not responsibilities for governing the world. (
It is an open question whether [neoliberal] academics sub-consciously want to govern the
world .)
Harvard University has a rule – known as the Kissinger rule – that faculty can
only take two years off to do other activities such as government work in Washington.
David Halberstam's The Best and the
Brightest is a damning recounting of how the Harvard elite failed to understand the
Vietnam War because of its arrogance.)
Долгие годы я
жил в ощущении
правильности
произошедшего
в 1991 и 1993 годах. Хотя,
конечно, у меня
были серьезные
внутренние
разногласия с
той толпой,
которая
носилась по
Москве и ломала
памятники. Но я
это в себе как-то
давил. В 1993 году
мне казалось
правильным, что
танк стреляет
по дому с
вооруженными
людьми. Я тоже
хотел
раздавить
гадину, потому
что гадина
представлялась
мне гадиной. Я
был юн и еще не
понимал, что
демократия -- это
всегда толпа,
ломающая
памятники. И что
любой
парламент -- это
всегда гадина.
Но это не значит,
что его надо из
танков
расстреливать.
Но даже когда
ко мне пришло
понимание этих
двух
постулатов, я
все равно
продолжал
смеяться над
мифологией
защитников
гадины. О
массовых
расстрелах на
стадионе
"Красная Пресня".
И, конечно, о
таинственных
снайперах,
которые
стреляли по
простым
прохожим. Зачем
снайперам
стрелять по
простым
прохожим? Какой
в этом военный
тактический
смысл? Однако
время всё
ставит по своим
местам.
Снайперы,
стреляющие по
простым
прохожим нужны
для того же, для
чего нужны две
бочки хлора. Для
провокации.
А где же еще мы
видели
снайперов,
стрелявших по
людям для
провокации
насилия?
Правильно, мы
видели их в
Киеве на
Майдане. И вот
когда у тебя в
голове вдруг
складывается
Майдан и 1993 год, то
становится
неприятно.
Потому что ты
начинаешь
понимать
природу
произошедшего
в 1993 году. Это был
такой же Майдан.
И он, как и в
Киеве, победил.
Раздавили
гадину. Америка,
матушка-спасительница,
помогла. И в 1993м. И в
2014. Только почему
же ты, сволочь,
тогда был на
одной стороне, а
потом -- на
другой? А потому
что дурак был.
А когда
картинка
сложилась,
сразу же много
стало понятнее.
И весь тот ад
девяностых,
который был так
похож на то, что
ныне
происходит на
Украине. Война
против
собственных
граждан
негодной,
разворованной
армией. Полный
крах экономики,
зависимость от
денег МВФ,
выделяемых по
милостивому
разрешению США.
Вооруженные
люди, убивающие
друг друга в
центрах
городов.
Эта мысль
может
показаться
диковатой, но
вот, наконец, у
нее случилось
документальное
подтверждение.
В США
опубликованы
расшифровки
телефонных
разговоров
президента
Билла Клинтона.
В том числе и с
президентом
Борисом
Ельциным. В
которых Ельцин
пугает
Клинтона
коммунистами,
жалуется, что
коммунисты,
если победят,
могут отобрать
Крым (!). И просит
два с половиной
миллиарда
долларов на
выборы. После
чего МВФ
выделяет
России займ, а в
Москве
приезжают
американские
политические
консультанты. И
выборы 1996 года
превращаются в
Оранжевую
революцию --
только вместо
концертов на
Майдане тур
"Голосуй или
проиграешь". А в
результате всё
равно
сфальсифицированные
результаты.
Методы и те же,
разве что
последовательность
разная.
И вот с высоты
этого
понимания
хорошо бы
оглядеть
перспективы. В
России
случился Путин,
она очистилась
от скверны и
таки приняла
вернувшийся
Крым. Значит ли
это, что
подобный исход
событий
возможен на
Украине?
Интересная
могла бы
получиться
экстраполяция:
Порошенко
находит
какого-то
малоизвестного
человека,
выходца из СБУ,
которого
назначает
преемником.
Этот человек
выгоняет
американцев,
восстанавливает
экономику,
мирится с
Донбассом,
равноудаляет
старых
олигархов и
возвращает
Крым? Сценарий,
как вы
понимаете,
фантастический.
И дело даже не в
Крыме, который
никуда
"возвращаться"
не собирается,
потому что он
уже вернулся
домой. Дело в
том, что Ельцин
вовсе не хотел,
чтобы Путин
сделал всё то,
что он сделал. Он
хотел просто
гарантий
безопасности
для себя и семьи.
И то, что Путин
оказался не тем,
кем его
представлял
себе Ельцин --
это счастливая
случайность.
Божий промысел,
если хотите. Pussy Riot
просили
Богородицу,
чтобы она
забрала Путина,
а устами
художника
всегда говорит
Бог. То есть,
прося
Богородицу,
чтобы она
забрала Путина,
Pussy Riot тем самым (и
сами того не
понимая)
говорили нам,
что Богородица
Путина нам дала.
Это шутка,
конечно.
Впрочем, как мне
кажется,
довольно
изящная.
Порошенко,
разумеется,
тоже ничего из
того, что сделал
Путин, не хочет.
Он хочет или
остаться у
власти (что
мирным путем
невозможно) или
же обеспечить
себе
безопасность.
Кто именно мог
бы обеспечить
ему такую
безопасность
(то есть -- быть
потенциальным
украинским
Путиным) отсюда
пока никак не
просматривается.
Но вопрос ведь
не в этом. Вопрос
в том, будет ли к
этому иметь
отношение
Богородица.
А также в том,
что нам теперь
совсем не с руки
смеяться над
нынешней
Украиной и ее
выбором. Мы с
вами вышли из
такого же
дерьма. Природа
современного
русского
государства
такая же --
поддержанный
американцами
майдан. И хорошо
бы никогда об
этом не
забывать. И
соответственно
относиться к
тем, кто тоскует
по тем
временам.
А лично мне
достаточно
того, что
Богородица не
послушала Pussy Riot. И
слава богу. RT
"... The purpose is very simple: to create the perception that the government of Russia still somehow controls or manipulates the US government and thus gains some undeserved improvements in relations with the U.S. Once such perception is created, people will demand that relations with Russia are worsened to return them to a "fair" level. While in reality these relations have been systematically destroyed by the Western establishment (CFR) for many years. ..."
"... It's a typical inversion to hide the hybrid war of the Western establishment against Russian people. Yes, Russian people. Not Putin, not Russian Army, not Russian intelligence services, but Russian people. Russians are not to be allowed to have any kind of industries, nor should they be allowed to know their true history, nor should they possess so much land. ..."
"... Russians should work in coal mines for a dollar a day, while their wives work as prostitutes in Europe. That's the maximum level of development that the Western establishment would allow Russians to have (see Ukraine for a demo version). Why? Because Russians are subhumans. ..."
"... The end goal of the Western establishment is a complete military, economic, psychological, and spiritual destruction of Russia, secession of national republics (even though in some of them up to 50% of population are Russians, but this will be ignored, as it has been in former Soviet republics), then, finally, dismemberment of what remains of Russia into separate states warring with each other. ..."
"... The very concept of Russian nation should disappear. Siberians will call their language "Siberian", Muscovites will call their language "Moscovian", Pomorians will call their language "Pomorian", etc. The U.S. Department of State will, of course, endorse such terminology, just like they endorse the term "Montenegrian language", even though it's the same Serbo-Croatian language with the same Cyrillic writing system. ..."
The purpose is very simple: to create the perception that the government of Russia still somehow controls or manipulates
the US government and thus gains some undeserved improvements in relations with the U.S. Once such perception is created, people
will demand that relations with Russia are worsened to return them to a "fair" level. While in reality these relations have been
systematically destroyed by the Western establishment (CFR) for many years.
It's a typical inversion to hide the hybrid war of the Western establishment against Russian people. Yes, Russian people.
Not Putin, not Russian Army, not Russian intelligence services, but Russian people. Russians are not to be allowed to have any
kind of industries, nor should they be allowed to know their true history, nor should they possess so much land.
Russians should work in coal mines for a dollar a day, while their wives work as prostitutes in Europe. That's the maximum
level of development that the Western establishment would allow Russians to have (see Ukraine for a demo version). Why? Because
Russians are subhumans.
Whatever they do, it's always wrong, bad, oppressive, etc. Russians are bad because they're bad. They must be "taught a lesson",
"put into their place". It would, of course, be beneficial and highly profitable for Europeans to break with Anglo-Saxons and
to live in peace and harmony with Russia, but Europeans simply can not overcome their racism towards Russians. The young Europeans
are just as racist, with their incessant memes about "squatting Russians in tracksuits", "drunken Russians", etc., as if there's
nothing else that is notable about a country of 147 million people.
The end goal of the Western establishment is a complete military, economic, psychological, and spiritual destruction of
Russia, secession of national republics (even though in some of them up to 50% of population are Russians, but this will be ignored,
as it has been in former Soviet republics), then, finally, dismemberment of what remains of Russia into separate states warring
with each other.
The very concept of Russian nation should disappear. Siberians will call their language "Siberian", Muscovites will call
their language "Moscovian", Pomorians will call their language "Pomorian", etc. The U.S. Department of State will, of course,
endorse such terminology, just like they endorse the term "Montenegrian language", even though it's the same Serbo-Croatian language
with the same Cyrillic writing system.
Hmmmm I think IMHO that any analogies with Gorbachev are misplaced and superficial. I
don't think Gorbachev knew what he was doing and was profoundly naive (or worse, but that's
the best that can be said about him, let's leave it at that – and I admired him as a
teen behind the iron curtain).
I think Sanders knows what he's doing and is clear eyed about who he's dealing with in
terms of system and people -- unlike Gorbachev.
As for people in the USSR giving up – I don't think they got anything of what they
really wanted, and I don't think anyone really asked them. So they never had a chance to give
up anything. They were simply led along a short hopeful path – and then summarily and
mercilessly crushed.
Sanders is a healthy thing for this country and the Dem party. Unlike Gorbachev, he's
ushering in healthy forces. Let the chips fall where they may.
The USA in decline needs friends. Instead it got a powerful and well armed afversary, that
stupid neocon jerks (including academic jerks like Summers) tried to play to get some dollars in
theirs pockets... Add to this tentions with china and Harvard boys should probably be hanged on
lampposts.
As the incomparable Jimmy Dore says on his show, which should be required watching for
everyone, if the Russians can swing an election with such modest resources against maybe $1-2
billion spent by the Donald and the Hillary together, then every candidate for offices high and
low should run not walk with $54,700 in hand to secure a cheap and easy victory from the
Russobots.
When you beat a person who is down with boots and this person survive, you should not expect
any mercy in the next fight.
Russia just passed up the U.S. in grain exports. Their economy in real terms grows year
on year. Russia has more natural wealth available to exploit than USA that includes lands
rich in minerals, timber, water, etc.
With regards to traitorous fifth column atlantacists and oligarchy, Russia's shock
therapy (induced by the Harvard Boys) in the 90's helped Russian's figure out who the real
enemy is. Putin has marginalized most of these ((Oligarchs)), and they longer are allowed to
influence politics. Many have also been stripped of their ill gotten gains, for example the
Rothschild gambit to grab Yukos and to own Russia was thwarted. Dollar debts were paid off,
etc.
Russia could go further in their symphony of church and state, and copy Justinian
(Byzyantine empire) and prevent our (((friends))) from teaching in schools,bein control of
money, or in government.
With regards to China, they would be not be anywhere near where they are today if the West
had not actively transferred their patrimony in the form of transplanted industry and
knowledge.
China is only temporarily dependent on export of goods via their Eastern seaboard, but
as soon as belt and road opens up, she will pivot further toward Eurasia. If the U.S.
factories withdrew from China tomorrow, China already has our "knowledge" and will find
markets in Eurasia and raw materials in Africa, etc.
People need to stop whistling past the graveyard.
The Atlantics strategy has run its course, internal development of U.S. and linking up
with belt and road would be in America's best future interests. But, to do that requires
first acknowledging that money's true nature is law, and not private bank credit. Further,
the U.S. is being used as whore of Babylon, where her money is "Federal Reserve Notes" and
are international in character. The U.S is not sovereign. Deep state globalism does not
recognize national boundaries, or sovereignty.
That US elites that are split on who to go after first compromised by going after both
Russia and China at the same time is a definition of insanity. The US doesn't have a chance
in hell of subduing or defeating the Russia/China alliance. The US is already checkmated. The
more it goes after some big win the worse will be its defeat.
So the question (for me) is not which side will win, the question is the scenario of the
decline of the US Empire. Someone here mentioned the EU turning East. At some point the EU
will decide that staying a US vassal is suicide and it will turn East. When that happens then
the virus of US insanity will turn inwards into itself.
The US has recently focused on South America by installing several fascist regimes and
is now trying to get Venezuela. But the US backed regimes are laying the groundwork for the
next wave of revolution soon to come. Wherever I look the US is its own worst enemy. The big
question is how much suffering before it ends.
Huawei now sells more cell phones worldwide than Apple ( https://gearburn.com/2018/08/huawei-smartphone-sales-2018/
). And Huawei does this even though it is effectively excluded from the US market (You cannot
find it in stores) whereas Apple has unfettered access to the enormous Chinese market. You
find Huawei everywhere -- from Italy to Tanzania. How would Apple fare if China stopped
purchases of its products? Not so well I am afraid.
Usa is at war against everyone , from China to Latinamerica , from Europe to India , from the
islamic world to Africa . Usa is even at war against its own citizens , at least against its
best citizens .
When we speak of the culture war or the war on drugs or the war between the sexes or a trade
war we are misusing the word war.
War with China means exactly shooting and bombing and killing Chinese and American people.
Expanding the meaning of the word only makes it meaningless.
@joe
webbRussia and China are certainly not natural allies. However, deranged
international banditry of the US (called foreign policy in the DC bubble) literally forced
them to ally against a common threat: dying demented Empire.
As you call Chinese "Chinks", I suggest you stop using everything made in China, including
your clothes, footwear, tools, the light bulbs in your house, etc. Then, using your likely
made in China computer and certainly made in China mouse, come back and tell us how great
your life has become. Or you can stick to your principles of not using China-made stuff,
write a message on a piece of paper (warning: make sure that neither the paper nor the pen is
made in China), put it into a bottle, and throw it in the ocean. Be patient, and in a few
centuries you might get an answer.
In the halls of the Kremlin these days, it's all about China -- and whether or not
Moscow can convince Beijing to form an alliance against the West.
Russia's obsession with a potential alliance with China was already obvious at the
Valdai Discussion Club, an annual gathering of Russia's biggest foreign policy minds, in
2017.
At their next meeting, late last year, the idea seemed to move from the speculative to
something Russia wants to realize. And soon
Seen from Moscow, there is no resistance left to a new alliance led by China. And now
that Washington has imposed tariffs on Chinese exports, Russia hopes China will finally
understand that its problem is Washington, not Moscow.
In the past, the possibility of an alliance between the two countries had been hampered
by China's reluctance to jeopardize its relations with the U.S. But now that it has already
become a target, perhaps it will grow bolder. Every speaker at Valdai tried to push China
in that direction.
Where a war begins -- or ends -- can be hard to define. Michael Klare is right, 'War' and
'peace' are not 'polar opposites'. We often look at wars in chronological abstraction: the
First World War started on the 28th July 1914. Or did it only become a global war one week
later when Great Britain declared war on Germany? The causes can be of long duration. The
decline of the Ottoman Empire, for which the other Great Powers were positioning themselves
to benefit, might have begun as far back as 1683 when the Turks were defeated at the Battle
of Vienna. It ultimately led to the events of 1914.
Great power rivalry has always led to wars; in the last hundred years world wars. Graham
Allison wrote that the US can 'avoid catastrophic war with China while protecting and
advancing American national interests' if it follows the lessons of the Cold War. History
shows that wars are caused by the clash of interests, that's always at some else's expense.
When core interests collide there is no alternative to war -- however destructive.
Forward, Comrades (Russian: Вперед,
товарищи; Chinese:
前进，达瓦里希; pinyin: Qiánjìn,
dáwǎlǐxī; literally: "Advance, tovarish") is a 2013 Chinese animated
short film by Wang Liyin of the Beijing Film Academy. The film focuses on the fall of the
Soviet Union as its main theme, told from the perspective of a young girl. As an original net
animation with a strong political backdrop, the film has triggered strong reactions from
various audiences.
Western Oligarchs raped Russia in the 90's. OK, most of them were Jews – but still
Western. The (((harvard))) boys foisted dollar debts on Russia, and then converted Russia to
an extraction economy. Putin cleverly taxed the Oligarchs and prevented them from further
predations.
No country can survive if it has an internal hostile elite. Nobody here can claim that
Russia's government is hostile to its people. A fair claim can be made that the
"international" elite that infest America IS HOSTILE. Why would you immigrate a replacement
population if not hostile? Why would you export your industry if not hostile?
You don't dig out and convert your economy to first world standards overnight.
So, the trend lines are clear. The West and U.S. is a finance oligarchy in decline, while
Russia is on a ascendant path. These lines will cross over at some point in near future. One
could even squint and say that Russia is no longer an Oligarchy of special interests, and is
moving into Byzantium mode e.g. symphony of Church and State. Many Russian thinkers are
projecting another 40 years or so to consolidate the gains.
"... But while China has succeeded in conserving a degree of control on capital outflows and private accumulation, the characteristic of Putin's Russia is an unbounded drift into kleptocracy. Between 1993 and 2018, Russia had massive trade surpluses: approximately 10% of GDP per annum on average for 25 years, or a total in the rage of 250% of GDP (two and a half years of national production). In principle that should have enabled the accumulation of the equivalent in financial reserves. This is almost the size of the sovereign public fund accumulated by Norway under the watchful gaze of the voters. The official Russian reserves are ten times lower – barely 25% of GDP. ..."
One would have to be incredibly naive on the order of say a 3 year old or maybe Forrest
Gump to believe Putin isn't a very wealthy man who will never want for anything as long as he
has billionaire cronies indebted to him politically in one way or the other.
Of course, some people must cling to their illusions, er I mean their idealism, of others
no matter what. Dog knows why.
More generally, the Soviet disaster led to the abandon of any ambition of redistribution.
Since 2001, income tax is 13%, whether your income be 1,000 roubles or 100 billion roubles.
Even Reagan and Trump have not gone as far in the destruction of progressive taxation.
There is no tax on inheritance in Russia, nor in the People's Republic of China. If you
want to pass on your fortune in peace in Asia, it is better to die in the ex-Communist
countries and definitely not in the capitalist countries such as Taiwan, South Korea or
Japan where the tax rate on inheritance on the highest estates has just risen from 50% to
55%.
But while China has succeeded in conserving a degree of control on capital outflows and
private accumulation, the characteristic of Putin's Russia is an unbounded drift into
kleptocracy. Between 1993 and 2018, Russia had massive trade surpluses: approximately 10%
of GDP per annum on average for 25 years, or a total in the rage of 250% of GDP (two and a
half years of national production). In principle that should have enabled the accumulation
of the equivalent in financial reserves. This is almost the size of the sovereign public
fund accumulated by Norway under the watchful gaze of the voters. The official Russian
reserves are ten times lower – barely 25% of GDP.
Where has the money gone? According to our estimates, the offshore assets alone held by
wealthy Russians exceed one year of GDP, or the equivalent of the entirety of the official
financial assets held by Russian households. In other words, the natural wealth of the
country, (which, let it be said in passing, would have done better to remain in the ground
to limit global warming) has been massively exported abroad to sustain opaque structures
enabling a minority to hold huge Russian and international financial assets. These rich
Russians live between London, Monaco and Moscow: some have never left Russia and control
their country via offshore entities. Numerous intermediaries and Western firms have also
recouped large crumbs on the way and continue to do so today in sport and the media
(sometimes this is referred to as philanthropy). The extent of the misappropriation of
funds has no equal in history.
Well, there can be no doubt Amerikkkans, Euros, Asians, Middle Easterners, grifters,
entrepreneurs, lumpen proles and many others of all persuasions participated in the sacking
of Russia's national wealth since the fall of the USSR. Probably even a few Canadiens took
part. Lol.
Capitalust feeding frenzies of this magnitude are ugly sights to behold, like the
Washington DC pig trough on a daily basis.
Russia's is truly a global phenomenon to be sure.
Or maybe a "globalist" phenomenon is a better way to putin words.
And of course, the chart at the top of Piketty's post is most interesting too....it shows
the US equally as unequal as Russia. I'm not letting the US off the hook here in any way
shape or form. But this thread is about Russia and worse exposits a demented sort of idealism
by many posters about the country and its Dear Leader that is unwarranted, IMHO. Not you of
course.
The heinous accumulation of Russian wealth is intertwined...leaving Russia and shunted
through tax havens, laundered, anonymised and ending up invested in the West....not back home
in Mother Russia....where it could lead to more economic development and opportunities for
the non-oligarchs....instead of more growth in the US and West, where agin most ends up in
the pockets of our own oligarchs, one Donald Trump among them.
The breakup of the USSR was due to confluence of factors such as rise of neoliberalism,
stagnation of oversentlised USSR economy, emergence of internat communications and personal
computers which weakened official propaganda power, creation of fifth column within the USSR due
to bad timing and execution of Gorbachev's reforms (Presetoyka was essentially the idea of
repeating NEP on a new level), and extremely weak abilities of Gorbachov as a politician, growth
of nationalism (well financed from theWest), degeneration of Bolshevik's elute and emergence of
multiple neoliberal turncoats (Yeltsin, Gaidar, Yakovlev, etc). but dissolution of the USSR
probably case as a surporse.
But after the dissolution CIA-Mossad-MI6 jumped into the dame with the explicit goal to
destruction of Russian economy, asset stripping (Browder probably is connected to MI6), Harvard
mafia probably also was somehow connected to CIA, and disintegration of the country (Chechnya
insurrection was supported by the USA, Britain and their vassals in Persian gulf).
This is an interesting lesson for future reformers: the presence of CIA-Mossad-MI6 on the
world scene changes the result of almost any forceful overthrow of the government, especially if
it was done with the goal of neoliberalization, imposing a huge cost on the population. Ukraine
is one recent example (the standard of living dropped probably 300 or so). Libya is another.
This particular neocon writing in his official capacity of a MIC lobbyist (that is what all
neocons are), so his views are interesting only as an example of a dangerous trend.
Like
many contemporary cold warriors, Bugajski toggles back and forth between overhyping Russia's
might and its weaknesses, notably a lack of economic dynamism and a rise in ethnic and regional
fragmentation. But his primary argument is unambiguous: That the West should actively stoke
longstanding regional and ethnic tensions with the ultimate aim of a dissolution of the Russian
Federation, which Bugajski dismisses as an "imperial construct."
Even more alarming is Bugajski's argument that the goal should not be
self-determination for breakaway Russian territories, but the annexing of these lands to other
countries . "Some regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from
whom Moscow has forcefully appropriated territories in the past."
It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without sparking a
series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version the US would
directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800 Serbian nuclear
warheads.
So who is Janusz Bugajski, and who is he speaking for?
The author bio on the Hill's piece identifies him as a senior fellow at the Center for
European Policy Analysis, a Washington, D.C. think-tank. But CEPA is no ordinary talk shop:
Instead of the usual foundations and well-heeled individuals, its financial backers seem to be mostly arms of the US
government, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the US Mission to NATO,
the US-government-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy, as well as as veritable who's who
of defense contractors, including Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and
Textron. Meanwhile, Bugajski chairs the South-Central Europe area studies program at the Foreign
Service Institute of the US Department of State.
To put it in perspective, it is akin to a Russian with deep ties to the Kremlin and
arms-makers arguing that the Kremlin needed to find ways to break up the United States and, if
possible, have these breakaway regions absorbed by Mexico and Canada. (A scenario which alas is
not as far-fetched as it might have been a few years ago; many thousands in California now openly
talk of a "Calexit," and many more in Mexico of a reconquista .)
The breakup of the USSR was planned also. It was followed by the formation of oligarchs, IMF
loans, and asset stripping. The economic advice and help Russia received from the west almost
accomplished the goal of breaking up Russia.
Russia is well aware that war with NATO cannot be avoided in the long run. One only has to
talk to Russians to see that they understand they are in a Cold war that they have to survive.
From their view they did not seek this confrontation. They truly thought they would be embraced
by the West after the fall and a new relationship benefiting both sides could have emerged. So
now Russia has to turn to China and prepare for a future war within a decade with NATO!
Disgusting projection of US imperialism. The elite never forgave Putin for throwing US
Rothschild elites out of Russia so they could no longer plunder Russias extensive wealth under
Yeltsin..
Let's see what happens when neocunts start that hot war, how Americans then feel about
Russia
We truly have dumbfucks in this country who love the thought of other as enemy other than
THEMSELVES. They never ONCE consider that in demonizing another countries leader, they are
demonizing a whole nation of peoples too. I wonder how Americans would feel if constant
demonizing and threats coming their way, with also say regime change in Mexico to provoke
them?
US neocons are psychopaths that care nothing for Americans. What they do to others in regime
change they will do to us. Oh, wait. They already have #9/11
Published in the Hill under the dispassionate title "Managing
Russia's dissolution," author Janusz Bugajski makes the case that the West should not
only seek to contain "Moscow's imperial ambitions" but to actively seek the dismemberment of
Russia as a whole.
If that is the intended goal then wouldn't it be accurate to state that America, or at least
its government, has imperial ambitions?
The rationale for dissolution should be logically framed: In order to survive, Russia
needs a federal democracy and a robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and
economic conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become increasingly
ungovernable...
Russia already tried "democracy" and the end result spelled disaster for their country.
Minorities were put on a pedestal while their economy was in shambles, all the while the
oligarchs, who were mostly Jewish, made a fortune plundering their natural resources. Sound
familiar?
Some regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom
Moscow has forcefully appropriated territories in the past."
The hypocrisy in this statement is breathless. Is America going to return Alaska to Russia?
Allow Hawaii to once again be an autonomous entity? Cease the illegal occupation of countries
throughout the Middle East? Remove their Neo-Nazi stooges from Ukraine?
It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without
sparking a series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version
the US would directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800
Serbian nuclear warheads.
The idea seems to be to stoke regional tensions in order to provoke Russia and start a
conflict where the surrounding countries are put on the front lines while being provided with
logistics from the outside, meaning the US. Washington could then play up the plausible
deniability angle, even while technology from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and other Western
contractors is primarily being used against the Russians.
Russia is not a direct threat to Western nations, only to their (((governments))), because
during any attempted implementation of a JWO (as in the EU for example), Russia will serve as a
reminder to all Western peoples - especially white people - as to what their nations once were:
independent, sovereign and self-determined. Russia prevented ISISrael from taking over Syria,
thwarted their Oded Yinon plan and threw out their oligarchs, so World Judaism is using America
as their bludgeon against the Russian Federation while preventing us from forming an
alliance.
74 years after Nazi Germany miscalculated Russian resolve some idiot dreams of carving
Russia up like it's a Thanksgiving turkey and some people actually take him seriously. Yeah,
good luck with that.
6 hours ago Bug-aj-ski - neocon shrill writing for and paid by the MIC it looks like
from the sponsors of this think tank
"Cultivating new sources of competitive advantage for U.S. strategy."
no list of sponsors tho I can see from the website - real MIC platform it sounds like from the
article
6 hours ago Yep, it's a Zbigniew Brzezinski memorial. The money seems to come mostly from the
MIC and the usual Cold War think tanks, like the Harry and Lynde Bradley Foundation. 5 hours ago
These necons need to remember that chess is the national passtime of Russians, while making
mudpies is the what they do in the West. These "think-tanks" are very childish. 3 hours ago 9
hours ago here's where some of it started/got turbocharged:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41/n02/seymour-m-hersh/the-vice-presidents-men
LA_Goldbug 10 hours ago The only way I can understand this twat is to think that he is just
earning his shekels. He knows what the Party Line is in DC requires and is writing accordingly. I
just checked a bit of his BS and this one is definitely written for the uninformed or deeply
indoctrinated Western sheep.
"Taking Stock of Ukraine's Achievements Amidst Russia's Aggression
Five years ago, the Ukrainian people staged a peaceful "revolution of dignity" against a
corrupt regime sponsored by the Kremlin. They stood firm even under gunfire and it was the
discredited President Viktor Yanukovych who eventually retreated and took refuge in Russia. With
Moscow engaging in renewed attacks against Ukraine in the Sea of Azov it is important to take
stock of Ukraine's achievements since those fateful days in Kyiv's Independence Square."
You need to be brain dead to think it was peaceful !!!!
Today I participated in a nice web-based program started by the Central Bank of Russia (it
will be posted soon). An economist is being interviewed by another, and then the one who has
been interviewed becomes in his/her turn the interviewer of yet a third one. My friend Shlomo
Weber, the head of the New School of Economics interviewed me, and then I interviewed
Professor Natalya Zubarevich, from the Lomonosov Moscow State University and a noted scholar
of Russian regional economics.
Just a couple of days ago Natalia gave a very well-received talk at the Gaidar Forum in
Moscow on (what one might call) "unhealthy convergence" of Russian regions. In fact, Natalia
shows that most recently regional per capita GDPs have started a mild convergence, but that
this is due first to low growth rate of most of them and the economy as a whole, and to the
redistribution mechanism (mostly of the oil rent) between the regions. A healthy convergence,
Natalia says, would be the one where economic activity, and especially small and medium size
private businesses, were much more equally distributed across some ninety subjects of the
Russian Federation. She also had very interesting insights into the excessive
"verticalization" of economic power and decision-making in Russia, and the economic growth of
Moscow (much faster than of any other part of Russia) driven by centralization of that power,
and concentration of large state-owned or state-influenced enterprises as well as bureaucracy
in Moscow.
What most attracted my attention during Natalia's presentation at the Gaidar Forum was her
description of the current period of low growth rates in Russia as zastoi, or stagnation.
Now, zastoi has a very special political meaning in Russian because it was a disparaging term
used in the Gorbachev era, and by Gorbachev himself, to define the Brezhnevite period of
declining growth rates, lack of development perspectives, unchanging bureaucracy, and general
demoralization and malaise.
But I asked Natalia the following question. Looking over the past 150 years of Russian
history (and I think it is hard to go further back), were not really the best periods for
ordinary people exactly the periods of zastoi: incomes rose by little for sure, but the state
repression was weak, there were no wars, and probably if you look at violent deaths per
capita per year, the lowest number of people died precisely during the periods of zastoi. So
perhaps that zastoi is not so bad.
Natalia said, "I know I lived through the Brezhnevite period. Many people were
demoralized; but I used it to study. I never read so many books and learned so much as then
-- you could do whatever you wanted because your actual job really did not matter much."
(Even art, as I saw in the Tretyakovska Gallery, even if some of these paintings were never
exhibited in the official museums, seems to have done well during the Brezhnevite zastoi. And
as the recent film, which I have not seen, but read the reviews, Leto, appears to indirectly
argue as well.)
The best growth periods, as Natalia said, and as is generally accepted by economic
historians were the 1950s up to about 1963-65, and then the period of the two first Putin's
terms. In both cases, the growth spurs came as a ratchet effect to the previous set of
disasters: in the Khrushchev period, to the apocalypse of the Second World War, in the Putin
period, as a reaction to the Great Depression under Yeltsin during the early transition.
So this then made us think a bit back into the past (say, going back to 1905) and put
forward the following hypothesis: that Russian longer-term economic growth is cyclical. The
cycle has three components. First a period of utter turbulence, disorder, war, and huge loss
of income (and in many cases of life as well), followed by a decade or so of efflorescence,
recovery and growth, and finally by the period of "calcification" of whatever (or whoever)
that worked in that second period -- thus producing the zastoi or stagnation.
I do not know if this is something specific to the Russian economic history. It made me
think of Naipaul's observation on successful and unsuccessful countries. The history of the
former consists of a number of challenges and setbacks indeed, but certain things are solved
forever, and then new challenges appear. Take the United States: the Indian challenge and
then the independence from Britain were not easy to overcome/acquire, but eventually, they
were and they never came back; then the Civil War and the Emancipation; then the Great
Society etc. But unsuccessful countries, according to Naipaul (and he had, I think, Argentina
in mind) always stay within the circular history. The same or similar events keep on
repeating themselves forever without any upward trend -- and no single challenge is forever
overcome. In each following cycle everything simply repeats itself.
The challenges for Russia today is, I think, to break this cycle.
Naomi Klein was mostly right about 'shock doctrine' – that was a nasty trick to wrest the wealth from the society back to financial
oligarchy and strip assets in the post-Soviet republics.
Notable quotes:
"... Taking advantage of the anarchy, a conspiratorial elite consisting of a cabal of billionaires raped the Soviet Union of its wealth while there was still something left to steal and absconded to safe havens in London, New York, and Israel. This made the end of the Soviet system inevitable. ..."
Let me be optimistic that the path to the eventual economic, national, and cultural collapse of the United States will follow
the path of the Soviet Union: quick collapse followed by a slow process of national, cultural, and religious regeneration.
In this model, Trump is playing out the script written for "Yeltsin" a reckless buffoon exposing the hypocrisy and inherent
weakness of Soviet ideology, economics, and culture.
Trump has done us a favor. Without Yeltsin, the Soviet Union might have lumbered for a few more decades as a decadent, geriatric
patient in a hospice awaiting inevitable death. With Yeltsin's help, the end came quickly. Taking advantage of the anarchy,
a conspiratorial elite consisting of a cabal of billionaires raped the Soviet Union of its wealth while there was still something
left to steal and absconded to safe havens in London, New York, and Israel. This made the end of the Soviet system inevitable.
Are we already in the phase of oligarchical plunder? Yes, it's obvious.
Russia achieved its "MRGA" with Putin, backed by a core of Russian nationalists and patriots who rejected the multicultural
diversity and globalism inherent in Marxist dogma. Russia is returning to its pre-1917 culture and traditions. Let's hope we can
also achieve our "MAGA" by rediscovering the confident Anglosphere that created the post-WWII world.
Bye-bye feminism, multicultural diversity, and the decadent "globohomo" ideology that came to define the "Empire".
@TheJester I'll remain agnostic as to whether the US is facing financial collapse, but point out that USSR's collapse doesn't
imply US has to have one (not that you intended the reference that way).
USSR had a command economy, US doesn't. That said, I do think our military-industrial complex is long overdue for a collapse,
having long since lost its only real justification, the Soviet threat.
Trimming the huge amount of Defense and entitlement fat we're carrying would help a lot.
" In Russia and in many others large numbers of people were thrown into poverty from which they have not recovered." --
this was by design. In a hundred years or so we will know the details of this operating and major players. It is clear that CIA was
heavily involved and tried to enforce the deindustrialization of the the USSR and complete destruction of its military industrial complex
and any existing high technology industries.
Notable quotes:
"... This was "shock therapy" that was more like destructive electroshock than any sort of therapy ..."
"... This scenario was argued to happen in many other nations, especially those in the former Soviet bloc as the Soviet Union disintegrated
and its successor states and the former members of the Soviet bloc in the CMEA and Warsaw Pact also moved to some sort of market capitalism
imposed from outside with policies funded by the IMF and following the Washington Consensus. ..."
"... Although he has since expressed regret for this role in this, a key player linking what was done in several Latin American
nations and what went down after 1989 in Eastern and Central Europe was Jeffrey Sachs ..."
"... In Russia and in many others large numbers of people were thrown into poverty from which they have not recovered. ..."
In 2007 Naomi Klein got quite a bit of attention and mostly favorable comment for her book, Shock Doctrine. It promulgated
that global elites used periods of crisis around the world to force damaging neoliberal policies derived from the Chicago School
and Washington Consensus upon unhappy populations that suffered greatly as a result. This was "shock therapy" that was more like
destructive electroshock than any sort of therapy . There is a lot of truth to this argument, and it highlighted underlying
ideological arguments and outcomes.
The argument largely seems to hold for the original poster boy example in Chile with the Pinochet coup against the socialist Allende
regime. A military coup replaced a democratically government. While Chile was experiencing a serious inflation, it was not in a full-blown
economic collapse. The coup was supported by US leaders Nixon and Kissinger, who saw themselves preventing the emergence of pro-Soviet
regime resembling Castro's Cuba. Thousands were killed, and a sweeping set of laisssez faire policies were imposed with the active
participation of "Chicago Boys" associated with Milton Friedman. In fact, aside from bringing down inflation these reforms did not
initially improve economic performance, even as foreign capital flowed in, especially into the copper industry, although the core
of that industry remained nationalized. After several years the Chicago Boys were sent away and more moderate policies, including
a reimposition of controls on foreign capital flows, the economy did grow quite rapidly. But this left a deeply unequal income distribution
in place, which would largely remain the case even after Pinochet was removed from power and parliamentary democracy returned.
This scenario was argued to happen in many other nations, especially those in the former Soviet bloc as the Soviet Union disintegrated
and its successor states and the former members of the Soviet bloc in the CMEA and Warsaw Pact also moved to some sort of market
capitalism imposed from outside with policies funded by the IMF and following the Washington Consensus.
Although he has since expressed regret for this role in this, a key player linking what was done in several Latin American
nations and what went down after 1989 in Eastern and Central Europe was Jeffrey Sachs .
Klein's discussion especially of what went down in Russia also looks pretty sound by and large, without dragging through the details,
although in these cases the political shift was from dictatorships run by Communist parties dominated out of Moscow to at least somewhat
more democratic governments, although not in all of the former Soviet republics such as in Central Asia and with many of these later
backsliding towards more authoritarian governments later.
In Russia and in many others large numbers of people were thrown into poverty from which they have not recovered. Klein
has also extended this argument to other nations, including South Africa after the end of apartheid.
"... A conversation in the radio studio "Komsomolskaya Pravda" with the Hero of the Soviet Union, the first and the last vice-president of Russia, Alexander Rutskoi and the former head of the President's Security Service (by definition, the closest person to Yeltsin's body), Alexander Korzhakov. ..."
"... (of the Communist Party – author's note) ..."
"... – If I understand it, it was then when you collected "11 suitcases of compromising evidence" against Yeltsin's team? Which also played a role in the confrontation. ..."
"... . About 30 staff members of the CIA worked under the guise of consultants with reformers in the government. And much more. And these were imaginary auctions, state bonds, what was the way they all were thought out? This process was led by staff members of the CIA, who worked in the government of the Russian Federation. ..."
"... I repeatedly asked Yeltsin: is it possible the work of foreign intelligence officers in the administration of the US President? He: Alexander Ivanovich, are you accidentally drunk? – No. I did not drink. I'm just asking you this question. – He: Of course not. – Why do we have 30 employees (of CIA)? And admitted them to top secret information? Where do we go? They are conducting these boys, who do not understand what they are doing, they get up these ugliness. And what will be the results? ..."
"... 30 staff members of the CIA worked in the government. They led the imaginary auctions, government bonds, were admitted to the top secret information. ..."
"... – And what happened to the words about Nechaev? ..."
"... – Listen, let's be honest. You were with Yeltsin in 1991 on one side of the barricades. You saw him, and thats why in the 1993 did not believe that he would go for blood, for assault. Was it so? ..."
"... It was later learned that Gorbachev had created the State Emergency Committee in March 1991, this was his initiative. He went to Foros to absolve himself of responsibility. ..."
"... Once again, when Yeltsin was going to hide in the US embassy in 1991, I stopped him, I said: Boris Nikolayevich, you can not do this, you are the head of Russia, how are you going to escape, let me fly to Foros. So Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov and I flew to Foros to take Gorbachev out of there and bring him back to his place. ..."
"... But in 1993, everything was planned differently. Here is the Maydan in Kiev – this is one in one repetition, a little under another sauce, really. But the conductors were from the same address. All these orders came from Washington. Because the tele-shooting was done, the operators were at such profitable points to completely shoot this massacre. They were seated in advance. And when the "Alpha" (Special Force unit) refuses to storm the building, they kill their fighter Sergeev, sniper kills him in the back, to provoke "Alpha". ..."
"... The Maidan in Kiev is one in one repetition of events in Moscow in 1993. But the conductors were from one place – from Washington. The operators were placed in advance so as to completely shoot this massacre. And when "Alpha" refuses to storm the building, the sniper kills their fighter Sergeev to provoke "Alpha". ..."
"... – And what did happen with those closets in which there was compromising material? ..."
"... – The situation was such that I was put to Lefortovo (detention unit for state security – author's note) ..."
"... – Korzhakov would better tell how at Vnukovo airport he met the snipers, who flew not from our country, how they went to Sofrino and got sniper rifles, how they planted these snipers on the roof and started killing policemen and representatives of the armed forces, gawkers and others. For what? – To provoke this assault. ..."
A conversation in the radio studio "Komsomolskaya Pravda" with the Hero of the Soviet
Union, the first and the last vice-president of Russia, Alexander Rutskoi and the former head
of the President's Security Service (by definition, the closest person to Yeltsin's body),
Alexander Korzhakov.
Twenty-two years ago, Moscow shuddered from the tank volleys, and people all over the
country clung to TV screens, on which Western TV stations broadcasted how Yeltsin's loyal
troops fire at the rebel troops of the Supreme Soviet (Parlament) of Russia. The opposition of
the Armed Forces and the President Yeltsin with his team, on the one hand, and Rutskoi and
Khasbulatov with the deputies, on the other, ended in great blood. Incongruous with the one
that spilled two years earlier, when the Emergency Committee tried to keep the USSR.
This was
the beginning of our conversation in the radio studio "Komsomolskaya Pravda" with the Hero of
the Soviet Union, the first and the last vice-president of Russia, Alexander Vladimirovich
Rutskoi and the former head of the President's Security Service (by definition, the closest
person to Yeltsin's body), Alexander Vasilyevich Korzhakov.
... ... ...
Rutskoy:
– Yeltsin's main argument against the Supreme Council was that it prevented him from
"carrying out reforms." What kind of reforms? – The privatization. I was appointed to
lead the Interdepartmental Commission on Combating Corruption, and I had information about how
it was conducted. Port Nakhodka went in ownership for 100 thousand dollars, Achinsk alumina
plant for 180 thousand, Uralmash, giant, the pride of our country, went to Bendukidze's
property for 500 thousand dollars, not for money but for vouchers. What is this nonsense? After
all, we proposed alternative privatization. First, the service sector. I still, being a member
of the Central Committee (of the Communist Party – author's note) , I was
expelled from the party for factionalism, suggested: why should the state have hairdressers,
tailors, canteens, cafes, restaurants? Let's privatize it, but on a competitive basis. A person
wins a contest, gets this object into management and pays real estate, the cost of this object
to the mortgage. The money goes to the social development fund of the country, which is
subordinated to a collegial body, not to the executive branch, to the Supreme Council. And then
the issues of building schools, hospitals, polyclinics, roads, housing and everything else
would be resolved.
The port of Nakhodka was privatized for 100 thousand dollars, the Achinsk alumina plant for
180 thousand, Uralmash, the giant, the pride of our country, went into the ownership of
Bendukidze for 500 thousand dollars. And it was not money, but vouchers.
This was our most important contradiction with Yeltsin and his team. And imagine how much
money would go into this social fund. And today, the problems in the social sphere would be
solved tenfold at the expense of that has touched.
– If I understand it, it was then when you collected "11 suitcases of compromising
evidence" against Yeltsin's team? Which also played a role in the confrontation.
Rutskoy:
– I figuratively said that those are 11 suitcases. You know, such fireproof large
metal cabinets. And there were documents in them. Not compromising evidence, but documents,
including all of these scams with privatization . About 30 staff members of the CIA worked
under the guise of consultants with reformers in the government. And much more. And these were
imaginary auctions, state bonds, what was the way they all were thought out? This process was
led by staff members of the CIA, who worked in the government of the Russian
Federation.
I repeatedly asked Yeltsin: is it possible the work of foreign intelligence officers in the
administration of the US President? He: Alexander Ivanovich, are you accidentally drunk?
– No. I did not drink. I'm just asking you this question. – He: Of course not.
– Why do we have 30 employees (of CIA)? And admitted them to top secret information?
Where do we go? They are conducting these boys, who do not understand what they are doing, they
get up these ugliness. And what will be the results?
30 staff members of the CIA worked in the government. They led the imaginary auctions,
government bonds, were admitted to the top secret information.
– Alexander Vasilievich, I was 31 years old and I was sitting at that time in
the company of Englishmen, who, going crazy, asked me: "Sasha, is this a movie?" And I answered
them that yes, only documentary and live". And they, even more crazy, bawled: "They must not
shoot the Parliament by tanks "
... ... ...
They figured out Yeltsin but conductors directed the country
Rutskoy:
– Yeltsin's only correct decision for all his being in office was to resign and make
his successor a worthy man who pulled the country out of this humiliating situation.
Incidentally, I have repeatedly told Yeltsin who his security service is, I asked –
remove these guys: both Barsukov and Korzhakov, they will then make you a gift that you will
never wash off. And in 1996, Yeltsin had the intelligence to get rid of these persons.
– You do not like them.
– You know, I always went to Boris Nikolaevich and, before making any public
statements, talked with him. And what did Korzhakov do? He resorted to Yeltsin and sang a song
to him, that I saw a chair under him. If you want I tell an interesting episode. There were a
strike at the automobile plant "ZIL". Boris Nikolayevich, as always, on vacation. It is clear
what a vocation it was. I got a call with the command from the President to go to ZIL and to
work out. I walk along the corridor, towards goes Viktor Palych Barannikov, the Minister of
Security. "Where are you going?" – "To ZIL, there's a strike. I was given a commission
from Boris Nikolayevich." – "Can I go with you?" – "Of course?". We had come,
listened to the workers. I convinced them that we must go back to the machines, stop the strike
and so on. And I allowed myself such a statement: "Boris Nikolayevich will come, I will ask him
to give me an opportunity to attach my guard to Nechayev (he was an economy minister), I will
give him your salary, three thousand rubles. And I'll see how this figure and rascal will
live." Farther. We sit at the one birthday party. Boris Nikolaevich asks me a question. I look,
there is a dictophone at his hands. He said me: Have you got three thousand rubles with you? I
say that I got more. And my brains turn on here. I see the recorder. Yeltsin is on public, and
this is the first circle, ministers, say, basically of the power structure. He turns on the
dictaphone. And there goes this record, but in another form – that Yeltsin will come, and
I'll give him three thousand, I'll attach my guard to him and so on.
They have deleted that part, and it turned out that I would do this to Yeltsin. Silent scene
in the hall. And then Barannikov takes out a dictophone from his pocket. And turns on a full
record, as it was. So, Yeltsin takes his recorder and launches in Korzhakov. Korzhakov bent
down and the tape recorder flew to the wall, smashed to smithereens.
Yeltsin takes the recorder and launches in Korzhakov. Korzhakov bent down and the tape
recorder flew to the wall, smashed to smithereens
– Listen, let's be honest. You were with Yeltsin in 1991 on one side of the
barricades. You saw him, and thats why in the 1993 did not believe that he would go for blood,
for assault. Was it so?
– Well, frankly, I hoped so. In 1991, there was a situation When some information
arrived that the assault was about to begin, Yeltsin immediately got into the car and was going
to leave for the US embassy. It was later learned that Gorbachev had created the State
Emergency Committee back in March of 1991, it was his initiative. He flew to Foros when a cope
started in August to absolve himself of responsibility.
It was later learned that Gorbachev had created the State Emergency Committee in March
1991, this was his initiative. He went to Foros to absolve himself of responsibility.
Once again, when Yeltsin was going to hide in the US embassy in 1991, I stopped him, I
said: Boris Nikolayevich, you can not do this, you are the head of Russia, how are you going to
escape, let me fly to Foros. So Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov and I flew to Foros to take
Gorbachev out of there and bring him back to his place.
But in 1993, everything was planned differently. Here is the Maydan in Kiev – this is
one in one repetition, a little under another sauce, really. But the conductors were from the
same address. All these orders came from Washington. Because the tele-shooting was done, the
operators were at such profitable points to completely shoot this massacre. They were seated in
advance. And when the "Alpha" (Special Force unit) refuses to storm the building, they kill
their fighter Sergeev, sniper kills him in the back, to provoke "Alpha".
The Maidan in Kiev is one in one repetition of events in Moscow in 1993. But the
conductors were from one place – from Washington. The operators were placed in advance so
as to completely shoot this massacre. And when "Alpha" refuses to storm the building, the
sniper kills their fighter Sergeev to provoke "Alpha".
Neither "Alpha" nor "Vympel" went to the assault.
– But after all "Alpha" and "Vympel" did not go to storm the Kremlin too.
Remember, you ordered the pilots to bomb the Kremlin?
– I did not make such an order.
– You went on the air. I heard it with my ears.
– It was a psychological intimidation for the Kremlin – That is the first. And
the second, what was the way to stop them? I think, at least they will come to their senses,
stop doing it.
– And what did happen with those closets in which there was compromising
material?
– The situation was such that I was put to Lefortovo (detention unit for state
security – author's note) , and the next day, these non-combustible metal cabinets
were cracked and under the direction of Korzhakov these folders were extracted. Where did they
go, these folders, who gave the order to Korzhakov to withdraw everything related to the work
of the interdepartmental commission? No answer.
– There is a feeling that personal scores are not all finished between you
– Korzhakov would better tell how at Vnukovo airport he met the snipers, who flew
not from our country, how they went to Sofrino and got sniper rifles, how they planted these
snipers on the roof and started killing policemen and representatives of the armed forces,
gawkers and others. For what? – To provoke this assault.
Korzhakov would better tell how at Vnukovo airport he met the snipers, who flew not from our
country, how they went to Sofrino and got sniper rifles, how they planted these snipers on the
roof and started killing policemen and representatives of the armed forces, gawkers and others.
For what? – To provoke this assault.
I have nothing to hide. I have published the minutes of my interrogations. And the book
"Bloody Autumn" I wrote, deliberately, without even a hint on any emotions. I took the date,
the documents of the Supreme Council, which were released on that date, the decisions of the
Kremlin on the same date, and made a diary of events. In the end wrote: and now everyone draw
conclusions themselves, who is to blame that the blood of compatriots was spilled, that our
country was simply smeared, that the Soviet Union was destroyed, and people with far from a
decent biography were given the national property of the country. That's what I and many of my
comrades could not agree with, but it happened.
– It happened. And God grant us that we will never do it again.
"... A conversation in the radio studio "Komsomolskaya Pravda" with the Hero of the Soviet Union, the first and the last vice-president of Russia, Alexander Rutskoi and the former head of the President's Security Service (by definition, the closest person to Yeltsin's body), Alexander Korzhakov. ..."
A conversation in the radio studio "Komsomolskaya Pravda" with the Hero of the Soviet
Union, the first and the last vice-president of Russia, Alexander Rutskoi and the former head
of the President's Security Service (by definition, the closest person to Yeltsin's body),
Alexander Korzhakov.
Twenty-two years ago, Moscow shuddered from the tank volleys, and people all over the
country clung to TV screens, on which Western TV stations broadcasted how Yeltsin's loyal
troops fire at the rebel troops of the Supreme Soviet (Parlament) of Russia. The opposition of
the Armed Forces and the President Yeltsin with his team, on the one hand, and Rutskoi and
Khasbulatov with the deputies, on the other, ended in great blood. Incongruous with the one
that spilled two years earlier, when the Emergency Committee tried to keep the USSR. This was
the beginning of our conversation in the radio studio "Komsomolskaya Pravda" with the Hero of
the Soviet Union, the first and the last vice-president of Russia, Alexander Vladimirovich
Rutskoi and the former head of the President's Security Service (by definition, the closest
person to Yeltsin's body), Alexander Vasilyevich Korzhakov.
Harvard mafia was a part of larger scheme of stripping Russia assets. It looks like according
to CIA and State Department plans Yletsin should play role of Russia Pinochet forcefully
implementing neoliberalization and killing/putting in prisons and concentration camps
opponents.
Notable quotes:
"... 15th of December, the Ides of December 2006) ..."
"... 19th of February 2007) ..."
"... On the possibility of a negotiated settlement, Pickering comments, "[T]here were talks back and forth, not very fruitful ones because the Russian government then was in a position of deciding whether it was going to treat with these people and deal with compromises or take back the White House. They decided that they were going to take back the White House. They had the troops and the capability of doing that." ..."
"... "no real rivals to me are visible." (Vice President Rutskoy and Chairman of the Supreme Soviet Khasbulatov were in prison, the prosecutor general was forced to resign and the Constitutional Court was suspended after its Chairman declared Yeltsin's decree 1400 unconstitutional.) ..."
"... Gaidar's Revolution: The Inside Account of the Economic Transformation of Russia ..."
"... The Russia Hand: A Memoir of Presidential Diplomacy ..."
Declassified Clinton-Yeltsin Telcons Show U.S. Support No Matter What Embassy Cables and
Oral Histories Detail Complex Conflict and U.S. Motivations Today's Russian Opposition Sees
Crucial Turning Point Towards Today's Autocracy ... ... ...
Cable from White House Washington DC to American Embassy Moscow. Memorandum of
Conversation: Memcon with President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, July 10, 1993, Tokyo 1993-07-16
Source: U.S. Department of State declassification M-2006-01499
This is a copy of a cable containing the memcon between Yeltsin and Clinton with a cover
note from Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Strobe Talbott instructing him to review the
memcon before his forthcoming meeting with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov. In
the handwritten notes he also records his impressions from the meeting. He is "struck by [ ]
B[ill] C[linton]'s command of the issues [ ] his dominance in [meeting] (hard to do with
Yeltsin), and "no rhetoric or posturing on either side."
This memcon is important because it shows the impressive variety of issues on which Clinton
and Yeltsin had a productive exchange and agreed to cooperate: replacing COCOM with a new
regime; a deal on highly enriched uranium (HEU) that Russia was going to remove from the
nuclear warheads being withdrawn from Kazakhstan; Ukraine and Belarus and partly return to
Ukraine as fuel for nuclear power stations and partly sell to the United States in the
framework of the Megatons for Megawatts program; working with Ukraine to return the nuclear
weapons to Russia; progress on CTBT; non-proliferation, and specifically limiting Russia's
sales of reactors, missiles, and submarines to Iran and India; getting North Korea to the
negotiating table; peacekeeping in Georgia and Nagorny Karabakh; and the withdrawal of Russian
troops from the Baltics.
On the latter, Yeltsin made an official request that the U.S. side conduct an investigation
of the laws in Estonia to determine if they discriminate against ethnic Russians (Christopher
in his cover note recommends giving Yeltsin a proper legal response even if it is negative).
The breadth of issues helps one understand that Yeltsin truly was an indispensable partner for
Clinton across the range of U.S. priorities in the former Soviet Union and even globally. Only
once is there a signal that Yeltsin is in a complicated place domestically. Mentioning that the
Supreme Soviet has just passed a bill declaring Sevastopol a Russian city, Yeltsin says,
characteristically, "Thank God no one takes the Supreme Soviet seriously!"
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation: Telcon with President Boris Yeltsin of
Russian Federation. 1993-09-21 Source: U.S. Department of State declassification M-2006-01499
Clinton calls Yeltsin immediately after the Russian president makes a speech announcing his
Presidential Decree 1400-dissolving the Parliament and setting the date for early elections to
a new legislature and a referendum for the draft Constitution. Clinton expresses his full
support for Yeltsin but also a concern about the fate of reform and democratic process in
Russia. In response, Yeltsin paints a black-and-white picture of the political struggle saying
that the Supreme Soviet "has totally gone out of control. It no longer supports the reform
process. They have become communist." He assures his U.S. partner that "there will be no
bloodshed," and that "all the democratic forces are supporting me." Clinton underscores the
importance of holding the elections "in a fully democratic manner," and providing the
opposition full access to free press without hindrance. Yeltsin promises to stick to democratic
principles and reiterates his commitment to peaceful solutions. Clinton mentions that a $2.5
billion assistance package is being considered by Congress at the moment and the preservation
of democratic order would be important for its passing. Yeltsin promises that now the "reforms
will go much faster" and thanks the U.S. president for his continuous support. Document 04
Ambassador Thomas Pickering Oral History Excerpt 2007-02-19 Source: Foreign Affairs Oral
History Collection, Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, Arlington, Virginia,
www.adst.org , https://adst.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Pickering-Thomas-Reeve.pdf
, pp. 357-362 ( 15th of December, the Ides of December 2006) and pp. 386-391 (
19th of February 2007) . This extremely useful oral history collection includes
interviews with more than 2,000 former U.S. diplomats. The interviews with Tom Pickering took
place over an extended period from 2003 to 2007 after his retirement from the Foreign Service,
and produced a transcript totaling 722 pages ranging from his ancestry to postings as far
afield as Zanzibar and San Salvador. Pickering served as U.S. ambassador to Moscow from 1993 to
1996, among the most momentous years in Russia's post-Soviet history, and a large section of
the oral history covers his time in Russia. The particular pages related to the October 1993
events are in two parts, one from pages 357 to 362 on the overall policy and the
Clinton-Yeltsin relationship, and the other, his extremely detailed eyewitness account of the
assault on the White House, from pages 386 to 391. Pickering recounts his strong advice to
Washington that there was "no choice" other than to back Yeltsin. He says, "There are some who
argue that he, Yeltsin, was illegal in his actions and preemptory in his decisions and wrong in
the outcomes. I totally disagreed with that . Were Yeltsin to have failed to do what he did,
there was a good chance that there would have been another effort at the top to return Russia
to communism. I cannot but believe that would have resulted in greater bloodshed and a long
civil conflict." (p. 362) On the possibility of a negotiated settlement, Pickering comments,
"[T]here were talks back and forth, not very fruitful ones because the Russian government then
was in a position of deciding whether it was going to treat with these people and deal with
compromises or take back the White House. They decided that they were going to take back the
White House. They had the troops and the capability of doing that."
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation: Telcon with President Boris Yeltsin of
Russian Federation. 1993-10-05 Source: William J. Clinton Presidential Library declassification
2015-0782-M-1
This phone call takes place on the day after Yeltsin ordered tanks to fire on the
building of the Supreme Soviet in Moscow(the "White House, the same building outside which
Yeltsin had stood on a tank to reisist the hard-line coup attempt in August 1991), Clinton
calls him to express support and inquire about the Russian president's plans for the upcoming
elections and political settlement after the constitutional crisis. Yeltsin calls his opponents
"fascist," putting all the blame on the opposition, telling Clinton that the supporters of the
Parliament "brought to Moscow a gang of people from the Transdniester region, the Riga
OMON-these were special forces. They had them come here, gave them machine guns and grenade
launchers, and had them fire on peaceful civilians." He says he had no alternative than using
force. Yeltsin expresses regret that "some people were killed," [ ] "thirty-nine people have
now been killed on our side," (estimates of casualties range in the hundreds) but assures
Clinton that now both the transition to democracy and market reform will move faster and he
might call for early presidential elections because at the time "no real rivals to me are
visible." (Vice President Rutskoy and Chairman of the Supreme Soviet Khasbulatov were in
prison, the prosecutor general was forced to resign and the Constitutional Court was suspended
after its Chairman declared Yeltsin's decree 1400 unconstitutional.) None of that appears
to undermine Yeltsin's democratic credentials in Clinton's eyes. Clinton never asks about the
loss of life among civilians and the opposition. He says just what Yeltsin wants to hear: "you
did everything exactly as you had to and I congratulate you for the way you handled it." The
Russian president responds: "Thank you for everything. I embrace you with all my heart."
Memorandum for the President from Anthony Lake: Clarification on Your October 5
Telephone Conversation with President Yeltsin. 1993-10-07 Source: William J. Clinton
Presidential Library declassification 2015-0782-M-1
This memo from National Security Advisor
Anthony Lake clarifies two items in the October 5 conversation with Yeltsin (see Document 4).
When Yeltsin referred to armed persons from Riga and Moldova who came to Moscow to support the
opposition, Lake points out, they were "from the elite Russian security forces stationed in
Riga and Moldova," not representatives of the Moldovan or Latvian governments. The second
important correction refers to the fact that Yeltsin did not answer Clinton's question about
freedom of the press in the period before the scheduled December elections. Yeltsin only said
that there "would be no restrictions on the elections," and his interpreter translated it as
"no restrictions on the press." In fact many oppositional newspapers were banned. President
Clinton writes on the memo: "OK-but it wasn't the time for me to raise the newspaper issue on
the 5 th ."
Cable from American Embassy Moscow to Secretary of State: Secretary's Visit to
Moscow: Domestic Political Dynamics. 1993-10-19 Source: Department of State Declassification,
Date/Case ID; 6 MAR 2003 200001030
Chargé d'Affaires and future Ambassador to Russia James Collins sends Secretary
Christopher a briefing cable in advance of his visit to Moscow where he is expected to meet
with Yeltsin and other government officials. This is the first visit of any Western senior
official to Moscow after Yeltsin's dissolution of the Parliament and the October 3-4 bloodshed
in the center of Moscow. In the cable, Collins describes the pre-electoral landscape in Russia
on the eve of Christopher's visit. Although 92 parties are registered for the election, that in
itself does not guarantee free and fair elections.
The cable describes Yeltsin's decision to push through the new "half-baked" Constitution,
which concentrates the "preponderance of authority in the hands of the chief executive."
Collins points out that "even many reformers worry about establishing a new Russian democracy
so heavily tilted toward presidential power." The cable describes the split within the
reformist camp into "radical" and "cautious" reformers, the confusion at the regional levels
regarding whether the elections would be held for regional legislatures, and the continuing ban
on nationalist and right-wing parties and their newspapers.
Collins notes the personal nature of the confrontation: "Boris Yeltsin's face during his
October 6 speech was proof the Russian President had cast his hardline opponents into a
personal anathema." He also raises concern about the methods used by Moscow police and city
government in implementing the state of emergency, such as "systematic police cleansing of
non-Russian people from Central Asian and Caucasian states," and racist remarks about
dark-skinned people by Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov. In the end of the cable, Collins cautions
that although the actual voting is likely to be fair, "the question will be the democratic
content of the entire electoral process."
Cable from American Embassy Moscow to Secretary of State: Your October 21-23
Visit to Moscow-Key Foreign Policy Issues 1993-10-20 Source: U.S. Department of State.
Date/Case ID: 04 MAY 2000 200000982
In the follow-up to the previous cable (Document 6), Chargé d'Affaires Collins
reviews foreign policy issues Christopher is expected to cover in Moscow in his meetings with
Yeltsin and Kozyrev and emphasizes that Yeltsin is looking for gestures of support from the
United States. New elections are scheduled for December and Yeltsin needs all the support from
the West he can get. Collins advises the secretary of state to be sensitive to Yeltsin's and
Kozyrev's need for Russia to be seen domestically as a partner with whom the West consults and
does not just take for granted, and he lists some controversial issues: NATO expansion, the
post-Soviet space, and Ukraine.
On NATO, Collins notes that the Russians are aware that the U.S. internal debate is reaching
a crucial moment about expansion and they want to be assured that the door is open to Russia,
not just to East Europeans. In Collins' view, "what the Russians hope to hear from you is that
NATO is not moving precipitously and that any policy NATO adopts will apply equally to them."
Their "neuralgic" attitude stems from the fear that they will "end up on the wrong side of a
new division of Europe." Therefore, Collins counsels Christopher to make sure the Russians know
that the U.S. is actively promoting Russia's "complete reintegration into the family of Western
states."
Secretary Christopher's Meeting with Foreign Minister Kozyrev: NATO, Elections,
Regional Issues 1993-10-25 Source: U.S. Department of State. Date/Case ID: 11 MAR 2003
200001030
On his trip to Europe to explain the U.S. position on NATO expansion, Secretary Christopher
comes to Moscow after meetings in Budapest. He and special ambassador Strobe Talbott meet with
Foreign Minister Kozyrev and his deputy, Yuri Mamedov, before they visit Yeltsin at his country
residence. Christopher raises concerns about the fairness of the upcoming elections with his
Russian counterparts. He mentions that the United States has $12 million to contribute and is
willing to send monitors or observers, which Kozyrev welcomes, saying they might help to guard
against fraud by communist-leaning local authorities in rural areas where "the old kolkhoz
mentality" still prevails. Christopher puts special emphasis on ensuring a free press since the
order banning opposition newspapers was still not lifted. Kozyrev does not have a definitive
answer to the question regarding banned newspapers and he says only six or seven political
organizations will be banned from participating in the elections.
In this memo about the Kozyrev meeting, Christopher is very brief about the NATO discussion.
He tells Kozyrev that the U.S. is sensitive to the Russian position and has developed a new
proposal as a result: the Partnership for Peace (PFP), which would be open to all countries on
an equal basis. Christopher does not directly address Kozyrev's concern about the decision
regarding expansion, but, misleadingly, lets it sound as if PFP is the alternative for the time
being.
The rest of the conversation deals with crucial issues on which the United States needs
Russian cooperation, such as support for Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia and the withdrawal of
nuclear weapons from Ukraine.
Secretary Christopher's Meeting with President Yeltsin, 10/22/1993, Moscow
1993-10-22 Source: U.S. Department of State. Date/Case ID: 08 MAY 2000 200000982
Christopher is taken to Yeltsin's country house, Zavidovo, for a meeting that lasts only 45
minutes. Yeltsin has most likely already been briefed by Kozyrev about his conversation with
the secretary of state. In the beginning of the conversation, Yeltsin reviews the events of
September 21-October 4 in Moscow and expresses "special appreciation to President Clinton and
Secretary Christopher for their early and very supportive backing. The Russian president talks
about the upcoming elections, which he calls "the first free and fair election for the
parliament since 1917," and assures Christopher that the country has calmed down after the
crisis. Yeltsin praises the new Constitution that is "up to the standards of the best Western
democracies," which would allow them to "end the old totalitarian regime with the power
assigned to the soviets." He also welcomes the Clinton visit to Moscow planned for January
1994.
Christopher starts with strong praise for Yeltsin's handling of the constitutional crisis
with the Parliament, passing on "high appreciation" and emphasizing that Clinton is "extremely
supportive" of his "superb handling of the crisis." According to Christopher, Clinton "admired
the restraint" that Yeltsin has practiced since September 21 and that in the end he acted in a
way that "caused the least loss of life." He adds that "on Sunday October 3, the President also
closely followed events and wanted to tell President Yeltsin that [ ] our thoughts were with
you in Moscow all day." Christopher offers technical assistance for the election and notes that
"there are already numbers of our experts here who could be helpful but we would like to assist
in any way in which we could do so." Essentially, Christopher lauds Yeltsin's handling of the
crisis and never raises any concerns mentioned in Collins' cable (see Document 6, above) about
irregularities in the electoral process or the nature of Yeltsin's constitution.
At the end of the conversation they briefly touch on the sensitive question of NATO
expansion. Christopher leaves Yeltsin with the impression that the Partnership for Peace is an
alternative to expansion (see Document 8 in National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book
No. 621 [tk: Rinat, please add link]). Yeltsin is extremely pleased with everything Christopher
says at the meeting. He concludes "by saying that he appreciated immensely President Clinton's
early continuing and extremely generous support and that he wanted to pass on his highest
esteem for the President."
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation: Telcon with President Boris Yeltsin of
the Russian Federation. 1993-12-22 Source: William J. Clinton Presidential Library
declassification 1015-0782-M-1
Clinton calls Yeltsin to check on the political situation after the elections and talk about
his upcoming visit to Russia in January 1994. At the beginning of the conversation both
presidents put the best spin on the disastrous election results where the nationalist Liberal
Democratic Party of Vladimir Zhirinovsky finished with 23 percent, the Communist Party of
Gennady Zyuganov with 12 percent and Yeltsin's party, Russia's Choice, headed by Yegor Gaidar,
only got 15 percent. Clinton is concerned about Yeltsin's ability to continue his economic
reform with the strong nationalist-communist-agrarian opposition in Parliament. Yeltsin assures
him that he is committed to the reform and will be able to work with the Parliament,
"especially since the working relationship is supported by a strong democratic foundation in
the new constitution." He says that now "there is no room for extremism or fascism in the new
parliament." At the same time, he asks the U.S. president not to invite opposition party
leaders to a meeting when Clinton comes to Moscow "so as not to give them an exaggerated
opinion of themselves." Clinton tells Yeltsin that they decided not to talk much about
Zhirinovsky and "to play him down."
The rest of the conversation focuses on preparations for the upcoming summit with Clinton's
three-part agenda: "economic assistance to support your reforms; our common effort to convince
Ukraine to go non-nuclear; and our foreign policy agenda." He promises to start a "quiet study"
of how to increase IMF and World Bank assistance to Russia. Yeltsin is grateful for the support
and emphasizes the importance of cooperation on denuclearization of Ukraine. He
enthusiastically accepts Clinton's program.
Russian Defense Minister Pavel Grachev Oral History Excerpt 2015-00-00 Source: Interview
conducted by Petr Aven and Alfred Kokh and ultimately published in their book, Gaidar's
Revolution: The Inside Account of the Economic Transformation of Russia (London: I. B.
Tauris, 2015), pp. 297-333.
Two of Yegor Gaidar's close associates during the "second Russian
revolution" of 1989-1992 went back 20 years later, after Gaidar's death, to interview 10 of the
other key players in that period, including the Defense Minister Pavel Grachev (the only
American interviewed was former Secretary of State James Baker). Aven and Kokh published short
versions of each interview in the Russian edition of Forbes between 2010 and 2012, and
longer versions in their book. In the biographical listing in the back of the book, the authors
sneer at Grachev as a corrupt incompetent, while for most others listed they simply provide the
dates and titles of their positions. But they give Grachev more than 30 pages of space to
recount his versions of multiple controversial topics. This excerpt, titled "The Army and the
Putsch of 1993," from pages 325 to 330, includes Grachev's story of his 3 a.m. discussions with
Yeltsin and his security chief Korzhakov, during which "we drank a little," leading to the
assault on the White House. Grachev says he personally gave the orders for a tank to fire
"inert" projectiles into specific windows in the White House, after which "a fire started. It
was beautiful." When Aven asks how many they killed in the assault, Grachev answers, "a lot."
When Aven says, "from 200 to 400, by various estimates," Grachev responds, "many, in short."
Notes
[1] The main editor of Novaya Gazeta , Sergey Kozheurov, elected for the second
time in November 2017, was the founding editor of the newspaper from 1993 to 1995.
[2] Talbott, The Russia Hand: A Memoir of Presidential Diplomacy , (New York:
Random House, 2002) p. 55
"... Professor Goldman talked at length about the genesis of the 'oligarchs', Russia's largest and most controversial businessmen. In the last few years, Russia 'delegated' 19 billionaires to the Forbes' World's Richest People list – more than Britain or France, for instance. In examining this unique Russian phenomenon, Marshall Goldman emphasized that the 'oligarchs' propelled themselves to riches after the start of perestroika in 1987. Coming from the ranks of Soviet government officials or black market dealers, these people took advantage of immature regulatory environment to build wealth, first through financial and export-import operations, and then by privatizing the country's natural resources and mass media. ..."
"... Oligarchs reached the peak of their influence in the late nineties after they ventured into politics and helped re-elect Boris Yeltsin the President of Russia. Ironically, the demise of the oligarchs follows the same route but in reverse: stripped of their media assets by President Putin, they lost their political weight, and are now gradually losing control over natural resources. The recent arrest of the oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky served as an obvious indication of this trend. ..."
"Russia is not a normal country," said Professor Marshall Goldman, an internationally
recognized authority on Russian politics and economics, in his meeting with HBS students on
February 9th. Professor Goldman of the Davis Center for Russian Studies at Harvard University
came to campus to talk about his recent book "The Piratization of Russia: Russian Reform Goes
Awry".
The event, hosted by the Eastern European Association, attracted significant interest from
the HBS community. Surrounded by dozens of students in a packed room at Cumnock Hall, Professor
Goldman shared his prospective on the past and future of the Russian reforms, and answered a
number of intriguing questions. His expert opinion was sought to add academic clarity to the
recent publicized debate around 'the real facts about Russia'.
In his lecture, Professor Goldman gave a critical assessment of the approach to the economic
reforms taken by the Russian government after the collapse of Soviet Union. Citing the examples
of Poland and China, he argued that more gradual liberalization and privatization would
generate wider social benefits in a less corrupt environment.
In addition, Marshall Goldman didn't miss the opportunity to pick on 'the
guys across the river', referring to Harvard Professors Andrei Shleifer and Jeffrey Sachs (now
at Columbia) who consulted Russian authorities in early nineties and advocated 'shock therapy'
reforms. He also quoted Shleifer's recent publication about Russia, 'A normal country'.
Professor Goldman talked at length about the genesis of the 'oligarchs', Russia's largest and
most controversial businessmen. In the last few years, Russia 'delegated' 19 billionaires to
the Forbes' World's Richest People list – more than Britain or France, for instance. In
examining this unique Russian phenomenon, Marshall Goldman emphasized that the 'oligarchs'
propelled themselves to riches after the start of perestroika in 1987. Coming from the ranks of
Soviet government officials or black market dealers, these people took advantage of immature
regulatory environment to build wealth, first through financial and export-import operations,
and then by privatizing the country's natural resources and mass media.
Oligarchs reached the
peak of their influence in the late nineties after they ventured into politics and helped
re-elect Boris Yeltsin the President of Russia. Ironically, the demise of the oligarchs follows
the same route but in reverse: stripped of their media assets by President Putin, they lost
their political weight, and are now gradually losing control over natural resources. The recent
arrest of the oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky served as an obvious indication of this
trend.
In examining the current situation in Russia, Professor Goldman deplored the excesses of the
'rule of law' and the cutbacks on the democratic freedoms, primarily freedom of speech. At the
same time he admitted considerable advances made by Russia in the economic area. Fuelled by
high commodity prices and liberal tax reforms (with income tax at 13% flat), the Russian
economy developed briskly in the last five years, posting a whopping 7% GDP increase in 2003.
Although this growth remains driven more by greater resource utilization than by factor
productivity, Marshall Goldman was generally positive about the prospects of Russian
businesses. In answering a student's question 'Is Russia a good place to invest?', he said that
most probably yes, pointing at the burgeoning consumer market, growing foreign investment and
recent moves by Moody's and Standard & Poor's to raise Russian sovereign ratings to the
investment grade.
In closing, Professor Goldman expressed his hope that Russia will manage to keep the current
fine balance between both the liberal economic policies and sub-democratic political regime. He
also invited HBS students to attend weekly academic seminars held at the Davis Center for
Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard.
Neoliberal "helpers" from Harvard were dangerous and ruthless predators... And the whole help
now smell with CIA controlled operation for weakening and possibly dismembering Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... Sad but definitely correct. The first casualty of war is the truth. It's dead in the USA and allies. Therefore, they're at war with Russia and China. If Russia is down, China will be dealt with. ..."
"... They (US and their European Lackeys) thought this was a slam dunk when Yeltsin, in his drunken stupors, was literally giving Russia to invading capitalist. Enter Putin, ..."
Sad but definitely correct. The first casualty of war is the truth. It's dead in the USA
and allies. Therefore, they're at war with Russia and China. If Russia is down, China will be
dealt with.
The horrible thing with the US attitude is that you do a white thing, you're attacking
them and if you do a black thing, you're attacking them too. This attitude is building
hostility against Russia. It's like programming a pet to be afraid of something. The western
people are being programmed into hating Russia, dehumanizing her people, cutting every tie
with Russia and transforming any information from Russia into life threatening propaganda. A
war for our hearts is running. The US population is being coerced into believing that war
against Russia is a vital necessity.
It will be a war of choice from the US "elites". Clinton announced it and the population
had chosen Trump for that reason.
You're wondering why they're doing it. I suppose that their narrative is losing its grip
on the western populations. They're also conscious of it. If they lose it, they'll have to
face very angry mobs and face the void of their lives. Everything they did was either useless
or poisonous. It means to be in a very bad spot. They're are therefore under an existential
threat.
Russia proved time and again that it's possible to get out of their narrative. Remember
their situation when Eltsin was reelected with the western help.
The Chicago boys were telling the Russian authorities how to run the economy and they made
out of the word democrat a synonym of thief. They were in the narrative and the result was a
disaster. Then, they woke up and started to clean the house. I remember the "hero" of
democracy whose name was "Khodorovsky (?)". In the west he was a freedom fighter and in
Russia he stole something like Rosneft. This guy and others of the same sort were described
in the west as heroes, pioneers and so on. They were put back into submission to the law. The
western silence about their stealing, lies and cheating is still deafening me.
It was the first Russian crime. The second one was to survive the first batch of sanctions
against them (I forgot the reason of the sanctions). They not only survived they thrived. It
was against the western leading economic ideology. A third crime was to push back Saakachvili
and his troops with success.
The fourth was to put back into order the Tchechen. Russia was back into the world
politics and history. They were not following the script written for them in Washington and
Brussels. They were having a political system putting limits to the big companies. And, worst
of it, it works.
Everybody in the west who can read and listen would have noticed that they are making
it.
More, with RT and Sputnik giving info outside the allowed ones or asking annoying
questions (western journalists lost that habit with their new formation in the schools of
journalism - remember the revolution in their education was criticised and I missed why -
very curious to discover why), they were exposing weaknesses of the western narrative. On the
other side their narrative became so poor and so limited that any regular reader would feel
bored reading the same things time and again and being asked to pay for it at a time his
salary was decreased in the name of competitivity. The threat to their narrative was ready.
They had to fight it.
It's becoming a crime to think outside their marks. It's becoming a crime to read outside
their marks. I don't even talk about any act outside their marks. Now, it's going to be a
crime of treason to them in war time.
I do feel sadness because many will die from their fear of losing their grip on our minds.
I do feel sadness because they have lost and are in denial about it. I do feel sadness
because those death aren't necessary. I do feel sadness because those people can't face the
consequences of their actions. They don't have the necessary spine. Their lives were useless
and even toxic. They could start repairing or mitigating their damages but it would need a
very different worldview, a complete conversion to another meaning of life outside the
immediate and maximal profit.
You have aptly described the most dangerous country on this planet. That country must not
be appeased, at any cost, because it would surely end us forever...
It is partially tied direct to the economy of the warmongers as trillions of dollars of
new cold war slop is laying on the ground awaiting the MICC hogs. American hegemony is
primarily about stealing the natural resources of helpless countries. Now in control of all
the weak ones, it is time to move to the really big prize: The massive resources of
Russia.
They (US and their European Lackeys) thought this was a slam dunk when Yeltsin, in his
drunken stupors, was literally giving Russia to invading capitalist. Enter Putin,
stopped the looting .........connect the dots.
Why Mikhail Gorbachev was elected General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee on March 11, 1985? Was there a will of Yuri
Andropov? What was the cause of the sudden death of defense Minister Dmitry Ustinov, who could be the first person in the
country? Was the Secretary General Konstantin Chernenko really poisoned by low-quality fish? And why did Victor Grishin lose his
chance to become the Secretary General of the "master of Moscow"?
Gorbachev was recruited in 1976-77 years when he visited Europe, then eliminate Kulakov and promote the Central Committee
Gorbachev. I am sure that the KGB had their own people recruited by the CIA and pursued a policy of promoting their candidacy
for the post of first person of the USSR.
The stupidest commentaries are here. This rotten system has outlived its usefulness.........and no leader was able to save
her. There is no progressive Communist state in the world and can not be!
Not Gorbachev, so someone else.The USSR was naive and doomed.What, one Gorbachev did everything? Full of vultures sat and
waited for the corpse. My uncle, being the mayor of Tikhvin, in the late 70s, said that the country is doomed because we are
engaged in self-eating.Huge funds went to support the Communist parties around the world.
@Asenovska Tatiana uncle rasskazyval, as mayor....What the University taught me.....
And I , being the senior officer, after 4 wounds the write-off on the ground, the pilot....Past Afghan, and not only.....
I saw our planes to be cur in peaces on orders from Gorbachev.... .And submarines, costing hundreds millions. Payed by people who
save on everyting to secure indepence of the country.
And this creature, was given Nobel Peace Prize for selling everthing to the USA for pennies on the dollar...
The West praised him, and he DESTROYED noth the ARMY AND NAVY and then the USSR ... He gave up our victory in
WWII without and fight's...
After Gorbachov the USA was able to bomb Belgrade, and Iraq, and Livia without any fear for retribution. He should be executed .
And the body of this traitor should be disposed in manure...
And if not Putin, we would be the colony of the USA much like Latin american countries. .And the USA would bomb Syria into stone
age, kill the President and grap all the oil
Only Putin is not GORBACHEV!!!!! And the Big Uncle blew up in Syria and they did not risk thier place to test Russia
anti-aircraft missile systems.
Gorbachev first created a deceptive impression of a young, wise, business-like head of state. In fact, he was a banal traitor
of his country, sold the sovereignty of a great country for perdpnal fortume and villa in Germany. While Wewst grbbed all opur
natiural resourses and large part of iundustry. YELTSIN destroyed completely the economica, and high technolgy ijndurites in
the country, sold everything to oligarchs for pennies. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin are enemies of the Fatherland .
Gorbachev came to the sinking ship and it was too late to patch the holes in it. The cold war and the arms race sucked the
last currency reserves from the USSR. The Kremlin Party bonzes forgot about the economy, forgot about the people. They
were obsessed with matching the weaponry of the phantom enemy (Americans), and as a result of the cold war the USSR
disintegrated and broke up into 15 independent States.
While we can blame the weakling and traitor Gorbachev, even before him the agriculture was in deep and irreversible
decline. We were forced to buy grad for abroad. After the US has imposed sanctions that have artificially reduced oil prices
to such a low level that game was over. Currency flow from oil sales seizes and there was no alternative then to take
loans from the West.
The Treasury started printed too much rubles, inflation started and with it nationalist feeling that finished off the
country. Add to this Chernobyl disaster. When in Armenia in December 1988 there was the major earthquake, the Kremlin
requested the "decadent West" about the humanitarian aid.
Economy of the Soviet Union fell through the floor and no wonder Gorbachev was tilted towards the West, toward privatization
of the industries.
Of course he was a fool and allowed West to plunder the country, but essentially he have no choice, reforms were needed
and he lost control of them, tried to stage a fake coup to regain control and was deposed as the result. Because he was very
weak, incompetent politician, not fit for such a grave moment in the history of the country, he destroyed the country.
The socialist camp collapsed, and Gorbachov refused to help the socialist countries, it was necessary to save his own ass. He
also finished stupid and unnecessary war in Afghanistan. That was the only positive step he made. And that was too little too
late.
Instead of that asshole, Heydar Aliyev should have been elected by Politburo. The only person who was really able to
pull the country out of the crisis, it was Aliyev G. in any other scenario, the country was doomed to collapse . And
about Gorbachev , you can say so in Russian history , no traitor is worse and higher rank than this pederast!!!, All
pleasant viewing!
And why the interior Ministry, KGB were inactive. As well as Party Control? How could this hump with foreign help and
some special color revolution technology to destroy all the obstacles. How he managed to subdue the Politburo power
structure ( including the axis of the Gromyko-Primakov and Yakovlev) ? As he had no trouble to expel from the Central
Committee able and less corrupted members of the Central Committee (V. Sherbitsky , V. Grishin, G. V. Romanov, G. A.
Aliyev, D, Kuhn...)?
Gorbachev - zero as the head of state, but the soil he has prepared Khrushchev and Brezhnev (Moskva), they let the country
drift, theft, drunkenness, took away people's faith.
А хули дебилам объяснять. Горбачев открыл окно в мир. Живите уроды ,работайте развивайтесь. Но началась элементарная борьба за
власть. Так как в этой стране на протяжении всей истории ничего путного создать не умели. Что с татар взять. Страна не могла
не развалится. Если бы не Беловежское соглашение, крови было бы немерянно. В каждой республики были свои лидеры которые тупо
хотели быть президентами и якобы независимыми.. Кто виноват ,что страна наводнена ублюдками у власти. которые вместо того что
бы создавать могучую страну напичканную всей таблицей Менделеева, начали ее растаскивать.И грабят по сей день, под
руководством Единой россии. Вспомните как все визжали, когда страна стала открываться. Когда народ перестал поклонятся
импортным одноразовым зажигалкам и фантикам от жвачек. Думать надо, прежде чем повторять кремлевские методички. Теперь
катаетесь на Порше кайене, живете в особняках и хотите назад в СССР. Я с вас хуею..
Хорошо помню 1985 год когда вьібрали Горбачева .То у нас в Тернополе наш учитель политекономии тогда говорил нам студентам что
старьіе партейцьі говорят что Горбачев будет изменик .А почему мьі спрашивали .А потому что он не любит наши отечественьіе
костюмьі а любит английские ....Сколько лет прошло а только времья показало кто прав а кто нет .Китай например посмотрел на
нашу историческую ошибку и принимает все необходимьіе мерьі чтобьі подобньіх Горбачевьіх там у руля власти не оказалось ....Все
большие Иудьі бьіли меченьіе ,как и бьіл мечен Горбачев ...Горбачева можна сравнить из Нероном которьій розвалил большое ....
У господина Млечина с аналитикой большие проблемы, а ведь журналист должен знать всё о своём герое. В отношении Горбачёва он
так и не понял, почему Семи- частный отверг кандидатуру Горбачёва. Семичастный знал, что Горбачёв не чист на руку, короче
говоря один из первых советских мафиози в г. Ставрополе по производству алкоголя. Мне лично рассказал об этом брат убитого по
приказу Горбачёва следователя (по пути из Краснодара в Невинномысск), который напал на след этого упыря, но ему была устроена
автомобильная катастрофа, в которой погиб этот следователь. А почему Брежнев убрал Семичастного, потому что Семичастный знал
всю кухню правительственного переворота по смещению Хрущёва, поэтому Брежнев, по словам самого Семичастного убрал его из
Москвы подальше, и в Киеве устроил третьим замом председателя правительства Украинской ССР, выступая Семичастный сказал, я так
и не понял, кем я стал работать, работы практически не было, он просто отсиживался на этой высокой должности до пенсии.
Слушаю и все время одна мысль в голову лезет - как же надо было руководить страной , до какого идиотизма довести ситуацию с
продуктами питания , если академики и композиторы с мировым именем и даже дочь генсека !!!! искали знакомства и расположения
директора магазина !!! . О чем думают люди , пишущие вечные сентенции - "какую страну мы потеряли " - а ведь в провинции было
все гораздо хуже и японцы создали анекдот - "Самая лучшая система снабжения создана в СССР - все товары завозятся в Москву - а
благодарный народ САМ развозит по стране..." Не могла быть жизнеспособной страна при таком маразме..
Лично мне похуй!!! Если сравнить СССР ,где все было нельзя и под запретом, под наблюдением людей в плащах и шляпах,то при
Горбачеве, народ вздохнул глоток свежего,опьяняющего,долгожданного и запретного воздуха из вне... Первые кооперативы, джинсы,
машины, кафе, иномарки,музыка, фильмы!!! Что то новое принес! Нельзя так,было больше жить.. Виновен он во многом,но есть и
плюсы его политики. Предали его, а он предал нас....
Горбачёв был типичный южный дурачок . Они умеют 3 вещи -выглядеть выгодно(лучше чем есть на самом деле ,подмазать где
надо , и болтать .... А ЛЮБОЕ дело которое им поручишь -ОБГАДЯТ . СИСТЕМА СССР была уже слаба тем ,что потеряла
ЖЁСТКОСТЬ и ЗАЩИТУ от Дурака . При Хрущёве -она сработала и дурачка убрали ,при Горби - ЕМУ ДАЛИ РУЛИТЬ ,и ВСЁ
развалилось .
Престарелый Черненко - это плохо. А не престарелые Горбачёв, Яковлев, Шеварднадзе и Лигачёв - это жутко хорошо? Дело,
похоже, не только и не столько в возрасте, сколько в деловых и моральных качествах его носителей. Все члены названнй
компашки реально вредили и реально (и крепко) навредили стране. А ведь престарелыми они отнюдь не были!
Поражаюсь туполобости некоторых "демократов-капиталистов" в комментариях. Почти тридцать лет мы живём в капиталистическом
обществе, имеем полный доступ к любой информации - изучай сколько влезет, называется... И вы за эти тридцать лет так и не
смогли впихнуть в свой мозг информацию о происходящих в мире тенденциях, её систематизировать и сделать из неё вывод - вы
безнадёжны.
Никто из вас не удосужился изучать источники разной направленности по теме капитализма и социализма, вы лишь прочли/услышали
что-то одно, и приняли это за аксиому. Это совершенно ненаучный и не конструктивный подход к изучению проблемы! К сожалению,
некоторые люди просто не способны думать объёмно, для них существует только плоскость или даже прямая линия, что есть признак
ужасно узкого кругозора.
Я увидел в комментариях одно выражение, которое просто повергло меня в шок: "Нет на свете ни одного прогрессивного
коммунистического государства и быть не может!" - здрасте! :D Вы хоть историю-то изучали? То есть СССР не был мировой
сверхдержавой? А, ну да, это же была "страшная, отсталая, грязная и бедная страна-недоразумение, которая возникла по ужасной
ошибке", как же я мог забыть современных историков) А как-же нынешний Китай? Он официально считается экономической
сверхдержавой, кандидатом в мировые сверхдержавы, и темпы развития в нём имеют наивысший показатель на данный момент.
Плоскость и однонаправленность вашего мышления меня просто поразила, вы имеете радикальные взгляды, а радикализм - это всегда
ошибочно. Кто-то написал: "Китай только официально коммунистический, на деле в нём другое устройство!" - ну это просто апогей
идиотизма) Вы разве не понимаете, что человеческие взгляды могут совершенствоваться и изменяться, а система реформироваться? В
Китае именно социалистический строй, который претерпел реформацию, в которой безусловно нуждался. Советский социализм также
нуждался в реформации, и никто не говорит, что он был идеальным социализмом.
Совершенствование системы - это неотъемлемая часть прогресса, и если вы считаете, что социализм может быть только таким, каким
он был в СССР - то вы глубоко ошибаетесь, и совершенно не понимаете значение слова "прогресс". Китай построил такой социализм,
который даёт ему возможность делать поистине чудеса экономики, Китай богатеет и уровень жизни в нём растёт - если это не
прогресс, то что тогда? Также хочу упомянуть КНДР. Да-да, США на неё повесили ярлык "отсталого голодающего тоталитарного
государства", и скорее всего вы, радикальные капиталисты, даже не думали с ними спорить и что-то дополнительно про КНДР
узнавать, что, опять-же, говорит о плоскости и некритичности, я бы даже сказал суеверности вашего мышления. КНДР - страна
очень маленькая, в основном с горной местностью, и природных ресурсов в ней очень мало. "Демократы" из ООН и НАТО обложили
КНДР санкциями со всех сторон, из-за которых она не может развивать внешнюю торговлю, что губительно для маленькой страны с
худым запасом ресурсов. Поддерживать экономику, снабжать людей достатком товаров и в целом держать страну на современном
уровне в условиях торговой изоляции и недостатка ресурсов - это неподъёмная задача для капитализма. Но корейский социализм
умудрился, при всех этих условиях, победить голод, поддерживать бесплатное образование, медицину и т.д., обеспечивать людей
местом жительства, работой и доходом, сохранить суверенность своего государства и идеологию, и, ВНИМАНИЕ,
создать с нуля ядерную бомбу
. Это чудеса, северокорейский строй решает задачи, которые поистине неподъёмные в её
условиях.
Конечно,
в КНДР жесткий тоталитаризм, ведь когда страна изолирована от внешнего мира во всех аспектах, соседние страны настроены
враждебно (а со стороны США вообще идёт угроза прямого вторжения, или даже ядерного удара), со страной ведут жёсткую
идеологическую информационную войну, сохранить существующий строй - задача крайне сложная, и выполнить её можно только при
жёсткой дисциплине и контрпропаганде. Я уважаю Северную Корею, она наглядно показывает, что социализм может творить чудеса.
Конечно же, я вас переубедить не смог, радикальные вы капиталисты, но тем из вас, кои способны хоть немножко думать своей
черепушкой, я, возможно, поселил мысль о том, что социализм - это далеко не только плановая экономика, что он может меняться и
прогрессировать, что именно к нему идут все развитые страны, и что утопический коммунизм - это строй, который мы ещё
представить себе не можем, но который обязательно наступит через многие годы, или столетия прогресса. Избавляйтесь от своих
радикальных взглядов, и старайтесь думать объективно - это очень полезно для кругозора. Спасибо.
По Млечину : хорошо разработанная и осуществлённая операция по устранению конкурентов и внедрению "своего". Возникают вопросы:
кто проводил операцию? Где была организация отвечающая за государственную безопасность (КГБ)? В 2017м демпартия США подняла
вой о,якобы,вмешательстве России в избирательный процесс в США. Кто ответит:было ли вмешательство заграницы в процессы, о
которых поведал Млечин? Если было,то России так же, по образу и подобию, надо поднимать вой. Это серьёзно.Кто ответит?
Горбачев Родину продал, а Ельцин её пропил. Горбачев виноградники повырубал, а Ельцин травил народ не качественным спиртом. В
итоге, если бы не Путин, то развязка была бы давным давно, хотя он тоже не подарок, отдал страну на разграбление олигархам.
Горбачёв типичный номенклатурщик. Послушный, мягкий, ну может и прогибался ради своей высокой карьеры, но наверняка не чаял
президентом стать. Но потом когда всё случилось, стал входить во вкус, то есть жена стала проникаться важностью своего
положения при таком муженьке. А когда пришлось отказаться от власти он НИСКОЛЬКО не скорбел о потерянном кресле и стране. Его
посдили "на мягкую подушечку" и он стал жить поживать в Америке, даже не понимая, что его бездарность, как политика, послужила
развалу СССР. Он не понимает этого и сейчас. А может НЕ желает признавать. Может на смертном одре передумает строить из себя
униженного и оскорблённого и в чём-нибудь признается, хотя бы самому себе. Правда, для этого смелость нужна.
Горбачев не увлекался горячительными напитками???? Ну ну!!! Я родственник председателя крайкома СК в бытность Горбачева...Его
из машин вытаскивали лежа
Нечего горбачева обеливать!Он виноват,да еще как!Будь он трижды проклят!Этот человек не руководитель,разве не видно было из
его речей,что за он скоморох?!Как может шут руководить огромной страной и как вообще можно было доверить легкомысленному
человеку руководить государством,он же не "А ни Б,НИ КУКАРЕКУ"?!Полный идиот!!!!!
Перед развалом Союза ,этот придурок начал обсирать КАЗАКСТАН,я тогда ушёл в запас,и было обидно за академика Кунаева,За
родину мою,а на флоте мы гордились ,когда перед строем кораблей Старший офицер Азаров говорил казакстанцы ,мы едим хлеб из
каз-й муки тушёнка из kz,балык и икра,одеты мы в KZ канадки и свитера из Кызыл орды,А вот атомные ПЛ из казакстанского
титана- и мы были горды за казакстан И вот ОН наносит обсирающий удар?а дальше нам все стало ясно.
Млечный как всегда врет , не умного Горбатого плохо говорящего по русски двигала ЦРУ и как я понимаю сейчас многие советские
парта геносе знали об этом , почему , ???почему они продали все советское в котором жили ???за деньги или разочарование
произошло от этого марксизма и ленинизма, ,,,мы простые люди не когда не узнаем...но я уверен , что Брежнев уже был не
руководитель что Путин ,,,,почему ???что то им мешает , а то и наоборот они и есть гарантия чтоб страна не развивалась ,
Пшеницу покупали в Канаде,Союз изжил себя,,,вина Горбача только в одном,,,первое Крым хохлам не отдавать,,и русских в
Прибалтике не трогать,все это надо было говорить Бушу,,ставить условия
" ....The oligarchs have been destroyed in the early 00s: Gusinsky (the media oligarch),
Berezovsky (the political broker oligarch), Khodorkovsky (the oil oligarch). These people
were real oligarchs, i.e. they were using their wealth to control political processes
through black media propaganda, having their own MPs/Ministers/Governors, etc..." @85
I'm inclined to agree. And this is why there is so much anger against Putin, in
particular, in the 'west': the Russian oligarchs wield enormous power through the media
which is at the service of anyone with money. Bill Browder being a prime example.
The oligarchs were the tools that the City of London and Wall St employed to plunder
Russia's socialised wealth and resources.
The hate campaign against Putin, who is in many ways a very conservative economist pursuing
the sort of neo-liberal policies that capitalist financiers approve of, is inexplicable
unless we understand that the end game is a return to the looting that took place under the
Empire's anointed, Boris Yeltsin.
I don't understand the people here who write that VVPutin is in thrall to the Zionists,
the Oligarchs, or that he's lining his own pocket etc etc. IMHO his strategy has always been
clear and direct, since the beginning. He values first of all stability - time for Russia to
rebuild herself. Secondly, he performs a clever balancing act between the competing centres
of power in Russia.
His mistake, however, when he became president, was to believe quite sincerely that the
West - and particularly Washington (the important one) - shared a desire for peaceful
partnership with Russia. Doubts emerged in 2011 - he realised that he was being played - and
the doubts became certainties in 2014, since when some fairly radical reorganisations has
been taking place. Russia is - again, IMHO - now ready to take its real place in the
international order.
I take great pleasure in reading and listening to his - and Sergei Lavrov's - words, at
the same time regretting the low standard of our own representatives.
Many thanks to b and all of you who continue always to inform me and sometimes enchant
me.
Throughout its existence the Soviet Union was hobbled by the sanctions imposed on it by
the capitalist world. Despite being uniquely qualified, by virtue of its geography and
culture, to survive without being part of the international economy, it had to pay much more,
by being forced to rely on its own resources, than other countries for every advance that it
made economically.
And then it was constantly under threat of coordinated military attack by the richest and
most technically advanced powers, led by the anglo-US empire. Twice it was invaded by massive
international coalitions, in 1918 and 1041. Twice its industrial base and its infrastructure
were reduced to smoking ruins.Twice it had to rebuild, from the ground up without the
assistance of foreign capital.
By contrast the imperial powers, bent on crushing it by economic or military means,
throughout its existence came through the period virtually unscathed-its great rival the US
actually thrived from threw two world wars.
It was this fate which China, under imperial pressure after the 1949 Revolution, was
determined to escape. And so far, since it changed course and played the US and the Soviet
Union off against each other, it has made great strides forward-advances complementing the
enormous gains made after 1949, during which period all the basic indicators of well being,
life expectancy included, rose and a firm base was established for future improvement. And
this at a time when the US used every means in its power, including biological warfare, to
weaken China and reduce its people to starvation.
For example China-well known for its polluted air-is well in advance of North America in its
development of renewable energy sources and seems genuinely committed to replacing fossil
fuels.
Nor is it using its growing strength to engage in military adventures and impose its rule on
others.
It is important when considering China not to repeat the mistakes of some of the
neo-Trotskyist factions whose theory that the Soviet Union was just another capitalist
society (something that most Russians disagree with) was an important part of the Empire's
ideological struggle against the Soviet Union in the world and socialism everywhere. China is
not a communist country but it serves its people much better than, for example, India. And it
certainly plays a vital role, together with Russia in resisting the Imperial ruling class's
campaigns to reduce the globe to accepting the diktats of Washington, Wall St and
Hollywood.
... In the introduction to the second volume in his series, The State and the
Opposition , Rogovin noted:
A peculiarity of the counter-revolution realized by Stalin and his accomplices was that it
took place under the ideological cover of Marxist phraseology and never-ending attestations
of loyalty to the October Revolution Naturally, such a counter-revolution demanded
historically unprecedented conglomerations of lies and falsifications, the fabrication of
ever-newer myths
Similar to the Stalinists, modern anti-communists use two kinds of myths: namely,
ideological and historical. Under ideological myths we have in mind false ideas, oriented to
the future -- that is, illusory prognoses and promises. These sorts of products of false
consciousness reveal their mythological character by way of their practical realization.
Myths that appeal not to the future but to the past are another matter.
In principle, it is easier to expose these myths than anti-scientific prognoses and
reactionary projects.
Like ideological ones, historical myths are a product of immediate class interests
products of historical ignorance or deliberate falsification -- that is, the concealment of
some historical facts, the tendentious exaggeration, and the distorted interpretation of
others.
Refuting these myths is only possible by rehabilitating historical truth -- the honest
portrayal of actual facts and tendencies of the past.
In this work, Rogovin argued that the fundamental problem facing the USSR was "a
deepening of socially unjustified differentiation of incomes and the comforts of life."
"Workers regularly encounter instances of unearned enrichment through the deceit and the
ripping-off of the state and the people. [ ] Certain groups of the population have the means to
meet their needs at a scale beyond any reasonable norms and outside of their relationship to
social production. [ ] There does not exist any systematic control of sources of income and the
acquisition of valuable goods," he wrote.
In a remarkable statement, inequality, he insisted, not wage-leveling, expressed "in
essence, the social structure of [Soviet] society."
Rogovin called for the implementation of income declarations, whereby people would be
required to report the size of their total income, not just their official wages, so that the
government and researchers might actually know the real distribution of earnings. He advocated
for the establishment of a "socially-guaranteed maximum income" to combat "unjustified
inequality."
Vadim Rogovin and Nina Naumova's 1984 Social Development and Societal
Morals
Elsewhere, Rogovin further argued that inequality lay at the center of the USSR's falling
labor productivity. In a work co-authored with Nina Naumova, Social Development and
Societal Morals , he maintained that the socio-economic crisis facing the USSR stemmed
from the fact that inequality was growing in Soviet society; people worked poorly in the Soviet
Union not because their work was inadequately remunerated relative to others, but
because their commitment to social production had been eroded by intensifying social
stratification that was unrecorded in official statistics.
In 1983, the very same year that Rogovin authored his critical report on the state of
inequality in the USSR that ended up in the hands of the Moscow authorities, another
sociologist, Tatyana Zaslavskaya, would issue a report, kept secret at first but later leaked
to the Western press, advocating a transition to "economic methods of management," -- in other
words, market-based reforms. A central aspect of this was policy centered around increasing
inequality in workers' compensation in order to stimulate production. Zaslavskaya noted at the
time that such reforms would be opposed by what she described as "the more apathetic, the more
elderly, and the less qualified groups of workers."
In a few years, Zaslavskaya would become a leading advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev and one of
the main architects of the pro-market, perestroika reforms. In 1986, she was appointed
the head of the Soviet Sociological Association. Her positions were widely embraced by the
discipline.
Tatiana Zaslavskaya and Mikhail Gorbachev 1989 at Congress of People's Deputies.
[Copyright RIA Novosti]
In contrast, Rogovin's views were frequently, and ever more so, the object of sharp
criticism. In 1985, a discussion occurred at the Institute of Sociology regarding a report
produced by Rogovin and his research team about Soviet lifestyles. In it, Rogovin made openly
critical comments about the anti-egalitarian impact of the shadow economy and the transfer of
wealth through inheritance. It was sharply criticized by some of the Institute's top scholars,
who both disagreed with its content and were nervous about the response it might get from the
authorities. At the discussion, one such individual remarked:
The report by the author presented here has two basic failings: 1) it is inadequately
self-critical; 2) the authors, and in particular, Rogovin himself, aren't appropriately
thinking of the addressee to whom this report is directed. The report is going to the highest
levels [of the Communist Party] and superfluous emotion is not necessary. The next criticism
[I have] is about "unjustified inequality." In principle, there can be no such thing.
[ ] in the note to the TsK KPSS [Central Committee of the Communist Party] [ ] the
recommendations [that you make] demand the utmost care in how you approach them, particularly
those that relate to the "third economy" and taxes on inheritance. [There should be] a
minimum of categoricalness and a maximum of conciliatoriness.
As the decade wore on, Rogovin began to adopt an ever more critical stance on
perestroika , whose devastating economic consequences were increasingly showing
themselves. Rather than bringing prosperity to the masses, Gorbachev's reforms created a total
crisis in the state sector of the economy, exacerbating widespread shortages in food, clothing
and other basic necessities. Economic growth declined from 1986 onwards. In 1989, inflation
reached 19 percent, eroding the gains the population had made in income over the preceding
years. As the scholar John Elliot noted, "When account is taken of additional costs, real per
capita income and real wages probably decreased, particularly for the bottom half of the
population. These costs included: deteriorating quality and unavailability of goods;
proliferation of special distribution channels; longer and more time-consuming lines; extended
rationing; higher prices and higher inflation-rates in non-state stores (e.g., collective farm
market prices were nearly three times those in state stores in 1989); virtual stagnation in the
provision of health and education; and the growth of barter, regional autarky, and local
protectionism."
Newly established private enterprises had great leeway to set prices because they faced
little to no competition from the state sector. They charged whatever the market would bear,
which led to substantial increases in income inequality and poverty, with the most vulnerable
layers of the population hardest hit. The changes were so severe that Elliot insists that
"income inequalities had actually become greater in the USSR than in the USA." In the late
1980s, fully two-thirds of the Soviet population had an income that fell below the
officially-recommended "decent level" of 100 to 150 rubles a month. At the same time, the
shadow economy alone is estimated to have produced 100,000–150,000 millionaires in the
late 1980s. By the early 1990s, one-quarter of the population or 70 million people were
destitute according to official Soviet estimates. Miners' strikes and other signs of social
discontent erupted across the country.
Sociologists were intimately aware of the growing popular discontent. The Communist Party
bureaucracy called upon them to help manage the situation. In 1989, the director of the
Institute of Sociology received a request from the highest layers of the Communist Party. He
was asked to respond to a letter from a rank-and-file party member that expressed extreme
hostility towards the country's "elites." The letter writer described the party as dominated by
an "opportunist nucleus" and called for the waging of a "class war" by the working masses
against their policies. The ideology division of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
wanted the Institute's director to respond to the letter because the sentiments expressed in it
were "widespread (representative) [sic] among the working class."
Soviet economist and
sociologist Genady Lisichkin
In the midst of these circumstances, Rogovin came under fire in one of the country's media
outlets for articles he was writing against the promotion of social inequality. Since the
mid-1980s, he had been championing the implementation of income declarations that would require
people to report their full earnings, progressive taxes, and a socially-declared maximum
income. Based on the amount of positive correspondence he was receiving from readers, it was
clear that his views resonated with the population, a fact noted by Western scholars at the
time. In a public press debate with the economist Gennady Lisichkin, the latter accused Rogovin
of wanting to strengthen the hand of the bureaucracy and implied that he was a Stalinist. He
was allegedly guilty of "Luddism," religious-like preaching, misquoting Marx to find support
for his arguments, wanting the state to have the power to move people around "like cattle,"
defending a deficit-system of distribution based on "ration cards," suffering from "left-wing"
infantilism, and being a "demagogue" and a "war communist." He attempted to link Rogovin to the
very force to which he was most hostile -- Stalinism. The head of the Soviet Sociological
Association, Tatiana Zaslavskaya, openly endorsed Lisichkin's positions.
The disagreements between Rogovin and other scholars over perestroika evolved into
a fierce dispute about Soviet history and the nature of Stalinism. Rogovin identified a
relationship between cheerleading for pro-market reforms and historical falsification. There
was an increasingly widespread effort to link egalitarianism with Stalinism, the struggle for
equality with political repression. In Was There an Alternative? , Rogovin frequently
talked about the fact that the move towards a market economy was accompanied by the propagation
of myths about Soviet history. This was one of those myths.
In 1991, Zaslavskaya co-authored a book that claimed that the Soviet Union's problems lay in
the fact that in the late 1920s it abandoned the New Economic Policy (NEP), during which the
government had loosened state control of the economy and restored market relations to an
extent, in an effort to revitalize the economy under conditions of isolation, backwardness, and
near economic collapse due to years of war. A one-sided and historically dishonest account of
the NEP, this work did not contain any discussion of the political struggle that occurred
during the NEP between Stalin and the Left Opposition over the malignant growth of inequality,
the bureaucratization of the state and economy, and the crushing of inner-party democracy. The
book skipped over this history because it would have cut across one of the central arguments
made at the time in favor of perestroika -- that market relations were inherently at
odds with the interests of the Communist Party bureaucracy. The book's account of labor policy
under Stalin was also false. It insisted that during the 1930s revolutionary enthusiasm was the
primary method used to stimulate people to work, ignoring the fact that income inequality rose
substantially at this time. As the scholar Murray Yanowitch has pointed out, under Stalin
"equality mongering" was labeled the brainchild of "Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Bukharinites and
other enemies of the people."
In the 1980s, sociologists and other scholars promoting perestroika sought to imbue
these policies with a humanitarian mission, insisting that market reforms would allow "the
human factor," which had been crushed under the weight of bureaucratic stagnation, to rise
again. The "human factor" was defined as man's desire for personal recognition through
differentiated, material reward. It was supposedly the primary driver of human activity. To the
degree that official wage policy in the USSR led to a relatively egalitarian distribution of
social resources with wages leveled-out between skilled and unskilled labor, it flew in the
face of man's desire for recognition of his own individual contribution. Rising inequality in
income -- necessitated by the demands of socio-economic development -- was part of the process
of "humanizing socialism." The argument was made that increasing social stratification would
ultimately provide real "socialist justice."
As Tatiana Zaslavskaya claimed in 1990, "Despite all its limitations, the 'classical' market
is, in fact, a democratic (and therefore anti-bureaucratic) economic institution. Within the
framework of its exchange relationships, all participants are at least formally equal; no-one
is subordinated to anyone else. Buyers and sellers act in their own interests and nobody can
make them conclude deals they do not want to conclude. The buyers are free to select sellers
who will let them have goods on the most advantageous terms, but the sellers too can chose
buyers offering the best price."
In making this argument, scholars relied upon the official Soviet definition of socialism --
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor" -- that was enshrined in
the country's 1936 constitution. This was also known as the Stalin constitution.
In 1988, Rogovin used the concept of the "human factor" to make a very different argument.
In a piece entitled, "The Human Factor and the Lessons of the Past," he insisted that the
defense of social inequality by the Soviet elite was one of the key reasons why the "human
factor" had degenerated in the USSR. The very best elements of "the human factor" had been
crushed by Stalin during the Terror. Corruption, disillusionment, parasitism, careerism and
individual self-promotion -- the most distinctive features of the Brezhnev era -- were the
"human factor" created by Stalinism. In promoting inequality and the market, Rogovin insisted,
perestroika did not mark a break with Stalinism or the legacy of the Brezhnev era, as
was so often claimed, but rather their further realization.
One year later he wrote, "The adherents of the new elitist conceptions want to see Soviet
society with such a level of social differentiation that existed under Stalin but having gotten
rid of Stalinist repression. It is forgotten that the debauched character of these repressions
[ ] flowed from the effort to not simply restrain, but rather physically annihilate above all
those forces in the party and in the country that, though silenced, rejected the social
foundations of Stalinism."
After years of studying these questions in near-total isolation, Rogovin was finally able to
write openly about this subject. He tested the waters by first publishing "L.D. Trotsky on Art"
in August 1989 in the journal Theater . It was followed shortly thereafter by an
article entitled "The Internal Party Struggles of the 1920s: Reasons and Lessons," also
published in a journal outside of his discipline, Political Education . Moving closer
to a forum likely to be followed by his colleagues in sociology, in early 1990 Rogovin
published "L.D. Trotsky on NEP" in Economic Sciences . And finally, a few months
later, "L.D. Trotsky on Social Relations in the USSR" came out in the flagship journal of his
discipline, Sociological Research .
Rogovin's first article on the subject within his discipline reviewed Trotsky's role in
Soviet history during the 1920s and summarized his seminal work, The Revolution
Betrayed . It made clear to whom Rogovin fundamentally owed the views he had been
advancing over the course of the previous decade.
Trotsky, however, continued to be vilified by Soviet officialdom. In 1987, on the 70th
anniversary of the Russian Revolution, Gorbachev described Trotsky as "the arch-heretic of
Soviet history, an 'excessively self-assured politician who always vacillated and cheated."
As a result of Rogovin's profound sympathies for Trotskyism and efforts to place his work in
the tradition of the Left Opposition's critique of Stalinism, he was increasingly isolated from
his colleagues, several of whom entered the Yeltsin administration and helped facilitate the
eventual implementation of shock therapy, a key component of capitalist restoration in Russia.
His discipline never forgave him for his intransigence and principles. One will find almost no
mention of Rogovin or his contributions in the numerous monographs and other publications that
have come out over the last 20 years about sociology in the USSR.
But Rogovin's isolation from Soviet sociology did not undermine his capacity to work.
Rather, it coincided with the start of the publication of Was There an Alternative? In
1992, Rogovin met the International Committee of the Fourth International, and established a
close political and intellectual relationship with the world Trotskyist movement that would
intensify over the course of the next several years. This relationship was the basis upon which
Rogovin made his immense contribution to the fight to defend Trotsky and historical truth. Two
recently republished tributes to Rogovin by David
North review this history.
Despite his death twenty years ago, through his work Rogovin continues his struggle to arm
the working class with historical consciousness.
Oil and commodity markets were used as a finishing move on the Soviet system. The book,
"The Oil Card: Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century" by James R. Norman details the
use of oil futures as a geopolitical tool. Pipelines change the calculus quite a bit.
"... With all due cynical respect... I find it highly ironic that some of the biggest money launderers and Mafiosi are Baltic banks. The hilarity never ends. ..."
"... Full scale bull ****. No single former Soviet bloc country get into economic level of pre-Berlin wall fall. They are done. ..."
With all due cynical respect... I find it highly ironic that some of the biggest money
launderers and Mafiosi are Baltic banks. The hilarity never ends.
Here is classic: GDP PPP per capita. What to pay attention.
#1, After 30 years and joining EU and NATO there is no difference in former Soviet bloc.
Just looks like Russia is greatest profiteer. Now those parasites are chained to west.
#2, countries of former Soviet bloc are in better shape than countries that were in sphere
of western imperialism. Especially look at countries where USA imperialism worked since 1823
Monroe's doctrine. Chart shows that in 200 years USA was not able to achieve much progress
despite permanent military interventions and political influence.
As much as I like the idea of taking my state to Estonia status, too many winner-take-all
politicians and weak thinkers to recognize that new borders would solve lots and lots of
problems.
Socialists are clearly smart, but in actuality just simple evil, immoral thieves. They
will be unlikely to support any secession because they know their enemies are the source of
their lucre.
Balkanization, what little there will be, will most likely come after we are drug into
WWIII and we are back to a 1700's subsistence existence.
A pessimist is never disappointed, but I will happily take an optimist's surprise if
people just stop and live and let live.
.............. try, try to "Unchain America" next July 4. What better way to celebrate
Independence Day than with a joining of hands across the land, if not to secede, then to
affirm our right to, one state at a time?
It's 2,790 miles from New York to Los Angeles, which is 14,731,200 feet. At three feet per
person, it would take around 4,910,400 people -- less than 1/66th of the US population -- to
make a human chain like the three Balkan states did.
We say Browder, but we mean MI6. He was a part of larger plan concocted by US intelligence agencies to decimate Russia after the dissolution of the USSR.
Of which Harvard mafia played even more important role. The fact that he gave up his U.S. citizenship in
1997 points to his association with MI6.
The level of distortions the US neoliberal MSM operated with in case of Magnitsky (starting with the widely repeated and
factually incorrect claim that he was a lawyers, in create a sympathy; their effort to portrait shady accountant involved in tax
fraud for Browder, as a fighter for justice should be described in a separate chapter on any modem book on the power of propaganda;
this is simply classic ) is compatible with lies and distortions of Skripal affair and point of strong interest ion
intelligence services in both.
Browder and Magnistsky affair really demonstrate that as for foreign events we already live "Matrix environment" of
artificial reality created by MSM and controlled by intelligence agencies and foreign policy establishment; and that ordinary people are forced into artificial
reality with little or no chance to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... Prevezon's American legal team alleged that Browder's story was full of holes -- and that the U.S. and other governments had relied on Browder's version without checking it. ..."
"... The chief American investigator, Todd Hyman of the Department of Homeland Security, testified in a deposition that much of the evidence in the government's complaint came from Browder and his associates. He also said the government had been unable to independently investigate some of Browder's claims. ..."
"... In court documents, Prevezon's lawyers alleged that Magnitsky was jailed not because he was a truth-seeker -- but because he was helping Browder's companies in tax evasion. ..."
"... The Prevezon attorneys charged that Browder "lied," and "manipulated" evidence to cover up his own tax fraud. ..."
"... The story was "contrived and skillfully sold by William F. Browder to politicians here and abroad to thwart his arrest for a tax fraud conviction in Russia," says a 2015 federal court filing by one of Prevezon's lawyers, Mark Cymrot of BakerHostetler. ..."
"... A Russian-born filmmaker named Andrei Nekrasov made a similar set of arguments in a docudrama released last year. Neither Prevezon nor the Russian government had a role in funding or making the film, both parties say, though Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin helped promote it. ..."
As Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya tells it, she met with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump aides in New York
last summer to press her case against a widely accepted account of Russian malfeasance, one that underpins a set of sanctions against
Russians.
Trump Jr., who agreed to the June 2016 meeting
at the request of a Russian business associate with a promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton , has said he didn't find much to interest
him in the presentation. And little wonder: The subject is a dense and tangled web, hinging on a complex case that led Congress to
pass what is known as the Magnitsky Act. The law imposed sanctions on individual Russians accused of human rights violations. It
has nothing to do with Clinton.
But the substance of what the pair of Russian advocates say they came to discuss has a fascinating backstory.
It's an epic international dispute -- one that has pitted the grandson of a former American Communist who made a fortune as a
capitalist in Russia against a Russian leader who pines for the glory days of his country's Communist past.
That dossier,
published by Buzzfeed , made other, more salacious allegations about Trump, and FBI Director James Comey briefed the Republican
about it before he took office. The dossier is not favorable to Putin and the Russian government.
Simpson's role on both sides of the Putin divide is set to be explored in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday examining
the Justice Department's requirements for foreign lobbying disclosures.
Due to testify at the hearing is Simpson's longtime opponent in the Magnitsky dispute, William Browder, an American-born hedge-fund
investor who made millions investing in post-Soviet Russia and gave up his U.S. citizenship in 1997.
Simpson's lawyer said he would defy a subpoena to appear Wednesday because he was on vacation, and that he would decline to answer
questions anyway, citing his right against self-incrimination.
Browder, whose grandfather Earl led the American Communist Party, accuses Simpson of peddling falsehoods as an agent of the Russian
government. The law firm Simpson worked with on the case accused Browder in court papers of perpetrating a web of lies. Both men
dispute the allegations.
The Death of Sergei Magnitsky
The story begins with the November 2009 death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax accountant who was working for Browder, and
who later died in prison .
Browder's account of Magnitsky's death triggered international outrage. According to Browder, Magnitsky was a lawyer who had been investigating a theft of $230 million in tax rebates paid to Browder's
companies in Russia. Browder says his companies had been taken over illegally and without his knowledge by corrupt Russian officials.
Browder says Magnitsky was arrested as a reprisal by those same corrupt officials, and then was tortured and beaten to death.
Browder presented documents suggesting that some officials who benefited from the alleged fraud purchased property abroad.
That account led Congress to pass the so-called Magnitsky Act in 2012, imposing sanctions on the Russian officials who were alleged
to have violated Magnitsky's human rights.
The Russian government soon imposed a ban on American adoptions of Russian children, ostensibly for other reasons but done in
response, many experts say, to the Magnitsky sanctions.
Forty-four Russians are currently on the Magnitsky sanctions list maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department, meaning their U.S.
assets are frozen and they are not allowed to travel to the U.S.
Once a Putin supporter, Browder became one of the Russian leader's most ardent foes, spearheading a campaign to draw international
attention to the Magnitsky case. He and his employees at Hermitage Capital Management presented information to governments, international
bodies and major news organizations.
Browder's advocacy marks a shift from 2004, when, as one of Russia's leading foreign investors, he praised Putin so vigorously
that he was labeled Putin's
"chief cheerleader" by an analyst in a Washington Post article. Browder has said that Magnitsky's death spurred him to reexamine
his view of Putin.
The State Department, lawmakers of both parties and the Western news media have described the Magnitsky case in a way that tracks
closely with Browder's account. Browder's assertions are consistent with the West's understanding of the Putin government -- an authoritarian
regime that has been widely and credibly accused of murdering journalists and political opponents.
In 2013, the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office sued a Russian company, accusing it of laundering some of the proceeds of the fraud
Magnitsky allegedly uncovered. The complaint incorporated Browder's account about what happened to Magnitsky.
That lawsuit set in motion a process through which that version of events would come under challenge.
The defendant, a company called Prevezon, is owned by Denis Katsyv, who became wealthy while his father was vice governor and
transport minister for the Moscow region, according to published reports. The father, Pyotr Katsyv, is now vice president of the
state-run Russian Railways. Veselnitskaya has long represented the family.
Prevezon hired a law firm, BakerHostetler, and a team that included a longtime New York prosecutor, John Moscow. Also working
on Prevezon's behalf were Simpson, Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin.
Simpson, a former investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal, declined to comment.
Simpson also worked with former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele in the creation of the dossier that asserts Trump
collusion with Russian election interference. A source close to him said his work on the dossier was kept confidential from his other
clients.
The federal civil lawsuit by the Manhattan U.S. attorney against Prevezon was the first opportunity for the U.S. government to
publicly present whatever evidence it had to support its legal assertions regarding Magnitsky. It was also an opportunity for the
defendants to conduct their own investigation.
Prevezon's American legal team alleged that Browder's story was full of holes -- and that the U.S. and other governments had
relied on Browder's version without checking it. Browder and the U.S. government disagreed.
The chief American investigator, Todd Hyman of the Department of Homeland Security, testified in a deposition that much of
the evidence in the government's complaint came from Browder and his associates. He also said the government had been unable to independently
investigate some of Browder's claims.
In court documents, Prevezon's lawyers alleged that Magnitsky was jailed not because he was a truth-seeker -- but because
he was helping Browder's companies in tax evasion.
The Prevezon attorneys charged that Browder "lied," and "manipulated" evidence to cover up his own tax fraud.
The story was "contrived and skillfully sold by William F. Browder to politicians here and abroad to thwart his arrest for
a tax fraud conviction in Russia," says a 2015 federal court filing by one of Prevezon's lawyers, Mark Cymrot of BakerHostetler.
A Russian-born filmmaker named Andrei Nekrasov made a similar set of arguments in a docudrama released last year. Neither
Prevezon nor the Russian government had a role in funding or making the film, both parties say, though Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin
helped promote it.
@ Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Oct 1, 2018 1:25:43 AM | 73
The collapse of the USSR is a very complex issue, and we still don't have a consensus
(among the people who study this seriously).
I myself think the USSR collapsed because of two main factors that are inteconnected with
the world geopolitics of its time:
1) the USSR couldn't make the transition from the second to the third industrial
revolution in the 70s (i.e. from fordism to toyotism/ohnism). Albeit it is true the USA never
really embraced toyotism (just some pockets in the Silicon Valley and the financial sector),
it is a fact the capitalist world, as a whole, did, because it worked out in Japan and South
Korea -- many of these techonologies bleeding to the world market.
The USSR, since Stalin, adopted a method of "socialist primitive accumulation", where
every techonological revolution depended on a forced (centralized) global collectivization:
the old had to be entirely dismantled for the new to be built over the carcass of this old.
This was a brutal (albeit quick and effective) method, so it was always risky and left the
USSR exposed to the capitalists militarily.
Another problem with the USSR system was that toyotism was based on heavy investment in
"human capital", i.e. investment on the workers' education and specialization. Forced
collectivization, therefore, excluded the possibility of toyotism by design, so it was never
truly an option for the post-Stalin Soviet leaders.
In a world only the USSR and the COMECON countries existed, it could've be stationed in
the second industrial revolution forever: the USSR never had a recession (except in 1990 and
1991, when it was already de facto capitalist). It was stagnant, but not collapsing. But it
didn't exist alone: on the other side of Berlin, there was the capitalist world, and, in this
dual world, not transitioning to toyotism was not an option for the Soviet Union.
2) In a bipolar world, with the toyotism path closed, Soviet bureaucrats developed a class
sentiment, which put pressure from the inside on the Soviet inherent egalitarian system. In
other words, the USSR was a victim of its own success: the problem was that that success came
too early, in a world where capitalism still existed.
In the 1980s, the USSR had already eradicated poverty and the most well-paid worker (a
high bureaucrat) received four times the salary of the lowest-paid worker. The basic public
services (transport, education and healthcare) already were free at the point of use and
universal and of a very good quality.
The problem was that the USSR emphasized too much on the production of infrastructure and
too little on consumption goods, which were already of a poor quality when compared to the
Western ones. The high Soviet bureaucracy, in constant contact with the capitalist world, was
then slowly, but surely, coopted by the delicacies of the West, and thus developed a urge of
class distinction.
This "urge" can be illustrated by an anecdote. When Yeltsin was still the President of
Soviet Russia, George H. W. Bush invited him to Houston. There, he was marvelled by Jack
Daniel's whiskey and asked for some cases for the trip back. Therefore the joke he sold the
Soviet Union for two cases of Jack Daniel's.
"... "The true treasures of the Church are the poor, the little ones to be helped not merely by occasional alms but in the way they can be promoted," ..."
"... "He talked particularly of his concern over 'Los Desaparecidos', people who had vanished off the face of Argentinian earth in their thousands. By the conclusion of the 15th minute audience the General began to wish that he had heeded the eleventh-hour attempts of Vatican officials to dissuade him coming to Rome," ..."
"... "His mind was as strong, as hard and as sharp as a diamond. That was where his real power was. He understood and had the ability to get to the centre of a problem. He could not be overwhelmed. When everyone was applauding the smiling Pope, I was waiting for him 'tirare fuori le unghie', to reveal his claws. He had tremendous power." ..."
"... But John Paul I never lived to exercise his "tremendous power." ..."
"... "The public speculation that this death was not natural grew by the minute. Men and women were heard shouting at the inert form: Who has done this to you? Who has murdered you?" ..."
"... David Yallop revealed that on the day of his death, the Pope had discussed a reshuffle of Vatican staff with Secretary of State Cardinal Jean Villot, who was also to be replaced. Yallop claimed that the Pope had a list of a number of clerics who belonged to the Freemasons, membership of which was strictly prohibited by the Church. The most sinister of these Masonic lodges was the fiercely anti-communist Propaganda Due (P2), which held great influence in Italy at this time, being referred to as a "state within a state." ..."
"... "Had he lived another week, the United States would have been looking at a half a dozen mini-Cubas in its back yard," ..."
"... "The single fact of John Paul II's election in 1978 changed everything. In Poland, everything began Then the whole thing spread. He was in Chile and Pinochet was out. He was in Haiti and Duvalier was out. He was in the Philippines and Marcos was out," ..."
"... In 1985, Agca's confederate, Abdullah Catli, who was later killed in a car crash, testified that he had been approached by the West German BND spy organization, which promised him a large sum of money "if he implicated the Bulgarian secret service and the KGB in the attempt on the Pope's life." ..."
"... "ex-CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman disclosed that his colleagues, under pressure from CIA higher-ups, skewed their reports to try to lend credence to the contention that the Soviets were involved. 'The CIA had no evidence linking the KGB to the plot,' Goodman told the Senate Intelligence Committee." ..."
"... In 2011, a new book entitled 'To Kill the Pope, the Truth about the Assassination Attempt on John Paul II', which was based on 20 years of research, concluded that the CIA had indeed tried to frame Bulgaria, in order to discredit communism. ..."
"... The great irony of course is that after the Berlin Wall came down, Pope John Paul II became a strong critic of the inhumane 'greed is good' model of capitalism which had replaced communism. In Latvia, he said capitalism was responsible for "grave social injustices" and acknowledged that Marxism contained "a kernel of truth." He said that "the ideology of the market" made solidarity between people "difficult at best." In Czechoslovakia, he warned against replacing communism with materialism and consumerism. ..."
"... Follow Neil Clark @NeilClark66 ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
The sudden death of Pope John Paul I, exactly 40 years ago today, stunned the world. The
'Smiling Pope' had only served for 33 days. His demise and replacement by John Paul II marked
an important turning point in the old Cold War. The year 1978, as I argued in a previous op-ed,
was the year today's world was made.
There was nothing inevitable about the ascendancy of Reagan and Thatcher, the rise of groups
like Al-Qaeda and IS, and the downfall of the Soviet Union. The neoliberal, neoconservative
world order and its associated violence came about because of key events and decisions which
took place 40 years ago. The Vatican was at the heart of these events.
The drama which unfolded there in the summer of 1978 would have been rejected as being too
far-fetched if sent in as a film script. In a space of two and a half months, we had three
different Popes. There was no great surprise when, on August 6, the first of them, Pope Paul
VI, died after suffering a massive heart attack. The Supreme Pontiff, who had served since
1963, was 80 and had been in declining health. But the death of his much younger successor,
John Paul I, a radical reformer who wanted to build a genuine People's Church, has fuelled
conspiracy theories to this day.
Cardinal Albino Luciani, the working-class son of a bricklayer (and staunch socialist), from
a small town in northern Italy, was a Pope like no other. He refused a coronation and detested
being carried on the sedia gestatoria – the Papal chair. He hated pomp and circumstance
and pretentiousness. His speeches were down to earth and full of homely observations, with
regular references to popular fiction. He possessed a gentle humor and always had a twinkle in
his eye. He was by all accounts an incredibly sweet man.
But there was steel there, too. Luciani was determined to root out corruption, and to
investigate the complex financial affairs of the Vatican's own bank, and its connection to the
scandal-hit Banco Ambrosiano.
While he had declared communism to be incompatible with Christianity, his father's
egalitarian ethos stayed with him. "The true treasures of the Church are the poor, the
little ones to be helped not merely by occasional alms but in the way they can be
promoted," he once said. At a meeting with General Videla of Argentina, he made clear his
abhorrence of fascism. "He talked particularly of his concern over 'Los Desaparecidos',
people who had vanished off the face of Argentinian earth in their thousands. By the conclusion
of the 15th minute audience the General began to wish that he had heeded the eleventh-hour
attempts of Vatican officials to dissuade him coming to Rome," noted David Yallop in his
book 'In God's Name'.
One cleric, Father Busa, wrote of John Paul I: "His mind was as strong, as hard and as
sharp as a diamond. That was where his real power was. He understood and had the ability to get
to the centre of a problem. He could not be overwhelmed. When everyone was applauding the
smiling Pope, I was waiting for him 'tirare fuori le unghie', to reveal his claws. He had
tremendous power."
But John Paul I never lived to exercise his "tremendous power." He was found
dead in his bed on the morning of September 28, 1978. The official story was that the 'Smiling
Pope' had died from a heart attack. But it wasn't long before questions were being asked. John
Paul I was only 65 and had appeared to be in fine health.
The fact that there was no post-mortem only added to the suspicions. "The public
speculation that this death was not natural grew by the minute. Men and women were heard
shouting at the inert form: Who has done this to you? Who has murdered you?" wrote David
Yallop.
David Yallop revealed that on the day of his death, the Pope had discussed a reshuffle
of Vatican staff with Secretary of State Cardinal Jean Villot, who was also to be replaced.
Yallop claimed that the Pope had a list of a number of clerics who belonged to the Freemasons,
membership of which was strictly prohibited by the Church. The most sinister of these Masonic
lodges was the fiercely anti-communist Propaganda Due (P2), which held great influence in Italy
at this time, being referred to as a "state within a state." The murky world of P2,
and its leaders' links with organized crime, the Mafia and the CIA is discussed in 'In God's
Name'.
Another writer, Lucien Gregoire, author of 'Murder by the Grace of God', points the finger
of blame squarely at the CIA. He notes a seemingly strange coincidence, namely that on
September 3, 1978, just 25 days before the Pope himself died, Metropolitan Nikodim, the
visiting leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, who was later revealed to have been a KGB
agent, fell dead at John Paul's feet in the Vatican after sipping coffee. He was only 48.
Gregoire says that the CIA dubbed John Paul I 'the Bolshevik Pope' and was keen to eliminate
him before he presided over a conference the Puebla Conference in Mexico. "Had he lived
another week, the United States would have been looking at a half a dozen mini-Cubas in its
back yard," he writes.
While there's no shortage of suspects if you believe that John Paul I was murdered, it needs
to be stressed that despite the contradictory statements made about the circumstances of his
death, and the strange coincidences, no evidence has yet been produced to show that his death
was not a natural one. What we can say though is that there will have been quite a few powerful
and influential people in Italy and beyond who were relieved that the 'Smiling Pope' had such a
short time in office.
His successor, the Polish Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, who took the name 'John Paul II' as a
homage to his predecessor, made it clear that investigating the Vatican's financial activities
and uncovering Freemasons was not a priority. As a patriotic Pole, his appointment was manna
from Heaven for anti-communist hawks in the US State Department. "The single fact of John
Paul II's election in 1978 changed everything. In Poland, everything began Then the whole thing
spread. He was in Chile and Pinochet was out. He was in Haiti and Duvalier was out. He was in
the Philippines and Marcos was out," said Joaquin Navarro-Valls, John Paul II's press
secretary.
The way that Pope John Paul II spoke out against what he regarded as communist repression,
not only in his native Poland but across Eastern Europe and beyond, saw him being toasted by
the neocon faction. It might not have been just words either, which helped undermine communist
rule. There was a rumor that 'God's Banker' Roberto Calvi, who in 1982 was found hanging from
Blackfriars Bridge in London, had sent $50mn to 'Solidarity' in Poland on behalf of the
Pope.
In May 1981, John Paul II was shot and wounded by Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agca. Neocons in
the US promoted the narrative that it was a communist plot (organized by Bulgaria), but Sofia
denied involvement. In 1985, Agca's confederate, Abdullah Catli, who was later killed
in a car crash, testified that he had been
approached by the West German BND spy organization, which promised him a large sum of money "if
he implicated the Bulgarian secret service and the KGB in the attempt on the Pope's
life."
Martin Lee, writing in Consortium News, also notes
that in 1990, "ex-CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman disclosed that his colleagues, under
pressure from CIA higher-ups, skewed their reports to try to lend credence to the contention
that the Soviets were involved. 'The CIA had no evidence linking the KGB to the plot,' Goodman
told the Senate Intelligence Committee."
In 2011, a new book entitled 'To Kill the Pope, the Truth about the Assassination
Attempt on John Paul II', which was based on 20 years of research,
concluded that the CIA had indeed tried to frame Bulgaria, in order to discredit
communism.
The great irony of course is that after the Berlin Wall came down, Pope John Paul II
became a strong critic of the inhumane 'greed is good' model of capitalism which had replaced
communism. In Latvia, he said capitalism was responsible for "grave social injustices" and
acknowledged that Marxism contained "a kernel of truth." He said that "the ideology of the
market" made solidarity between people "difficult at best." In Czechoslovakia, he
warned against replacing communism with materialism and consumerism.
Having enlisted the assistance of the Vatican in helping to bring down 'The Reds', the
neo-liberals and neo-cons then turned on the Church. The Church survived communism, but it
hasn't fared too well under consumerism. The Vatican is nowhere near as influential as it was
in 1978. The US, meanwhile, unconstrained by a geopolitical counter-weight, threw its weight
around the world after 1989, illegally invading and attacking a series of sovereign states.
One can only wonder how different things might have been if the 'Smiling Pope' had
lived.
Well, as long as you support the #METOO-ish school of legal doctrine, i.e. whereupon a
simple charging is sufficient to establish culpability, you will surely enjoy the following
article, on The Nation, The Harvard Boys Do Russia, May, 1998, which you can search for and
fact-check with your own tools of choice.
Perhaps consider the idea that within Russia in the 1990s that was systematically sold off
to US interests, facilitated by Russian government officials, the Russian social immune
system kicked in and gave rise to Vladimir Putin to protect his homeland's interests.
Consider further that Trump is dealing with a horde of malignant backstabbing little bitches
that are doing their best to rape their own homeland. Maybe the US social immune system is
working better than you think, despite attempts to deflect blame towards Trump and Putin, and
actual, indictable charges against Clintonian operatives cannot be suppressed much
longer.
"... There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though, "Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear that the Russians were coming. ..."
"... That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989, followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America. ..."
"... With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula). ..."
"... Before long, it became clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself. ..."
"... That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin, Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on. ..."
"... The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded, fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria. ..."
"... Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts in the UK and other allied nations. ..."
"... How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims! ..."
"... They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, and Israel ..."
"... Cold War revivalists can therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth. ..."
"... Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American "democracy" can plausibly allege. ..."
"... Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons, liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east. ..."
"... The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one that emerged after World War II. ..."
"... However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism, suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a demonstrably aggressive "free world." ..."
"... That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they" are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that ensued. ..."
"... The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved." ..."
"... Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free. ..."
"... From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies. ..."
"... Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified. But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a vote for catastrophe. ..."
"... For now, though, the hard and very relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm, Russia. ..."
"... It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been. ..."
"... If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for America and its allies but for Russia too. ..."
There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though,
"Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear
that the Russians were coming.
That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989,
followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed
that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was
triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America.
With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of
others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was
comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing
Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula).
It turned out, though, that American triumphalism was only a phase. Before long, it became
clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War
anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself.
However, in the final days of Bush 41 and then at the dawn of the Clinton era, nobody knew
that. Nobody gave America's propaganda system the credit it deserved.
Also, nobody quite realized how devastating Russia's regression to capitalism would be, and
nobody quite grasped the savagery of the kleptocrats who had taken charge of what remained of
the Russian state.
For more than a decade, the situation in that late great superpower was too dire to sustain
the old fears and animosities. Capitalism had made Russia wretched again.
That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin,
Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard
to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on.
But anti-Communism (without Communism) and its close cousin, Russophobia, could not remain
in remission forever. The need for them was too great.
In the Age of Obama, the Global War on Terror, with or without that ludicrous Bush 43-era
name, wasn't cutting it anymore. It was, and still is, good for keeping America's perpetual war
regime going and for undoing civil liberties, but there had never been much glory in it, only
endless misery for all. Also it was getting old and increasingly easy to see through.
The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded,
fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed
far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria.
This was not the only factor behind the Obama administration's "pivot towards Asia," its
largely failed attempt to take China down a notch or two, but it was an important part of the
story.
However, by the time Obama and his team decided to pivot, China had become too important to
the United States economically to make a good Cold War enemy. Worse still, it had for too long
been an object of pity and contempt, not fear.
When the Soviet Union was an enemy, China was an enemy too, most glaringly during the Korean
War. It remained an enemy even after the Sino-Soviet split became too obvious to deny. However,
unlike post-1917 Russia, it had never quite become an historical foe.
Moreover, as Russia began to recover from the Yeltsin era, the Russian political class, and
many of the oligarchs behind them, sensing the popular mood, decided that the time was ripe "to
make Russia great again." Putin is not so much a cause as he is a symptom – and symbol
– of this aspiration.
And so, there it was: the longed for new Cold War would be much like the one that seemed
over a quarter century ago.
***
As everyone who has seen, heard or read anything about the 2016 election "knows," Russian
intelligence services (= Putin) meddled. Everyone also "knows" that, with midterm elections
looming, they are at it again.
This, according to the mainstream consensus view, is a bona fide casus belli , a
justification for war. To be sure, what they want is a war that remains cold; ending life on
earth, as we know it, is not on their agenda.
But inasmuch as cold wars can easily turn hot, this hardly mitigates the recklessness of
their machinations. Humankind was extraordinarily lucky last time; there is no guarantee that
all that luck will hold.
Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is
still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional
wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting
the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts
in the UK and other allied nations.
Time was when anyone with any sense understood that these intelligence services, the
American ones especially, are second to none in meddling in the affairs of other nations, and
that the American national security state – essentially our political police -- is
comprised, by design, of liars and deceivers.
How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News
demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who
are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims!
Try as they might, the manufacturers and guardians of conventional wisdom have so far been
unable to concoct a plausible story in which Russian meddling affected the outcome of the 2016
election in any serious way. The idea that the Russians defeated Hillary, not Hillary herself,
is, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, "nonsense on stilts." Leading Democrats and their
media flacks don't seem to mind that either.
They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared
to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and
gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia,
the Gulf monarchies, and Israel.
Nevertheless, it probably is true that the Russians meddled. Cold War revivalists can
therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with
which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth.
Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet
republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse
American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American
"democracy" can plausibly allege.
Moreover, it should go without saying that the democracy they purport to care so much about
has almost nothing to do with "the rule of the demos." It doesn't even have much to do with
free and fair competitive elections – unless "free and fair" means that anything goes, so
long as the principals and perpetrators are homegrown or citizens of favored nations.
Self-righteous posturing aside, Putin's real sin in the eyes of the American power elite is
that, in his own small way, he has been defying America's "right" to run the world as it sees
fit.
When Clinton was president, Serbia did that, and lived to regret it. Cuba has been suffering
for nearly six decades for the same reason, and now Venezuela is paying its dues. The empire is
merciless towards nations that rebel.
With Soviet support and then with sheer determination and grit, Cuba has been able to
withstand the onslaught to some extent from Day One. Venezuela may not be so lucky –
especially now that Republicans and Democrats feel threatened by the growing number of
"democratic socialists" in their midst. Already, the propaganda system is targeting Venezuelan
"socialism," blaming it for that country's woes, and warning that if our newly minted,
homegrown socialists prevail, a similar fate will be in store for us.
This is ludicrous, of course – American hostility and the vagaries of the global oil
market deserve the lion's share of the blame. But the on-going propaganda blitz could
nevertheless pave the way for horrors ahead, should Trump decide to start a war America could
actually win.
Inconsequential Russian meddling is a big deal on the "liberal" cable networks, on NPR, and
in the "quality" press. Democrats and a few Republicans love to bleat on about it. But it is
Ukraine that made Russia our "adversary" and its president Public Enemy Number One.
Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons,
liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State
– that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's
Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the
Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently
anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian
speaking Ukrainians in the east.
But never mind: Putin – that is, the Russia government – violated international
law by sending troops briefly into beleaguered Russian-speaking parts of the country. That they
were generally welcomed by the people living there is of no importance.
Worst of all, Russia annexed Crimea – a territory integral to the Russian empire since
the eighteenth century. Since long before the Russian Revolution, Crimea has been home to a
huge naval base vital to Russia's strategic defense.
The story line back in the day was that anything that could be described as Russian
aggression outside the Soviet Union's agreed upon sphere of influence had to do with spreading
Communism. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to keep Communist and other
insurgencies from upending the status quo. The mainstream narrative was wrong.
Now Communism is gone and nothing has taken its place. Even so, the idea that Russia has
designs on its neighbors for ideological reasons is hard to shake – in part because it is
actively promoted by propagandists who have suddenly and uncharacteristically become defenders
of international law.
Meanwhile, of course, the hypocrisies keep piling on. It is practically a tenet of the
American civil religion that international law applies to others, not to the United States.
This is why, when it suits some perceived purpose, America flaunts its violations
shamelessly.
Thus nothing the Russians did or are ever likely to do comes close to the shenanigans Bill
Clinton displayed – successfully, for the most part – in his efforts to tear Kosovo
away from Serbia. Clinton even went so far as to bomb Belgrade; Putin never bombed Kiev.
The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic
systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist
centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one
that emerged after World War II.
However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War
revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism,
suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had
little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with
maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a
demonstrably aggressive "free world."
George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom." "They" would be
radical Islamists of the kind stirred into action in Afghanistan by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his
co-thinkers in the Carter administration. Their objective was to undermine the Soviet Union by
getting it bogged down in a quagmire like the one that did so much harm to the United States in
Vietnam.
That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they"
are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America
and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that
ensued.
The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago
never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's
Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved."
However, the American public is not as naïve as it used to be, and it is impossible to
say, at this point, how well this new story line will work.
Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But
this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply
cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free.
It is hard to believe, but there are people who are actually buying this but, with a lot of
corporate media assistance, there are. No matter how clear it is that they are not worth being
taken seriously, Cold War mythologies just won't die.
However, it is worth pondering why today's Russia would do what it is alleged to have done;
and why, as is also alleged, it is still doing it.
From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward
off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at
blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails
in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and
abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies.
However, in view of prevailing power relations, these are interests it cannot do much to
advance. Acting as if this were not the case only puts Russia in a bad light -- not for
meddling, but for meddling stupidly.
No doubt, for reasons both fair and foul, Putin wanted Hillary to lose the election two
years ago. So, but for one little problem, would anyone whose head is screwed on right. That
problem's name is Donald Trump.
Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified.
But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be
even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a
vote for catastrophe.
Putin's enemy was Trump's enemy, and it is axiomatic that "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend" -- except sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, my enemy's enemy is an enemy far worse.
For reasons that remain obscure, Putin and Trump seem to have a "thing" going on between
them. Some day perhaps we will know what that is all about. For now, though, the hard and very
relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm,
Russia.
It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as
hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been.
If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have
realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be
of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for
America and its allies but for Russia too.
Therefore, if there really was Russian meddling, as there probably was, Putin should be
ashamed – not so much for the DNC reasons laid out 24/7 on MSNBC and CNN, but for
overestimating Trump's abilities and for underestimating the extent to which what started out
as a maneuver of Hillary Clinton's, concocted to excuse her incompetence, would take a
perilously "viral" turn, becoming a major threat to peace in a political culture that never
quite got beyond the lunacy of the First Cold War.
In the post-Soviet period, in addition to the color revolutions supported by the West
outside Russia, the West has been involved inside Russia as well. Washington was also involved
in helping Boris Yeltsin resist the August 1991 and October 1993 coups. Washington was
indirectly involved in Boris Yeltsin's 1996 re-election campaign. As I have mentioned several
times, a VERY reliable source confided to me that the xerox copying paper box filled with half
a million dollars being transported for later use by Yeltsin's pro-democracy camp but
intercepted by Yeltsin's hardline operatives consisted of U.S. funds. For a less revealng
inkling of the kind of involvement see Time magazine's July 1996 article "Saving
Boris"( http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html
or https://offgraun.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/201612201405.pdf
). McFaul noted that the three American consultants to Russian President Boris Yeltsin's 1996
re-election campaign -- George Gorton, Joe Shumate, and Richard Dresner -- contracted by Oleg
Soskovets, a former first deputy prime minister whom Yeltsin named head of his campaign, were
"breaking Russia's law against foreigners' working directly in campaigns" ( www.weeklystandard.com/yanks-brag-press-bites/article/8538
). In addition, the IMF released a several billion dollar tranche of economic assistance on the
election's eve to buttress Yeltsin further. Yeltsin's government was infested with US advisors,
some of whom engaged in corrupt practices of insider trading on the Russian stock market as
part of their 'democracy-promotion' efforts.
The U.S. government's Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty , among other government
organs, carried out propaganda defending post-Soviet Russia's jihadi separatists for years (see
https://gordonhahn.com/2015/02/18/caucasus-jihadism-through-western-eyes-the-failure-of-american-rusology-to-understand-the-north-caucasus-mujahedin/
and https://gordonhahn.com/2017/11/04/whos-been-interfering-in-whose-politics/
). One 'small' example among very many was noted in a paper I published seven years ago: "Less
than three weeks after CE (Caucasus Emirate or 'Imarat Kavkaz') amir Umarov sent a suicide
bomber to attack Moscow's Domodedovo Airport killing 37 and wounding more than 200,
RFERL 's 'chief Caucasus correspondent' Liz Fuller praised him as a 'father' who
restrains the mujahideen: "If these young men [the CE's younger mujahideen] have not become the
callous brutes Khasbulatov anticipated, much of the credit must surely lie with the older
commanders who were fathers before they became ghters, and have since assumed the role of
father gures to the younger generation of insurgents: the natural-born pedagogue Abdullayev;
Tarhan; Mansur; and even Umarov, seen receiving a lial embrace from Hadji-Murat at the very end
of this clip" [Liz Fuller, "Chechnya's Youngest Insurgents," RFERL , February 14,
2011, www.rferl.org/content/blog/2308952.html ,
last accessed on 28 February 2018 and cited in Gordon M. Hahn, Getting the Caucasus Emirate
Right (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, August 2011), p. 14, fn
14]. Again, the 'Umarov' RFERL 's Liz Fuller, whose salary was paid from your taxes,
was the amir of the Caucasus Emirate while it carried out nearly 60 suicide bombings and
several thousand other terrorist attacks in Russia from 2007-2013, after which the bulk of its
'Chechen national resistance' fighters (most not frm Chechnya but from Dagestan,
Kabardino-Balkaria and elsewehere in Russia as well as from abroad) ensconced to Syria and Iraq
to 'fight for Chechen independence' while those back home officially joined the Islamic State
(ISIS). For a similar Fuller article hailing the 'work' of the small Islamo-ultranationalist
Chechen, non-CE terrorist cell, see "Remembering Mansur," RFERL , March 17, 2011,
http://www.rferl.org/content/caucasus_re-
port_remembering_mansur/2341725.html.
The main reason for Russia's restrictions on NGO activity inside the country is that the
very same Western government-tied organizations that funded color revolutionary activity in
Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere -- USAID, NED, DNI, RNI, and so on -- were funding
indirectly Russian political opposition-oriented organizations. The reason media are now
included under these restrictive regime lies in the West's massive propaganda, disinformation,
and strategic communications infrastructure – typified in its output by articles such as
the one supporting jihadi and Islamo-nationalist terrorists in Russia – in comparison
with which Russia's is a weak imitation (
https://gordonhahn.com/2018/01/22/russian-propaganda-machine-much-ado-about-little-as-compared-with-western-stratcomm-update/
).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
San Jose, California, www.cetisresearch.org .
Dr. Hahn is the author of Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the 'New Cold
War (McFarland Publishers, 2017) and three previously and well-received books:
Russia's Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet
Communist Regime, 1985-2000 (Transaction Publishers, 2002); Russia's Islamic
Threat (Yale University Press, 2007); and The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global
Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014).He has
published numerous think tank reports, academic articles, analyses, and commentaries in both
English and Russian language media and has served as a consultant and provided expert testimony
to the U.S. government.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia. He
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies and the Kennan Institute in Washington DC as well as the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University.
This professor looks like a typical neoliberal professor of economics, as usually such people are in the US Universities. His level
of understanding the history of Russia and Baltic countries suggests that he is a mixture of n ignorant jerk with a propagandist. Russia
was royally raped by the West in 1991-2000. The damage was probably comparable with the damage from communism. Trillions were looted.
"Americans cannot fathom what it is like to have entire cities destroyed or badly-damaged by bombs and artillery and have ruthless
armies fight each other over their territories" how about Dresden, Nagasaki, North Korea, Fallujah, Aleppo to name a few. Noam Chomsky
has observed: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."
Notable quotes:
"... Americans cannot fathom what it is like to have entire cities destroyed or badly-damaged by bombs and artillery and have ruthless armies fight each other over their territories. Nor can we imagine having governments carry out massive executions of people whose only "crime" was not being what the government leadership wanted them to be. We cannot imagine the starvation, the disease, and watching family and friends be shipped off to places like Siberia where they surely would die terrible deaths. ..."
"... Bill Anderson travels, but sometimes he sees what he wants to see. ..."
"... Seeing the splinter in other men eyes. Not the tree in own. After the USSR birth, a U.S, with friends, invaded Russia. From that moment to now history is full of conflicted horrors. Standing out WW 2, and many more like Korea and Vietnam. Scars can be seeing all over the planet except the U.S. The writer of article must be a exceptional person. ..."
"... Their best weapon is "weaponized credit" which sheep see but don't understand ..."
"... The [neoliberal] deep state is about impoverishing the masses so that they keep their mouths shut, they don't give a rats ass if your liberal or conservative, black or white, yellow or orange, just keep your mouth shut about them. ..."
So, we drove onto St. Petersburg mostly on a two-lane road cut through the boreal forest of the northern latitudes. It was here
that I witnessed something that amazed all of us – how vehicle drivers cooperated to turn two lanes into de facto four lanes of traffic.
As faster drivers moved to pass slower vehicles, the slower vehicles would move onto the asphalt shoulder and even as our bus
moved over the center line, the oncoming traffic would shift to the right, too. It all was spontaneously coordinated and everyone
on the road was in on the scheme.
Entering St. Petersburg was an experience in itself. With five million people spread over a number of islands, we saw new high-rises
standing alongside the old Soviet-era apartment buildings. No one, however, comes to St. Petersburg to see the relics of the U.S.S.R.
Instead, they come to see the czarist palaces and the stunning 18thand 19th century architecture that dominates the city. It may
be the birthplace of the Bolshevik Revolution, but people come to pay homage to the way of life the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy
and to Czar Nicholas II and his family,
infamously and brutally murdered on Lenin's
orders in 1918.
A century later, the bones of the last royal family of Russia lie safely in St. Peter and Paul Cathedral. Despite more than 70
years of communist rule, and despite all of the blood spilled to keep the likes of Lenin, Stalin, and the others in power, and despite
the massive propaganda that ordinary people in the U.S.S.R. had to endure, St. Petersburg is the city of the czars, not the Bolsheviks.
Parts of St. Petersburg are run down – as nearly the entire city was during the days of communism – but other parts of it absolutely
are amazing to see. Likewise, I enjoyed interacting with the locals and especially the young people that made up most of the workforce
of our hotel, from running the desks to cleaning our rooms. The legendary dour Soviet worker was replaced by a competent employee
who patiently answered our questions and took care of whatever we needed. For all of the talk in the USA that Russia is a dictatorship
under the iron thumb of Vladimir Putin, Russia did not seem like a dictatorship. Our Russian tour guide often would take a swipe
at Putin (including likening his face to a painting of dogs at the Hermitage) and life itself there seemed to have the kind of normalcy
that could not have been possible when people were compelled to inform on one another.
The St. Petersburg we visited was not the Leningrad that Logan Robinson described in his humorous 1982 book
An American in Leningrad , which
described life as a post-graduate student living among Russian students and developing friendships with local writers, artists, and
musicians, people who often harassed, persecuted, and arrested by local authorities. That city was an armed camp full of soldiers
and had been relegated to being a backwater by Joseph Stalin and his successors who made Moscow the Soviet "showplace," leaving the
city founded by Peter the Great to succumb to the northerly elements.
... ... ...
Americans cannot fathom what it is like to have entire cities destroyed or badly-damaged by bombs and artillery and have ruthless
armies fight each other over their territories. Nor can we imagine having governments carry out massive executions of people whose
only "crime" was not being what the government leadership wanted them to be. We cannot imagine the starvation, the disease, and watching
family and friends be shipped off to places like Siberia where they surely would die terrible deaths.
spooz ,
This article is red-baiting propaganda, aren't we getting enough of that from the Democratic party Everybody with a brain realizes
that there are differences between communism and the democratic socialism that is becoming popular in the US, but some the Mises
misers like to dupe the ignorant into conflating the two.
Democratic Socialism:
In very simplistic terms, paraphrasing from A. J. Elwood, Democratic Socialism:
Work together to ensure social equality and to improve one another's lives.
Reject the exploitation of all peoples and uphold the principles of equality.
Value the environment and use our natural resources in a sustainable manner.
Ensure free and open elections, where each citizen has a voice and a vested interest in his or her government.
Provide free education to all to ensure equal opportunity and the free flow of ideas, opinions, and information.
Protect and assist the disadvantaged using surplus from both public and privately owned enterprise.
Deliver quality health care to all citizens, regardless of their needs or socio-economic status
The US has let the excesses of Capitalism control our country, with wealthy owning our legislature and receiving bail outs
and tax cuts to preserve their wealth, while a growing percentage of the formerly middle class is thrown under the bus, with no
savings and no way to make a living wage. Those millennials don't see any way of achieving what used to be the American Dream
and are looking for some help with their struggle.
Most modern countries have a mix of socialism and capitalism.
"The United Nations World Happiness Report
2013 shows that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe, where the
Nordic model of social democracy is employed, with Denmark
topping the list." (wikipedia)
moon_unit ,
Bill Anderson travels, but sometimes he sees what he wants to see.
Let's take some points:
-He saw a "*small* railroad boxcar". Very romantic but - Soviet boxcars were fricken' huge, the rail gauge is massive. Pics
with a person next to it, or it didn't happen. IF it was very small, it was more likely a technical wagon for railway engineers,
not for "cargo" of any kind. Plus, anyone alive bitching about it clearly had parents , most likely that never left
to go anywhere , you know what I'm saying here?
-He went to Jurmala sea resort and misunderstood it, thought it was "all Soviet", all built for "nomenklatura". This is not
unusual to think so, but he was wrong - it was largely built as a Spa town in the 1850s during the Russian Empire times by the
majority wealthy *German* ethnic group in Riga. In fact German was the main language in the city up to 1891. Most of those large
spa town wooden houses were built for German traders - who traded with the locals outside Riga, Brits and Russians. The city had
a British Mayor George Armitstead from 1901 - 1912 during the Russian Empire - a civil engineer and the city's most popular mayor
ever, who built the first tram lines, hospitals, covered markets and so on.
The Balts kicked those German traders out starting from around 1880 or so. If you check out cemeteries you will see a sudden
transition from elegant old German noble script to badly-spelled early variant local language with German styles and lettering.
Of course that improved as they created formalised spellings for words in the local languages.
The author fails to mention all the other occupants that he doesn't want you to know about - briefly-
-German Crusaders (Knights of the Livonian Order / Teutonic Knights)- Holy Roman Empire - 12thC
-Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 16thC
-Swedes 1621-1710
-Russian Tsarist Empire 1710 - 1918 -trading with German Riga / Brits and Russian language only imposed officially in 1891
-Local people perpetrators - no kidding, Herberts Cukurs, Viktors Arajs?
Photos of people in mass graves - sure you didn't "make a mistake"? - if you mean at Skede beach, Rumbuli and Bikernieki forests,
and Salapspils, those were killed by everyones "special Germans* (and of course the local militia commanders Cukurs and Arajs)
in everyone's "special German 3-year era" from 1942-44. Oddly, no-one seems interested in the hundreds of years of genuine
Geman noble culture and trading in what was essentially a German Empire freeport ...
Certainly there was a book about some Soviet killing mass graves elsewhere but it turns out the book about that was funded
and printed by a certain Josef Goebbels? No doubt it was true, but aren't people a little embarrassed at carrying that book, perhaps
a different author at least, maybe a historian would be less shameful to carry around?
-Freer wealthier - oh sure, if you put aside mass emigration, houses without heat or water or sewerage, destitute pensioners
walking in the streets in winter with supermarket bags on their legs to try to avoid frostbite - not always successfully
, by the way.
-"The citizens of the Baltic countries were not the only ones suffering under communism. No other city in the U.S.S.R. underwent
the horror of a 900-day siege by German armies during World War II" - that's hardly their fault, now is it?
-"as I sat in the Old Town section of Riga eating and drinking and listening to live music, I strained to imagine the place
as a battle zone with death and destruction all around where now I sat" - yeah, like when the Russians and Brits were trying
to keep out Napoleon's armies? Hmmm?
-"I imagined the stores that now are full of goods and restaurants with food and drink being empty or stocked with subpar merchandise
in the aftermath of the war as the Soviets imposed their primitive communist system and oppressed the people in the name
of "liberating" them for many decades until they finally left in the early 1990s"- you have a great imagination. You should write
film scripts for Hollywood. Some of those people are still walking around, try telling them they are primitives.
-"No, I cannot see people in our cities having experienced anything like what the people of the Baltics and St. Petersburg had
to tolerate for decades." - tolerate things like electronics factories, car and van production, science institutes, shipbuilding
and repair, ladies who aren't afraid of math or computers, that kind of thing? But sure, they couldn't get debt, mass prostitution,
Hasselhoff and blue jeans, consumer junk or type II diabetes, that is a total provocation, right you are .
LA_Goldbug ,
I also smell a lot of BS in this article. I visited Eastern Europe before and know exactly what is being mentioned. Elites
IN ALL COUNTRIES have their favorite hideaways. That is a norm in the West, East and anywhere else.
Boxcars at train stations are nothing new. Latvia is poor and probably has lots of them from way way back because THAT WAS
THE STANDARD design for a multi-purpose wagon in Eastern Europe. Why throw away something that does the job ?? But to say it was
"the one" used to transport people to camps is a huge stretch. Hell I could point to Boeings and say "That is the one sending
people to Guantanamo".
demoses ,
As an eastern European I can tell you that I do not get triggered by old monuments / words / city names. I guess that is a
"no real problems" American problem... where you lack other problems and have a hard time looking around what could trigger you...
"oh no! A company called MANpower!!! MAN???" and maybe "country called MonteNEGRO? How dare they?" ;)
Nexus789 ,
These Mises wankers write as if they have found utopia and the US is some kind of 'market' paradise They are foot soldiers
for the one percent.
LA_Goldbug ,
Here is how Utopia looks lest the Eu readers think otherwise.
Seeing the splinter in other men eyes. Not the tree in own. After the USSR birth, a U.S, with friends, invaded Russia.
From that moment to now history is full of conflicted horrors. Standing out WW 2, and many more like Korea and Vietnam. Scars
can be seeing all over the planet except the U.S. The writer of article must be a exceptional person.
LA_Goldbug ,
Their best weapon is "weaponized credit" which sheep see but don't understand.
CaptainObvious ,
"Americans cannot fathom what it is like to have entire cities destroyed or badly-damaged by bombs and artillery and
have ruthless armies fight each other over their territories."
Sure we can. Look at Detroit. Look at Baltimore. Look at Chicago. Those look pretty warn-torn to me. But I guess the "War on
Poverty" and the "War on Drugs" don't count, eh? And I guess drive-by shootings and purposefully-fomented riots and civil asset
forfeiture and excessive taxation aren't weapons of mass destruction either.
"Nor can we imagine having governments carry out massive executions of people whose only "crime" was not being what the government
leadership wanted them to be."
Yeah, we tax mules are pretty familiar with the bowel-crippling fear that any envelope marked "IRS" causes. Men have certainly
been introduced to the economic execution of being stripped of all their assets because they knocked some slut up. People of all
ages and colors have been locked away in jail for 50 years for having a baggy of green stuff in their pocket. And, the horror!,
it's now a crime punishable by jail time to call someone by the wrong gender pronouns in the People's Republic of Kalifornia.
But yeah, economic execution and unjustified imprisonment don't happen here in the Land of the Free ™ , so it's all good.
"We cannot imagine the starvation, the disease, and watching family and friends be shipped off to places like Siberia where
they surely would die terrible deaths."
Oh, sure we can. We see starving people every day on the streets, made homeless by a drug addiction that was introduced to
them by a licensed physician. We watch family and friends shipped off to Bankruptcy court because some fucktarded jury awarded
a scam artist seven figures for manufacturing a slip-and-fall in the Mom & Pop Pizza Palace. We watch our loved ones die every
day from medical malpractice and toxic prescriptions.
No equivalency, you say? Well, to that I say balls. Russia was never free. After they abolished serfdom in the nineteenth century,
the system was still in place that the aristocracy held most of the land and the peasants farmed that land for a pittance. In
America, the laws abolished slavery and sweatshops, but the system is still in place that the tycoons own most of the assets and
the peasants sweat their best years away in a cubicle, or behind a cash register, or under someone else's machinery, for a pittance.
Am I advocating for communism? Hell, no! I'm advocating for an end to the corporatocracy and small-business-killing legislation.
Most ordinary Americans who become wealthy do so because they had the gumption to start their own business. But they can't do
that if all laws favor the already-established, and they can't do that if they're required to burn half a lifetime's worth of
cash for an official piece of paper from a gubmint-subsidized center of indoctrination, and they can't do that if they're supposed
to be licensed and bonded to do something simple like trim the hair of another human.
OverTheHedge ,
Hyperbole to make your point is fine, but the reality is that fat, soft seppos have absolutely no idea.
Actually, that last one proves me wrong - there are SOME Americans who know precisely what a destroyed city looks like - they
have been doing the destroying for the last 20 years, and at fully up to speed with what it entails. The question will be: who
will they be destroying for, should it ever come home to roost?
ddiduck ,
The [neoliberal] deep state is about impoverishing the masses so that they keep their mouths shut, they don't give a rats
ass if your liberal or conservative, black or white, yellow or orange, just keep your mouth shut about them.
Best is if you fight amongst yourselves and play make believe. Do you feel prosperous now? They like it when you you really
get violent toward each other, great scam huhhh? It is called misdirection, want to toast some asses start with Soros, Rothschilds
nad Rockefeller, greatest criminals against humanity! By the way, these mother fk'rs are satanic and bleed children out regularly!
Now take pause and consider this when deciding who the real villain in your unfair world is!
louie1,
Like all Zionist globalist neocon revolutions they are bloody, indiscriminate and sociopathic. The same gang are running the
USA now. And the world central banking system.
"... From before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has been cultivating a commercial and political elite abroad that we could "work with." As in most of the developing world during the Cold War, that meant that post-communist Russia was an oligarchy kept in money and power by IMF loans, graft, private militias and death squads. ..."
We helped put the Oligarchs into business, Putin reigned them in so he has to go
From before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has been cultivating a
commercial and political elite abroad that we could "work with." As in most of the developing
world during the Cold War, that meant that post-communist Russia was an oligarchy kept in
money and power by IMF loans, graft, private militias and death squads.
Such was the case during the Boris Yeltsin's government that presided over the Russian
Federation, a self-contained trading bloc shorn of half of its richest territories. The
result of loss of most military spending and trade resulted in an average 50% loss in real
living standards for the typical Russian in the depths of the Depression during the early
1990s. What grew out of the rubble was the New Russia controlled by the Oligarchs, run by
returning members of Russian ethnic organized crime families once scattered around the world
and remnants of the KGB, party bosses, and former Soviet military who couldn't move enough
their assets out of the country while the door was still open. For Deripaska, that door
closed the other way in 2006, when he lost his US B-1 visa, which meant that he had to make a
deal with the FBI's McCabe and other US intelligence handlers to reenter the U.S. to access
his stash deposited in Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
Is Oleg really Putin's "closest oligarch", as is again repeated here in the Times?
The arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the owner of Yukos Oil Co., one of the world's major
oil suppliers on October fifth, 2003 was a signal that things would never be the same for the
oligarchs. By the time he took his third term as Russian President in 2012, Putin had put
highly concentrated large industries increasingly under state supervision, curtailing the
effective power and range of operation of many oligarchs, restricting the movement of private
wealth out of the country, including that of Oleg Deripaska, whom he publicly humiliated in
2009, as seen in this video.
Bill Clinton and his merry gang (which included Rubin and Summers) was of course a gang of short-sighted amoral bottom feeders in dealing
with Russia, but he was just a puppet of the neoliberal elite, which has a clear strategy -- decimating Russia
Notable quotes:
"... Surely, this conforms to the Outlaw US Empire's Imperialism via which its goal is the Full Spectrum Domination (FSD) of the planet and its people. ..."
"... Some would consider that as Totalitarianism -- the doctrine of total control. During its drive to attain FSD, certain aspects must be masked from the Empire's public since relatively unfettered freedom is featured as one of its alleged values, which is why the many undemocratic aspects of various "trade" agreements are never discussed and negotiated in secret, for example. ..."
the testimony before
the Outlaw US Empire's Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Wess Mitchell:
"Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and ideological wherewithal to contest U.S. primacy
and leadership in the 21st Century. It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to
prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration's foreign policy is to
prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments
of American power."
Mitchell mentions a document I wasn't able to locate, the "Russia Integrated Strategy," but I was able to find what appears
to be
its predecessor , "Russia Project Strategy, 2014-2017."
Surely, this conforms to the Outlaw US Empire's Imperialism via which its goal is the Full Spectrum Domination (FSD) of the
planet and its people.
Some would consider that as Totalitarianism -- the doctrine of total control. During its drive to attain FSD, certain
aspects must be masked from the Empire's public since relatively unfettered freedom is featured as one of its alleged values,
which is why the many undemocratic aspects of various "trade" agreements are never discussed and negotiated in secret, for
example. What do we call a government that directly lies to its populous? What sort of ism is in play?
Hopefully barflies and others will read these documents and shudder, although I'm
sure a few will say "So, what's new?" Well, this goes far beyond the millennia long, ongoing Class War, and confirms what I've
been saying for awhile now -- We're already within a Hybrid Third World War being waged by people who want everything or nothing.
What sort of ism's that? In my book, it's the worst form of Authoritarianism anyone might imagine.
1) You pay your taxes
2) You pay your employees
3) There will be no asset stripping
Bill Browder (of Magnitsky fame) broke all these rules while pillaging Russia. From
1995–2006 his company, Hermitage Capital Management, siphoned untold billions of
dollars out of Russia into offshore accounts while paying no taxes and cheating workers of
wages and pensions.
Putin put an end to US and UK backed shysters stealing Russia blind. Is it any wonder the
western oligarchs hate him with such a passion?
"... The evidence is clear, Biden and Obama got the Magnitsky Act passed, and one of those two is not 'white', which is not the issue, anyway -- the issue is money, power and control. ..."
If Russia were trying to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, it wouldn't
be attempting to change the US system but to prevent it from trying to change Russia's,
argues Diana Johnstone.
Sojourner Truth , August 28, 2018 at 6:27 pm
Some perspective on Khordokovsky, et al can be found here:
A rather vague statement, Dick Vain, but it appears you support the 'unipolar hegemony'?
Hard to tell what you intend by use of 'privilege'. Diana Johnstone's article documents the
activities of Khodorkovsky, Browder, Gessen, who continue to agitate against Putin. There are
others. So what's your point, and what's the b.s.?
The evidence is clear, Biden and Obama got
the Magnitsky Act passed, and one of those two is not 'white', which is not the issue, anyway
-- the issue is money, power and control.
Diana Johnstone's immeasurably important, timely, extraordinary exposition of true facts
– truth rarely, if ever, acknowledged in the United States Congress and/or Western
media – represents what can most certainly be described as "historic gamechanger".
How much privilege does it take to write these words:
"Russian interference in American politics is totally welcome so long as it helps turn
public opinion against "multipolar" Putin, glorifies American democracy, serves U.S.
interests, including the military industries, helps break down national borders (except those
of the United States and Israel) and puts money in appropriate pockets in the halls of
Congress."
By estimate it doesn't matter as long as it's white
Trading in one devil for another
People who support this bullshit upside down line of thinking are welcome to jump off a
cliff really.
The Power Elite are facing an abyss, of real war and defeat, or simply defeat as "assets"
are prepared in Syria for a showdown, with dozens of warships and so forth Meantime they
drivel about trivial stuff in "news" from the fascist press, and the Germans prepare to make
nice with Ivan (the satrapies are switching sides, alas!)
" The Western powers are moving inexorably towards Internet censorship, thereby
facilitating the dissemination of propaganda and war indoctrination in their countries. In
this context, an extremely violent tension is tearing apart the international scene. Aware of
the increasing risk of general confrontation, Moscow is attempting to find credible
interlocutors in the UNO and the United States. What is happening at the moment has seen no
equivalent since 1938, and could degenerate in the same way.,,,"
and (darkly) : "From Moscow's point of view, the war of aggression – by the
intervention of jihadist proxies – against Syria must cease, and the unilateral
sanctions by the US, Canada and the European Union against Russia must be lifted. The problem
that we must all now face is not the defence [sic] of democracy, but the danger of war.
Void of any legitimacy, a parallel hierarchy in New York and Washington intends to plunge
the world into a generalised [sic] conflict."
robjira , August 28, 2018 at 11:35 pm
Outstanding article by Meyssan; thanks for linking.
Really good elucidation of the double standard in American politics as it concerns Russian
interference.
modern99angel , August 28, 2018 at 11:46 am
"The greatest tool at the disposal of globalists is the use of false paradigms to
manipulate public perception and thus public action. The masses are led to believe that at
the highest levels of geopolitical and financial power there is such a thing as "sides." This
is utter nonsense when we examine the facts at hand.
We are told the-powers-that-be are divided by "Left" and "Right" politics, yet both sides
actually support the same exact policy actions when it comes to the most important issues of
the day and only seem to differ in terms of rhetoric, which is meaningless and cosmetic
anyway. That is to say, it's nothing but Kabuki theater.
The abuses of one "side" are being used to push us into the arms of the other side, which
is just as abusive.
In terms of geopolitics, we are told that national powers stand "at cross-purposes;" that
they have different interests and different goals, which has led to things like "trade wars"
and sometimes shooting wars. Yet, when we look at the people actually pulling the strings in
most of these countries, we find the same names and institutions. Whether you are in America,
Russia China, the EU, etc., globalist think tanks and international banks are everywhere, and
the leaders in all of these countries call for MORE power for such institutions, not
less.
These wars, no matter what form they take, are a circus for the public. They are
engineered to create controlled chaos and manageable fear. They are a means to influence us
towards a particular end, and that end, in most cases, is more social and economic influence
in the hands of a select few. In each instance, people are being convinced to believe that
the world is being divided when it is actually being centralized."
Angel, you are on point. What you describe about the two sides is the Hegelian Dialectic
in action. This is why the shadow rulers are desperate to maintain two-party duopoly.
Very enlightening article, by the way. Well done.
Walter , August 28, 2018 at 11:37 am
Russia does have an evident Policy to demonstrate and illuminate the "fissures in our
tapestry [of lies]".
This tapestry itself is US Policy, as incoming CIA boss Casey said: ""We'll Know Our
Disinformation Program Is Complete When Everything the American Public Believes Is False."
(look it up). RT and other Russian source keep showing the Americans and the rest of the
world that the "tapestry" is infested. This is a iconoclastic Policy burning the false gods
of myth.
It would not work if American propaganda told the truth but it happens that they must lie
– it's Policy set by the secret state, the "power elite" as C. Wright Mills termed it.
And it is a signal of proximate disaster read MacBeth "Hang those who speak of fear" on the
cusp of Banquo's defeat of poor old Mac .
The Quakers say "Tell the truth and shame the devil" – that's about what the Ruskies
are doing shaming the devil by exposing his lies.
An overlooked meddler is George Soros, who was also a player in the takedown of Russia and
has been kicked out by Putin and the Duma, his NGOs are not allowed to operate in Russia.
Orban has had him banned in Hungary. There are constant neoliberal apologists for Soros, but
his hidden hand working behind the scenes has been well documented. Russia, especially Putin,
is Soros' "white whale", as Alex Christoforou states in "Leaked Memo Exposes George Soros'
plan to overthrow Putin", 7/19/18: . "how the billionaire uses his vast wealth to create
global chaos in a neverending push to deliver his neoliberal euphoria to the peasant
classes". Alex Christoforou, sovereignnations.com, originally published on The Duran.
Larry Gates , August 28, 2018 at 10:45 am
Brilliant, insightful, lucid, full of interesting details. It is articles like this that
keep me coming back to Consortioum News.
"Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied hard to get Congress to pass the
Magnitsky Act. This type of "Russian interference intended to influence policy" goes
unnoticed while U.S. authorities scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls."
America has the gall to accuse Russia of doing something we do openly and to a far greater
extent.
Great article. Not sure about the mechanics of how a select few stole Russia's wealth.
Somewhere I read the thieves did not have to put up their own money, but performed the
conversion through Russian loans. The purchase prices were so low compared to the real value
of the assets that they became overnight billionaires. Don't now if they repaid the
loans.
Someone may have a different understanding of how it was done.
Great article.
Bob Van Noy , August 28, 2018 at 9:12 am
Thanks to all. It is crucial at this point to keep the so called Russiagate story in
context beyond the pages and discussion here at CN. To that extent I will offer an excellent
article from off Guardian by Eric Zuesse including some excellent links especially one
leading to an interview of Anne Williamson about her book on the subject. I will link the off
Guardian piece but I encourage those inclined to carefully follow all the links and video's
so that we can offer a clear counter to what happened in Russia and why
The political theater dubbed "Russiagate" (aren't we getting "gated" to death?) is looking
more and more like cover for the dirty deeds of Clinton, throwing more and more pooh at the
already-fatigued American public, trying to make Trump look like the bad guy so nobody
notices what really went on in Clinton world.
Tobey , August 28, 2018 at 8:28 am
Hermitage Capital Management can you correct that typo ?
mike k , August 28, 2018 at 8:07 am
Trying to predict what the crazy greedy power hungry bastards leading the human world to
it's extinction will do next, is the maddening game we are forced to play by their suicidal
games. No one can guess exactly how they will blunder into destroying us all, but their moves
in this direction are apparent,
backwardsevolution , August 28, 2018 at 6:31 am
This is a really good article entitled "Fixers":
"If there's one thing that is exposed in the sorry not-so-fairy tale of former Trump aides
Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, it's that Washington is a city run by fixers. Who often make
substantial amounts of money. Many though by no means all, start out as lawyers and figure
out that let's say 'the edges of what's legal' can be quite profitable.
And it helps to know when one steps across that edge, so having attended law school is a
bonus. Not so much to stop when stepping across the edge, but to raise one's fees. There's a
lot of dough waiting at the edge of the law. None of this should surprise any thinking
person. Manafort and Cohen are people who think in millions, with an easy few hundred grand
thrown in here and there. [ ]
Lanny Davis is a lawyer, special counsel even, for the Clintons. Has been for years. Which
makes it kind of curious that Michael Cohen would pick him to become his legal
representation. But that's not all Davis is involved in. Like any true fixer, he has his
hands in more cookie jars than fit in the average kitchen. [ ]
And now Davis, the Clinton fixer, is Michael Cohen's lawyer. The fixer defending a fixer.
So who pays the bill? Well, ostensibly no-one, because Davis started a Go Fund Me campaign
where people can donate so Cohen "can tell people the truth about Trump". The goal is
$500,000. Which goes to .. Lanny Davis. [ ]
In the end, I can draw only one conclusion: there are so many sharks and squids swimming
in the swamp that either it should be expanded or the existing one should be cleaned up and
depopulated. So bring it: investigate the FBI, the Clintons, and fixers like Lanny Davis and
Michael Avenatti, the same way the Trump camp has been.
Because if you don't do that, you can only possibly end up in an even bigger mess. You
can't drain half a swamp."
Lanny Davis proceeds to go on a whole bunch of talk shows, claiming the sky is falling,
and then in the next couple of days walks all of it back.
Another tactic of a psychopath: lie, lie and lie. Get the lie(s) out there any way you
can, create lots of damage. Then when you're called on what you've said, you just say
something like, "Yeah, I guess I had that wrong." The "walking back" is never covered as much
as the original lie.
Michael , August 28, 2018 at 8:20 am
The number of Establishment politicians and their lawyers protecting their turf (Ukraine
and Russia) seems to be multiplying. When Mueller did not arrest the Podesta Group and Greg
Craig, it was clear that his investigation was a partisan "get Trump" witch hunt; Mueller
destroyed his own credibility by not removing all the bad apples, just the Trump-brand
ones.
backwardsevolution , August 28, 2018 at 5:57 am
You can't even keep up with the actors and players in Russiagate's Theatre of the Absurd.
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC hire Perkins Coie, a law firm, in order to hide the
fact that they're doing opposition research with campaign funds. Perkins Coie hires Fusion
GPS, a research firm, and Fusion GPS hires Christopher Steele, a former MI6 British agent to
come up with some dirt on Trump. Then there's all of the DOJ, FBI and CIA actors who were in
on setting up Trump. Add the media into the mix and you've got quite a story of lies and
corruption.
Tomorrow Bruce Ohr (a lawyer and former number four official at the DOJ) gives testimony
before the House Intelligence Committee to explain his 70+ interactions with Christopher
Steele. His wife, Nellie Ohr, worked for Glen Simpson at Fusion GPS, and apparently Bruce Ohr
accidentally failed to mention that his wife was working for Fusion GPS on his DOJ disclosure
form.
Nellie Ohr, Harvard graduate in Russian history/literature and fluent in Russian, suddenly
decides to get her HAM radio licence in May of 2016. Could she have gotten this to get around
being tracked? Who knows.
This article makes the precipitous decline of America's middle class a bit clearer in
retrospect. The lawless free-for-all that was unleashed on America's economy after all the
rules and regulations were stricken from the books during the Clinton years was already being
put into effect in Russia–which theretofore had no need for laws to regulate rampant
capitalism which had completely disappeared from the country 70 years earlier. The elite
insiders in America saw how quickly and effectively a country could be picked clean in the
absence of restraints. By the time our own safeguards were erased during the 90's whilst
Russia was being pillaged, the transnational oligarchs were all set to pick America clean
during the Bush years, which they did using the MIC and the Wall Street financial
institutions against a background of deliberate war, fear and societal confusion.
By the time Candyman Obama took office, Main Street America was on the verge of economic
collapse, just like Russia. People were losing their jobs, their homes, their health, their
families, their self-respect and their hope. Obviously, the job the Obama administration was
chosen to do was to stabilise, but not cure the patient. Money stolen from future generations
of taxpayers through government borrowing was used to prop up the financial institutions on
the verge of collapse just as surely as Yeltsin's Russia stole from the collective to create
its oligarchs. But little to nothing was done to help the middle class so their economic
death spiral continues (any help for them would represent that demonic force called
"socialism!"), as it will until the vampire capitalists have extracted whatever life force
remains, whereupon they shall simply move on to their next targets–one of the
"developing countries" or "emerging economies" they are struggling mightily to control by
whatever means necessary, as if it is totally natural and permissible to preclude trade
between all of Central Asia and its neighbors in China or Russia, to say nothing of
monopolizing all relations with the America's, Europe, Africa, India and probably Mars.
Nothing is to be permitted unless Jeff Bezos says so.
This business of collecting NATO allies across the globe is simply setting them up for
future economic exploitation. And when sometime past mid-century after the resources have all
played out and ruined economies litter the landscape, I suppose the "masters of the universe"
orchestrating all of this will ultimately have to unleash their final solution for
"down-sizing" the population to fit the economic realities, be it a war, a plague, or simply
mass starvation. I don't think psychopaths will be burdened too much by guilt, besides there
won't be too many people left to cast blame on them. With all the computational resources of
the world at their disposal, I'm sure a million scenarios have been run on the supercomputers
in some bunker under a mountain near Davos looking for the tidiest fix. Not that WE would
know, but they may already be implementing some scheme drawn up by HAL9000, who by now
probably walks around in a flawless fembot body. (Ooops. Didn't realise I was plagiarizing
Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" with that last bit.)
Dave P. , August 28, 2018 at 7:48 pm
What an accurate sketch! Along with the future scenario planned for the humanity on the
planet. As always, your comments are closest to reality as one can get. Your comments are
valued very much.
backwardsevolution , August 28, 2018 at 12:03 am
"In 2016, Winer received the highest award granted by the Secretary of State, for
'extraordinary service to the U.S. government' in avoiding the massacre of over 3,000 members
of an Iranian dissident group in Iraq, and for leading U.S. policy in Libya 'from a major
foreign policy embarrassment to a fragile but democratic, internationally recognized
government.'"
OMG, high-fives and booyahs! Just look at what you get for failing!
Eduardo Cohen , August 27, 2018 at 11:54 pm
Excellent article. Very informative. I'm just surprised that in the listing of nations
from which people are welcome to seek
the interference of U.S. power to settle old scores or overthrow their government (Iraq,
Libya, Iran, Russian, Cuba) the very current examples of Venezuela, Nicaragua and Syria are
not mentioned. But still a great article.
Joe Tedesky , August 27, 2018 at 10:44 pm
At the rate the U.S. Hegemony Project is going America will be a leader with no
followers.
CJ wrote:
"Manipulators particularly use projection as a tactic to hide what they're doing to you in
plain sight. A manipulator can have you chasing your tail by simply suggesting that you or
others are doing what you are seeing them doing with your own eyes. DNC caught rigging the
election? Oh no, it was actually Russia who rigged the election by catching the DNC rigging
the election. See what I did there? It's so dumb, but it works."
Here DJ clues us in on another of the same sort of con, or more precisely, another aspect
of the same big con.
David G , August 27, 2018 at 9:46 pm
"One may question the selectivity of Bill Clinton's concern for international law
enforcement, which certainly did not cover violating international law by bombing defenseless
countries."
or catching international fugitives like Marc Rich.
Tom Kath , August 27, 2018 at 8:52 pm
We cannot jump to conclusions regarding Putin's MULTIpolar vision. At this stage BIpolar
would seem a more accurate description. – Still, a step in the right direction from
UNIpolar hegemony.
Tom Kath – and your reason for describing Russia as supporting a "Bipolar" rather
than multi-polar world would be the some 21 Russian military bases versus the U.S. having
almost 900 such bases? Perhaps you're referring to Russia's recent invasions and/or attempted
destabilizations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran
– oh, wait, that's the U.S. list. Help me out here – what am I missing Tom? Do I
need to tune into to Rachel for a few days to get up to snuff?
Excellent post. The anti-Russian absurdist psycho-carnival taking place for two years now
in U.S. mainstream media should be enough (in a sane society) to topple this house of cards
– along with its fantasy goal of "full spectrum dominance" – yet it soldiers on.
Perhaps only a self-inflicted nuclear winter can stop this mad machine and the assorted array
of absolute dolts at the helm. Oddly they would seem to vastly prefer this option to
accepting a multi-polar world – which of course speaks volumes regarding what passes
for "sanity" in U.S. ruling circles these days.
Jeff Harrison , August 27, 2018 at 8:13 pm
I vote for Vladimir Putin's multipolar vision of the world and against the US's vision of
a new Roman Empire.
"... "I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again," Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect." Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts." With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown behind a Russian presidential candidate. ..."
"... Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear: Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it, Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner. Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances. ..."
"... Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits, but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact, it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate in the Russian presidency. ..."
"... American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret. On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won, Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined, "Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris." ..."
"... This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. ..."
"... It is a delightful irony that shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today. ..."
FOR ONE OF THE world's major powers to interfere systematically in the presidential
politics of another country is an act of brazen aggression. Yet it happened.
Sitting in a distant capital, political leaders set out to assure that their
favored candidate won an election against rivals who scared them. They succeeded.
Voters were maneuvered into electing a president who served the interest of
the intervening power. This was a well-coordinated, government-sponsored project
to subvert the will of voters in another country -- a supremely successful piece
of political vandalism on a global scale.
The year was 1996. Russia was electing a president to succeed Boris Yeltsin,
whose disastrous presidency, marked by the post-Soviet social collapse and a
savage war in Chechnya, had brought his approval rating down to the single digits.
President Bill Clinton decided that American interests would be best served
by finding a way to re-elect Yeltsin despite his deep unpopularity. Yeltsin
was ill, chronically alcoholic, and seen in Washington as easy to control. Clinton
bonded with him. He was our "Manchurian Candidate."
"I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again,"
Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and
I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for
the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect."
Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts."
With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown
behind a Russian presidential candidate.
Part of the American plan was public. Clinton began praising Yeltsin as a
world-class statesman . He defended Yeltsin's scorched-earth tactics in Chechnya,
comparing him to Abraham Lincoln for his dedication to keeping a nation together.
As for Yeltsin's bombardment of the Russian Parliament in 1993, which cost 187
lives, Clinton insisted that his friend had "bent over backwards" to avoid it.
He stopped mentioning his plan to extend NATO toward Russia's borders, and never
uttered a word about the ravaging of Russia's formerly state-owned economy by
kleptocrats connected to Yeltsin. Instead he gave them a spectacular gift.
Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International
Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used
some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared
into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear:
Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it,
Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner.
Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his
rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances.
Four American political consultants moved to Moscow to help direct Yeltsin's
campaign. The campaign paid them $250,000 per month for advice on "sophisticated
methods of polling, voter contact and campaign organization." They organized
focus groups and designed advertising messages aimed at stoking voters' fears
of civil unrest. When they saw a CNN report from Moscow saying that voters were
gravitating toward Yeltsin because they feared unrest, one of the consultants
shouted in triumph: "It worked! The whole strategy worked. They're scared to
death!"
Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The
count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits,
but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce
the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact,
it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate
in the Russian presidency.
American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret.
On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a
country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin
and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the
right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland
but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won,
Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined,
"Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin
Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris."
This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in
the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened
his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. He turned the Chechen
capital, Grozny, into a wasteland. Standards of living in Russia fell dramatically.
Then, at the end of 1999, plagued by health problems, he shocked his country
and the world by resigning. As his final act, he named his successor: a little-known
intelligence officer named Vladimir Putin. It is a delightful irony that
shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the
United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years
ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today.
"... The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since Browder had given up his US citizenship in order to avoid paying US taxes, he had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other financial misdeeds. ..."
"... Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In his press conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin suggested allowing US authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller indictment in exchange for allowing Russian officials to question individuals involved in the Browder case, including Winer and former US ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was possible under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999, back in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend. ..."
"... In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage Capital Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky Act of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938 with Nazis in mind). Among the "lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely identified in the complaint as a "former Republican congressman"). ..."
"... The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar Russia. Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech at the 2007 Munich security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national sovereignty and develop in their own way. The current Russian government is against interference in other countries' politics on principle. It would naturally prefer an American government willing to allow this. ..."
"... The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic" system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country should have and how it should run its affairs ..."
The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was ostensibly a
conflict between two ideologies, two socio-economic systems.
All that seems to be over. The day of a new socialism may dawn unexpectedly,
but today capitalism rules the world. Now the United States and Russia are engaged
in a no-holds-barred fight between capitalists. At first glance, it may seem
to be a classic clash between rival capitalists. And yet, once again an ideological
conflict is emerging, one which divides capitalists themselves, even in Russia
and in the United States itself. It is the conflict between globalists and sovereignists,
between a unipolar and a multipolar world. The conflict will not be confined
to the two main nuclear powers.
The defeat of communism was brutally announced in a certain "capitalist manifesto"
dating from the early 1990s that proclaimed: "Our guiding light is Profit, acquired
in a strictly legal way. Our Lord is His Majesty, Money, for it is only He who
can lead us to wealth as the norm in life."
The
authors of this bold tract were Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who went on to become
the richest man in Russia, before spending ten years in a Russian jail, and
his business partner at the time, Leonid Nevzlin, who has since retired comfortably
to Israel.
Loans For Shares
Those were the good old days in the 1990s when the Clinton administration
was propping up Yeltsin as he let Russia be ripped off by the joint efforts
of such ambitious well-placed Russians and their Western sponsors, notably using
the "loans for shares" trick.
In a 2012 Vanity Fair
article on her hero, Khodorkovsky, the vehemently anti-Putin journalist
Masha Gessen frankly summed up how this worked:
The new oligarchs -- a dozen men who had begun to exercise the power that
money brought -- concocted a scheme. They would lend the government money,
which it badly needed, and in return the government would put up as collateral
blocks of stock amounting to a controlling interest in the major state-owned
companies. When the government defaulted, as both the oligarchs and the
government knew it would, the oligarchs would take them over. By this maneuver
the Yeltsin administration privatized oil, gas, minerals, and other enterprises
without parliamentary approval.
This worked so well that from his position in the Communist youth organization,
Khodorkovsky used his connections to get control of Russia's petroleum company
Yukos and become the richest oligarch in Russia, worth some $15 billion, of
which he still controls a chunk despite his years in jail (2003-2013). His arrest
made him a hero of democracy in the United States, where he had many friends,
especially those business partners who were helping him sell pieces of Yukos
to Chevron and Exxon. Khodorkovsky, a charming and generous young man, easily
convinced his American partners that he was Russia's number one champion of
democracy and the rule of law, especially of those laws which allow domestic
capital to flee to foreign banks and foreign capital to take control of Russian
resources.
Vladimir Putin didn't see it that way. Without restoring socialism, he dispossessed
Khodorkovsky of Yukos and essentially transformed the oil and gas industry from
the "open society" model tolerated by Yeltsin to a national capitalist industry.
Khodorkovsky and his partner Platon Lebedev were accused of having stolen all
the oil that Yukos had produced in the years 1998 to 2003, tried, convicted
and sentenced to 14 years of prison each. This shift ruined US plans, already
underway, to "balkanize" Russia between its many provinces, thereby allowing
Western capital to pursue its capture of the Russian economy.
The dispossession of Khodorkovsky was certainly a major milestone in the
conflict between President Putin and Washington. On November 18, 2005, the Senate
unanimously adopted
resolution 322 introduced by Joe Biden denouncing the treatment of the Khodorkovsky
and Lebedev as politically motivated.
Who Influences Whom?
Now let's take a look at the history of Russian influence in the United States.
It is obvious that a Russian who can get the Senate to adopt a resolution in
his favor has a certain influence. But when the "deep state" growls about Russian
influence, it isn't talking about Khodorkovsky. It's talking about a joking
response Trump made to a reporter's snide question during the presidential campaign.
In a variation of the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?" the reporter
asked if he would call on Russian President Vladimir Putin to "stay out" of
the election.
Since a stupid question does not deserve a serious answer, Trump said he
had "nothing to do with Putin" before adding, "Russia, if you're listening,
I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you
will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
Aha! Went the Trump haters. This proves it! Irony is almost as unwelcome
in American politics as honesty.
When President Trump
revoked his security clearance earlier this month, former CIA chef John
Brennan got his chance to spew out his hatred in the complacent pages of the
New York Times.
Someone supposed to be smart enough to head an intelligence agency actually
took Trump's joking invitation as a genuine request. "By issuing such a statement,"
Brennan wrote, "Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect
intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his
followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent."
The Russians, Brennan declared, "troll political, business, and cultural
waters in search of gullible or unprincipled individuals who become pliant in
the hands of their Russian puppet masters."
Which Russians do that? And who are those "individuals"?
'The Fixer in Chief'
To understand the way Washington works, nothing is more instructive than
to examine the career of lawyer Jonathan M. Winer, who proudly repeats that
in early 2017, the head of the Carnegie Endowment Bill Burns introduced him
as "the Fixer in Chief". Winer has long been unknown to the general public,
but this may soon change.
Let's see what the fixer has fixed.
Under the presidency of fellow Yalie Bill Clinton, Winer served as the State
Department's first Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Law Enforcement,
from 1994-1999. One may question the selectivity of Bill Clinton's concern for
international law enforcement, which certainly did not cover violating international
law by bombing defenseless countries. In any case, in 1999, Winer was awarded
for "virtually unprecedented achievements". Later we shall examine one of those
important achievements.
At the end of the Clinton administration, from 2008 to 2013, the Fixer in
Chief worked as high up consultant at one of the world's most powerful PR and
lobbying firms, APCO Worldwide. This is how the Washington revolving door functions:
after a few years in government finding out how things work, one then goes into
highly paid "consultancy" to sell this insider information and influential contacts
to private clients.
APCO got off to a big start some thirty years ago
lobbying
for Philip Morris and the tobacco industry in general.
In 2002, APCO launched something called the "Friends of Science" to promote
skepticism concerning the harmful effects of smoking. In 1993, the campaign
described its goals and objectives "encouraging the public to question – from
the grassroots up – the validity of scientific studies."
While Winer was at APCO, one of its major activities was hyping the Clinton
Global Initiative, an international networking platform promoting the Clinton
Foundation. APCO president and CEO Margery Kraus explained that the consultancy
was there to "help other CGI members garner interest for the causes they are
addressing, demonstrate their success and highlight the wide-ranging achievements
of CGI as a whole." Considering that only five percent of Clinton Foundation
turnover went to donations, they needed all the PR they could get.
Significantly, donations to the Clinton Global Initiative have dried up since
Hillary lost the presidential election. According to the
Observer : "Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling
the organization's clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather
than its philanthropic work."
This helps explain Hillary Clinton's panic when she lost in 2016. How in
the world can she ever reward her multi-million-dollar donors with the favors
they expected?
As well as the tobacco industry and the Clinton Foundation, APCO also works
for Khodorkovsky. To be precise, according to public listings, the fourth biggest
of APCO's many clients is the Corbiere Trust, owned by Khodorkovsky and registered
in Guernsey. The trust tends and distributes some of the billions that the oligarch
got out of Russia before he was jailed. Corbiere money was spent to lobby both
for Resolution 322 (supporting Khodorkovky after his arrest in Russia) and for
the Magnitsky Act (more later). Margery Kraus, APCO's president and CEO, is
a member of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's son Pavel's Institute of Modern Russia, devoted
to "promoting democratic values" – in other words, to building political opposition
to Vladimir Putin.
In 2009 Jonathan Winer went back to the State Department where he was given
a distinguished service award for having somehow rescued thousands of stranded
members of the Muhahedin-e Khalq from their bases in Iraq they were trying to
overthrow the Iranian government. The MeK, once officially recognized as a terrorist
organization by the State Department, has become a pet instrument in US and
Israeli regime change operations directed at Iran.
However, it was Winer's extracurricular activities at State that finally
brought him into the public spotlight early this year – or rather, the spotlight
of the House Intelligence Committee, whose chairman Devin Nunes (R-Cal) named
him as one of a network promoting the notorious "Steele Dossier" which accused
Trump of illicit financial dealing and compromising sexual activities in Russia.
By Winer's
own account , he had been friends with former British intelligence agent
Christopher Steele since his days at APCO. Back at State, he regularly channeled
Steele reports, ostensibly drawn from contacts with friendly Russian intelligence
agents, to Victoria Nuland, in charge of Russian affairs, and top Russian experts.
These included the infamous "Steele dossier". In September 2016, Winer's old
friend Sidney Blumenthal – a particularly close advisor to Hillary Clinton –
gave him notes written by a more mysterious Clinton insider named Cody Shearer,
repeating the salacious attacks.
All this dirt was spread through government agencies and mainstream media
before being revealed publicly just before Trump's inauguration, used to stimulate
the "Russiagate" investigation by Robert Mueller. The dossier has been discredited
but the investigation goes on and on.
So, it is all right to take seriously information allegedly obtained from
"Russian agents" and spread it around, so long as it can damage Trump. As with
so much else in Washington, double standards are the rule.
Jonathan Winer and the Magnitsky Act
Jonathan Winer played a major role in Congressional adoption of the "Sergei
Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012" (the Magnitsky Act), a measure
that effectively ended post-Cold War hopes for normal relations between Washington
and Moscow. This act was based on a highly contentious version of the November
16, 2009 death in prison of accountant Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky, as told
to Congress by hedge fund manager Bill Browder (grandson of Earl Browder, head
of the Communist Party USA 1934-1945). According to Browder, Magnitsky was a
lawyer beaten to death in prison as a result of his crusade for human rights.
However, as convincingly established by dissident Russian film-maker Andrei
Nekrasov's (banned) investigative documentary, the unfortunate Magnitsky was
neither a human rights crusader, nor a lawyer, nor beaten to death. He was an
accountant jailed for his role in Browder's business dealings, who died of natural
causes as a result of inadequate medical treatment. The case was hyped up as
a major human rights drama by Browder in order to discredit Russian charges
against himself.
In any case, by adopting a law punishing Magnitsky's alleged persecutors,
the US Congress acted as a supreme court judging internal Russian legal issues.
The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during
the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since
Browder had given up his US citizenship in order to avoid paying US taxes, he
had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other
financial misdeeds.
It was Jonathan Winer who found a solution to Browder's predicament.
When Browder consulted me, [ ] I suggested creating a new law to impose
economic and travel sanctions on human-rights violators involved in grand
corruption. Browder decided this could secure a measure of justice for Magnitsky.
He initiated a campaign that led to the enactment of the Magnitsky Act.
Soon other countries enacted their own Magnitsky Acts, including Canada,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most recently, the United Kingdom.
Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In
his press conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin
suggested allowing US authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller
indictment in exchange for allowing Russian officials to question individuals
involved in the Browder case, including Winer and former US ambassador to Moscow
Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was possible under the
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999, back
in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend.
But the naïve Russians did not measure the craftiness of American lawyers.
As Winer wrote:
"Under that treaty, Russia's procurator general can ask the US attorney
general to arrange for Americans to be ordered to testify to assist in a
criminal case. But there is a fundamental exception: The attorney general
can provide no such assistance in a politically motivated case ." (My emphasis.)
"I know this", he wrote, "because I was among those who helped put it there.
Back in 1999, when we were negotiating the agreement with Russia, I was the
senior State Department official managing US-Russia law-enforcement relations."
So, the Fixer in Chief could have said to the worried Browder, "No problem.
All that we need to do is make your case a politically motivated case. Then
they can't touch you."
Winer's clever treaty is a perfect Catch-22. The treaty doesn't apply to
a case if it is politically motivated, and if it is Russian, it must be politically
motivated.
In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage
Capital Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky
Act of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938
with Nazis in mind). Among the "lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely
identified in the complaint as a "former Republican congressman").
The Heritage Capital Management brief declared that: "While lawyers representing
foreign principals are exempt from filing under FARA, this is only true if the
attorney does not try to influence policy at the behest of his client." However,
by disseminating anti-Magnitsky material to Congress, any Russian lawyer was
"clearly trying to influence policy" was therefore in violation of FARA filing
requirements."
Catch-22 all over again.
Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied heavily to get Congress
to pass the Magnitsky Act, which also repeated its defense of Khodorkovsky himself.
This type of "Russian interference intended to influence policy" is not even
noticed, while US authorities scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls.
Conclusion
The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar
Russia. Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech
at the 2007 Munich security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national
sovereignty and develop in their own way. The current Russian government is
against interference in other countries' politics on principle. It would naturally
prefer an American government willing to allow this.
The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other
countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic"
system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country
should have and how it should run its affairs .
So, if Russians were trying to interfere in US domestic politics, they would
not be trying to change the US system but to prevent it from trying to change
their own. Russian leaders clearly are sufficiently cultivated to realize that
historic processes do not depend on some childish trick played on somebody's
computer.
US policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly
willing to allow Russians to interfere in American politics – so long as those
Russians are "unipolar" like themselves, like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely
the same unipolar world sought by the State Department and George Soros. Indeed,
the American empire depends on such interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians,
Russians, Cubans – all those who come to Washington to try to get US power to
settle old scores or overthrow the government in the country they came from.
All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by America.
Russian interference in American politics is totally welcome so long as it
helps turn public opinion against "multipolar" Putin, glorifies American democracy,
serves US interests including the military-industrial complex, helps break down
national borders (except those of the United States and Israel) and puts money
in appropriate pockets in the halls of Congress.
"... [The difference between] what the average American knows about Russia and reality is frightening.] ..."
"... Bushworld didn't just deregulate mining and resource extraction in Russia, it deregulated everything, the abuse of labor, the destruction of education, the corruption of everything previously socialist and plunged Russia into an organized crime free fire zone. ..."
"... The standard of living fell to pieces and huge fortunes were made by U.S., British, and other western speculators. ..."
"... Putin has apparently moved to the left of that nightmare, and for that we are supposed to fear him, for insisting speculators pay their taxes and pay living wages and support social systems like education and healthcare as well as public infrastructure. ..."
[The difference between] what the average American knows about Russia and reality is
frightening.]
What happened with Putin is that he went to the left of Yeltsin, our boy, our Bushworld
plaything, poster boy of "unfettered" capitalism, the raping of Russia.
Bushworld didn't just deregulate mining and resource extraction in Russia, it
deregulated everything, the abuse of labor, the destruction of education, the corruption of
everything previously socialist and plunged Russia into an organized crime free fire
zone.
The standard of living fell to pieces and huge fortunes were made by U.S., British,
and other western speculators.
Putin has apparently moved to the left of that nightmare, and for that we are supposed
to fear him, for insisting speculators pay their taxes and pay living wages and support
social systems like education and healthcare as well as public infrastructure.
For that we are supposed to go to war and contribute the destruction of huge parts of the
United States in a nuclear war so Assholes like Albright and her followers can live the lives
of potentates.
Great insight: "Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the
Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as
possible and keep it from Russia"
Notable quotes:
"... Russians hold as much as one trillion in USD assets outside Russia that were stolen from Russia in the 90's and number far greater if including all of the FSU. The stimulus to the global and US economy was enormous and created asset bubbles until the great collapse in 2008. The current bubble was due to quantitative easing of central banks as the flows from Russia and FSU dried up. ..."
"... Much of this was held in tax havens and then moved to the US after cleaning via shelf companies. Trumps empire was rebuilt with Russian oligarchs/mafia money as real estate was a favorite investment for money launderers ..."
"... Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as possible and keep it from Russia ..."
Russians hold as much as one trillion in USD assets outside Russia that were stolen from Russia
in the 90's and number far greater if including all of the FSU. The stimulus to the global and
US economy was enormous and created asset bubbles until the great collapse in 2008. The current
bubble was due to quantitative easing of central banks as the flows from Russia and FSU dried
up.
Much of this was held in tax havens and then moved to the US after cleaning via shelf
companies. Trumps empire was rebuilt with Russian oligarchs/mafia money as real estate was a
favorite investment for money launderers
During the Ukrainian conflict Putin began an amnesty program asking oligarchs to repatriate
these assets by waiving penalties and taxes. He restarted it at the end of last year, hence the
need to expand the list of assets to be seized before they fly the coop.
Trump may know where a lot of these assets are parked. Perhaps he had been a good informant
of the FBI/CIA like his partner Felix Sater
Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the
Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as
possible and keep it from Russia
"... The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community itself: Mr. Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr. Comey, Mr. Strzok, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Ohr, Ms. Yates. Ms. Page, et. al. who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the British intel service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop running its mouth -- The New York Times , CNN, WashPo , et al -- in an evermore hysterical reaction to the truth of the matter: the Deep State itself colluded with Russia (and perhaps hates itself for it, a sure recipe for mental illness). ..."
"... The second head of this monster is a matrix of sinister interests seeking to incite conflict with Russia in order to support arms manufacturers, black box "security" companies, congressmen-on-the-take, and an army of obscenely-rewarded Washington lobbyists in concert with the military and a rabid neocon intellectual think-tank camp wishing to replay the cold war and perhaps even turn up the temperature with some nuclear fire. ..."
"... This second head functions by way of a displacement-projection dynamic. We hold war games on the Russian border and accuse them of "aggression." ..."
"... The third head of this monster is the one aflame with identity politics. It arises from a crypto-gnostic wish to change human nature to escape the woes and sorrows of the human condition -- for example, the terrible tensions of sexuality. Hence, the multiplication of new sexual categories as a work-around for the fundamental terrors of human reproduction as represented by the differences between men and women. ..."
"... "We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression. We bust up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest failed state. We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a foolish and hazardous endeavor. " ..."
"... And this shit has been going on since the Soviet Union broke up and the "Harvard Boys" helped turn Russia into a corrupt Oligarchy, something the Left was first to identify. ..."
"... The rising of the Populist parties in the UK, Germany, especially Italy and now Sweden, portends an interesting trend, not just nationally, but world wide... ..."
The faction that used to be the Democratic party can be described with some precision these days as a three-headed monster driving
the nation toward danger, darkness, and incoherence.
Anyone interested in defending what remains of the sane center of American politics take heed:
The first head is the one infected with the toxic shock of losing the 2016 election. The illness took hold during the campaign
that year when the bureaucracy under President Obama sent its lymphocytes and microphages in the "intel community" -- especially
the leadership of the FBI -- to attack the perceived disease that the election of Donald Trump represented. The "doctors" of this
Deep State diagnosed the condition as "Russian collusion." An overdue second opinion by doctors outside the Deep State adduced later
that the malady was actually an auto-immune disease.
The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community itself: Mr. Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr.
Comey, Mr. Strzok, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Ohr, Ms. Yates. Ms. Page, et. al. who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign,
and the British intel service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible.
With the disease now revealed by hard evidence, the chief surgeon called into the case, Robert Mueller, is left looking ridiculous
-- and perhaps subject to malpractice charges -- for trying to remove an appendix-like organ called the Manifort from the body politic
instead of attending to the cancerous mess all around him. Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop running its mouth -- The New
York Times , CNN, WashPo , et al -- in an evermore hysterical reaction to the truth of the matter: the Deep State itself colluded
with Russia (and perhaps hates itself for it, a sure recipe for mental illness).
The second head of this monster is a matrix of sinister interests seeking to incite conflict with Russia in order to support
arms manufacturers, black box "security" companies, congressmen-on-the-take, and an army of obscenely-rewarded Washington lobbyists
in concert with the military and a rabid neocon intellectual think-tank camp wishing to replay the cold war and perhaps even turn
up the temperature with some nuclear fire. They are apparently in deep confab with the first head and its Russia collusion storyline.
Note all the current talk about Russia already meddling in the 2018 midterm election, a full-fledged pathogenic hallucination.
This second head functions by way of a displacement-projection dynamic. We hold war games on the Russian border and accuse
them of "aggression." We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression.
We bust up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest
failed state.We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international
currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a foolish
and hazardous endeavor. The sane center never would have stood for this arrant recklessness. The world community is not fooled, though.
More and more, they recognize the USA as a national borderline personality, capable of any monstrous act.
The third head of this monster is the one aflame with identity politics. It arises from a crypto-gnostic wish to change human
nature to escape the woes and sorrows of the human condition -- for example, the terrible tensions of sexuality. Hence, the multiplication
of new sexual categories as a work-around for the fundamental terrors of human reproduction as represented by the differences between
men and women. Those differences must be abolished, and replaced with chimeras that enable a childish game of pretend, men pretending
to be women and vice-versa in one way or another: LBGTQetc. Anything BUT the dreaded "cis-hetero" purgatory of men and women acting
like men and women. The horror .
Its companion is the race hustle and its multicultural operating system. The objective has become transparent over the past year,
with rising calls to punish white people for the supposed "privilege" of being Caucasian and pay "reparations" in one way or another
to underprivileged "people of color." This comes partly from the infantile refusal to understand that life is difficult for everybody,
and that the woes and sorrows of being in this world require fortitude and intelligence to get through -- with the final reward being
absolutely the same for everybody.
"We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression. We bust
up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest
failed state. We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international
currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a
foolish and hazardous endeavor. "
And this shit has been going on since the Soviet Union broke up and the
"Harvard Boys" helped turn Russia into
a corrupt Oligarchy, something the Left was first to identify.
I was talking to someone, who knows a lot about the 'inner workings' and we were discussing, not only the US, but Europe's
situation as well.
The rising of the Populist parties in the UK, Germany, especially Italy and now Sweden, portends an interesting trend,
not just nationally, but world wide...
It is not only George Soros is losing. Neoliberalism is losing some of its fights too, despite recent revenge in sev eral Latin
American countries. Deep state was always an alliance of Wall Street sharks with intelligence agencies and Soros is a true representative
of this breed. He is connected and acted in sync with them in xUSSR space. In this sense he can be viewed as a part of Harvard
Mafia which economically raped Russia in 1990th...
Malaysia's prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, correctly called Soros and other speculators "unscrupulous profiteers" whose immoral
work served no social value. That actually aptly characterize all members of Harvard mafia not just George Soros.
BTW, if Victoria Nuland (of EuroMaydan putch fame) praises a particular person, you can be sure that his person serves US
imperial interests...
Notable quotes:
"... ...In the 1990s, he was portrayed by the far left as an agent of American imperialism, helping to foist the so-called neoliberal agenda (mass privatization, for example) on Eastern Europe. For some critics, Soros's Wall Street background has always been a mark against him. ..."
"... In one campaign rally in Budapest, Orban referred to Soros as "Uncle George," telling tens of thousands of supporters that "we are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns the world." ..."
"... I always thought George Soros was a dangerous [neo]liberal but after reading this article and seeing the damage he has created around the world it has been confirmed. ..."
"... Mr. Soros fights for all the [neo]liberal causes no matter the consequences. ..."
"... I am glad that the conservatives and others are finally seeing his true colors and are trying to subdue him the best they can. He must be called out on this negative behavior before it is too late. It is reassuring that many of the European nations are implementing policies that are favorable to their countries and looking out for their people. Europeans must be protected and George Soros stopped. I am glad they see him for what he truly is which is frightening. ..."
"... As Mr. Soros said of himself, "I am a confirmed egoist." He has used his money to make the world as he thinks is best. But having money does not give you a better moral view of how the world should be governed nor make you a god to decide for the rest of us. ..."
"... I think this kind of undue influence (money in politics) is what is driving some of the back-lash against [neo]liberal democracy. So many of the "[neo]liberal" proponents of an open society, like George Soros and Bill Gates, seem to have an inordinate power to effect political outcomes because of their money. ..."
"... Soros is an enemy of the middle and working classes in America. ..."
"... Now, more than ever, American politics is defined by money, so it's important to understand how it is used in that context by those who have it. ..."
"... What about the devastating effects that free trade and globalization have had on the spread of inequality throughout the world... Huge corporations consistently use "free trade" or globalization as an excuse to offer the lowest possible wages, and move manufacturing to places with the least environmental protections and human rights. ..."
"... Soros didn't bet on Democracy, he bet on his version of it which he tried to buy through individual politicians on the take and the Democratic Party. Better he quit manipulating pols and gave his money to charity. ..."
"... Soros is a criminal by any other name. He hedged against the UK Pound 20 years ago, and earned $1B. He earned billions by manipulating the market. With his profits he wanted to create his own society where his money could be used to buy politicians and pass legislation according to his one man agenda. He's selfish, an egomaniac, and dangerous. ..."
"... George Soros is the epitome of corruption – penetration and distortion of political process by obscene wealth. It does not matter what his true intentions are – he can say whatever he wants but we will never know for sure. And stop calling that "philanthropy". ..."
"... What Soros is doing is imposing his personal political beliefs and ideas on everybody by buying political influence with his money - that is called "corruption" pure and simple. ..."
"... What he does is not democracy promotion - it is the exact opposite – democracy destruction. It is good to know that he is failing in that effort. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed to improve democratic governance and reduced distribution of wealth ..."
"... What pharaonic globalist plutocrats like him mean by "Liberal Democracy" encompasses a sinister set of objectives. Prominent among which are these two: ..."
"... Full support for neocon/neoliberal destabilization, confrontation, and military interventionism. ..."
"... The destruction of borders, nations, and cultures -- particularly Western Culture here and in Europe. ..."
"... Soros and his peers want unhindered unlimited access to cheap Third World labor as well as to have complete control over the entire global economy. To his class nationalism and culture are speed bumps on the way to those self-serving goals. ..."
Yet the political realm is where Soros has made his most audacious wager. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, he poured
hundreds of millions of dollars into the former Soviet-bloc countries to promote civil society and [neo]liberal democracy. It was
a one-man Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe, a private initiative without historical precedent. It was also a gamble that a part of
the world that had mostly known tyranny would embrace ideas like government accountability and ethnic tolerance. In London in the
1950s, Soros was a student of the expatriated Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, who championed the notion of an "open society," in
which individual liberty, pluralism and free inquiry prevailed. Popper's concept became Soros's cause.
... ... ...
...In the 1990s, he was portrayed by the far left as an agent of American imperialism, helping to foist the so-called neoliberal
agenda (mass privatization, for example) on Eastern Europe. For some critics, Soros's Wall Street background has always been a mark
against him.
Last autumn, he signaled that same sense of defiance when he announced that he was in the process of transferring the bulk of
his remaining wealth, $18 billion in total at the time, to the O.S.F. That will potentially make it the second-largest philanthropic
organization in the United States, in assets, after the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It is already a sprawling entity, with some
1,800 employees in 35 countries, a global advisory board, eight regional boards and 17 issue-oriented boards. Its annual budget of
around $1 billion finances projects in education, public health, independent media, immigration and criminal-justice reform and other
areas
... ... ...
He decided that his goal would be opening closed societies. He created a philanthropic organization, then called the Open Society
Fund, in 1979 and began sponsoring college scholarships for black South African students. But he soon turned his attention to Eastern
Europe, where he started financing dissident groups. He funneled money to the Solidarity strikers in Poland in 1981 and to Charter
77 in Czechoslovakia. In one especially ingenious move, he sent hundreds of Xerox copiers to Hungary to make it easier for underground
publications to disseminate their newsletters. In the late 1980s, he provided dozens of Eastern European students with scholarships
to study in the West, with the aim of fostering a generation of [neo]liberal democratic leaders. One of those students was Viktor
Orban, who studied civil society at Oxford. From his Manhattan trading desk, Soros became a strange sort of expat anticommunist revolutionary.
... ... ...
In one campaign rally in Budapest, Orban referred to Soros as "Uncle George," telling tens of thousands of supporters that
"we are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not
national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns
the world." Along with the fiery speeches, there were the billboards, which featured a picture of a smiling Soros and the message,
"Let's not let George Soros have the last laugh."
... ... ...
Orban's coalition won 49 percent of the vote, enough to give it a supermajority in Parliament. But the anti-Soros campaign didn't
end with the election. Days after the vote, a magazine owned by a pro-Orban businesswoman published the names of more than 200 people
in Hungary that it claimed were Soros "mercenaries."
... ... ...
There have been mistakes; by his own admission, Soros erred in championing Mikheil Saakashvili, the mercurial former president
of Georgia, and also became too directly involved in the country's politics in the early 2000s. He clearly misjudged Orban. But as
Victoria Nuland, a former American diplomat who worked for both Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton, put it when I spoke to her recently,
"George is a freedom fighter."
"Billionaire philanthropist?" Really? Does that make the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelstein "philanthropists" too, or does
that label apply only to left-leaning individuals seeking political leverage many times that of the average citizen?
One citizen, 1 vote. ALL citizens should be limited to $100 contributions for their senators, representatives and the President.
NO citizen should be able to contribute to a campaign in a state where he/she is not a full-time permanent resident.
And NO citizen should be able to contribute more than $100 to his/her own campaign. We don't need more Kennedys, Clintons,
Bloombergs, Trumps, Perots or Forbes buying (or trying to buy) their way into public office, using their millions.
Of the people, by the people, for the people. That's the model, folks. Depart from it at your peril.
Soros--a "European at heart." Must have brought some much-needed smiles to the UK following the recent Trump Tour of Destruction.
How soon we forget--in the 90s, Soros broke the pound as the Brits were trying to unify European currencies--with unfortunate
conditions that weakened the effort and Soros smartly exploited.
Who can blame a globalist from crashing a poorly devised govt scheme and walking away with a cool $1B--back when a billion
dollars was a lot of money? I am not the person to say whether Soros may qualify as an honest proponent of democracy, but I strongly
suspect that he is a poster boy of the ultra-nationalists as they battle globalization.
In a way, Soros epitomizes the failure of globalization, which may or may not benefit the classic, labor-intensive industries
of manufacturing, agriculture, construction, and mining, but always benefits, sometimes wildly, the financial "industry."
As far as I'm concerned, Soros is merely making reparations. And, sorry to say, George, it's prob too little, too late.
I always thought George Soros was a dangerous [neo]liberal but after reading this article and seeing the damage he has
created around the world it has been confirmed. Nigel Farage, the British politician, recently said on television that Mr.
Soros is out to destroy the world. It certainly appears to be the case when you see what he did to the British and Thai economies.
He was so concerned with helping immigrants and refugees that he had little regard for the citizens that actually lived in those
countries that are being affected. People lost their livelihoods but that did not matter to him.
Mr. Soros fights for all the [neo]liberal causes no matter the consequences. He ... does not care who he hurts as
long as he promotes his progressive agenda. He wants to allow as many immigrants to enter a nation as possible even if it adversely
affects that country while he lives in luxury and is not inconvenienced by this invasion. He has billions and will probably never
be touched by massive immigration.
I am glad that the conservatives and others are finally seeing his true colors and are trying to subdue him the best they
can. He must be called out on this negative behavior before it is too late. It is reassuring that many of the European nations
are implementing policies that are favorable to their countries and looking out for their people. Europeans must be protected
and George Soros stopped. I am glad they see him for what he truly is which is frightening.
As Mr. Soros said of himself, "I am a confirmed egoist." He has used his money to make the world as he thinks is best.
But having money does not give you a better moral view of how the world should be governed nor make you a god to decide for the
rest of us.
I think this kind of undue influence (money in politics) is what is driving some of the back-lash against [neo]liberal
democracy. So many of the "[neo]liberal" proponents of an open society, like George Soros and Bill Gates, seem to have an inordinate
power to effect political outcomes because of their money.
The making of such huge amounts of money is not done with any charitable purpose. Only later, does charity come to mind.
Soros is an enemy of the middle and working classes in America. Yes, a billion people around the world are better
off because of the forces of "globalization" (this total most definitely includes Soros himself), but millions of Americans have
suffered economically as a result. GATT, NAFTA and the entire alphabet soup of trade deals have lined the pockets of the globalists,
while grinding the fortunes of U.S. working and middle class laborers into dust.
Great article. Now, more than ever, American politics is defined by money, so it's important to understand how it is used
in that context by those who have it. At this juncture, I think the American people deserve to see an expose of all those
millionaires and billionaires who have and continue to support Trump. It's only fair, to lay the money trail on the table, on
all sides, for everyone to see.
What about the devastating effects that free trade and globalization have had on the spread of inequality throughout the
world... Huge corporations consistently use "free trade" or globalization as an excuse to offer the lowest possible wages, and
move manufacturing to places with the least environmental protections and human rights.
Immigration policies are also sometimes used in ways to suppress wages, and even more worse, enacted with very little thought
given to assimilation. Most of the poorer areas, or ghettoes surrounding Paris for example are populated with huge numbers of
Muslim immigrants that face extremely daunting odds of fully assimilating into French culture.
While the wealthier (sometimes elite [neo]liberals) Parisians almost certainly live in gated or posh neighborhoods with hardly
any immigrants as their neighbors. Despite the generous financial support Soros (and some other elites) gives to human rights
causes, he rarely outright discusses some of these problems associated with free trade, globalization and mass immigration. These
seeming hypocrisies and inconsistencies then become much easier fodder for those of Orban's ilk to manipulate and ultimately consolidate
power.
Soros didn't bet on Democracy, he bet on his version of it which he tried to buy through individual politicians on the
take and the Democratic Party. Better he quit manipulating pols and gave his money to charity.
First, Hungary is not xenophobic, they merely want to protect their culture. Second, George Soros wants plenty of wealth for
him and his family, yet he wants those of us in the middle class to dive up our meager assets with the world's poorest. Third,
his personal wealth has often been generated by destroying currencies and the middle class who owns those currencies. Fourth,
he promotes open borders without consulting the citizenry of said borders as to their opinion regarding their own national sovereignty.
Our world would be a much better place without George Soros.
Soros is a criminal by any other name. He hedged against the UK Pound 20 years ago, and earned $1B. He earned billions
by manipulating the market. With his profits he wanted to create his own society where his money could be used to buy politicians
and pass legislation according to his one man agenda. He's selfish, an egomaniac, and dangerous.
Soros employs his vast wealth to create the society he dreams of, regardless of what the rest of us want. When the democratic
process veers away from his vision, he uses the power of his wealth to steer it back.
So he's just another wealthy and powerful elite trying to remake the world as he prefers it. Such arrogance!
Sucking money out of the world's economies so that he can direct it as HE sees fit does not make a man great. Rather, I would
argue that such actions contributed to the rise of both Brexiteers and Trumpsters.
If Soros really wants to contribute to society, he would lobby for financial industry reform - less favorable tax treatment
for hedge funds (what value do they really provide to society) and a transaction tax on trades to reduce speculation. Then fight
for minimum wage increases.
This is a horrifying interview and does not improve the image of George Soros. "My ideology is nonideological," he says while
spending billions on politics, which he defines as "In politics, you are spinning the truth, not discovering it." He describes
Obama as his greatest disappointment because Obama "closed the door on me," as in he expected Obama should work with him and take
his advice. Soros uses his billions to fund politicians and meddle in elections... this is a man who enjoys influencing and manipulating
politics and becomes frustrated when his efforts backfire or are not successful.
This man is the absolute worst! His no borders policy has done more to hurt Europe then Russia ever could. The Soros gang has
zero respect and tolerance for nation-state sovereignty and local governance. Talk about a global elite! He and his gang epitomize
that arrogance.
George Soros bet big on open borders,one world governance and destroying the working class through unfair trade agreements.
Yes he appears to be losing. Thank God for small favors.
It cracks me up to read these type of article in the NYT and then read another story in the NYT about how if you can pay the
money you can have yourself a private waiting area in a major airport to separate yourself from the chaos of the masses in the
public waiting areas. Maybe democracy wouldn't be in trouble around the world if it worked as well for the "slobs" in the public
waiting areas as it did for those in the exclusive waiting rooms. This is globalization in a nutshell. It works great for the
rich, not so well for the rest of us slobs. This is a government of the rich people, by the rich people, for the rich people.
The slobs realise their government doesn't really care that their jobs are disapearing and their standard of living is going down.
To say that George Soros is funding [neo]liberal democracy is a misnomer. What Soros is funding is open borders. Where national
interests are set aside, global interests prevail. This is precisely what George Soros is advocating. Tired of having to face
multitude regulatory systems in his effort to build a global financial empire, Soros is quite right in discerning that a borderless,
global regulatory system would increase his financial power exponentially. Nations are right to resist the encroachment of Soros
because global interests, by definition, are not local interests. Nationalism, so loathed by Soros and his open border lackeys,
serves as a check and balance on men like Soros who would be god and would dictate to the world from some point of central governance
what their truth and value should be. George Soros and his globalist kin should be resisted. The true threat to global interests
is not nationalism, it is globalism.
Soros, and American [neo]liberalism, economic and social [neo]liberalism championed by Soros and the NYT, is in its death throes.
Call us fascists, totalitarians, racists--- understand clearly: we do not care. Europe is waking up. [neo]liberalism is close
to being dead. No spectres or phantoms are haunting Europe. Blood is standing up and answering our ancestors.We are not commodoties,
consumers, meat for your wars. You have attacked us, belittled us, turned our queen of continents into latrines of filth. You,
American [neo]liberalism, have destroyed us.Now, we take our nations back.
It's amusing to read phrases like "nationalism and tribalism are resurgent". It never does to underestimate tribalism; as long
as groups feel safe they are tolerant. But when groups feel threatened, tribalism rears up in what is not so much a resurgence
but more like an awakening from a nap.
The older cultures of Europe are waking up from a nap and realizing that unless they reassess a few long-held assumptions,
they will eventually be ethnically diminished and culturally pressured.
Denmark has banned the burka and legislated some of the harshest migration, immigration, asylum, and naturalization laws in
Europe. It is implementing laws to ensure integration, including stopping benefits to families whose children are not integrating.
Do the author and Mr. Soros think that Denmark exercising control over its future demographics and preserving its culture are
malign?
The Danes some years ago elected the Danish People's Party to significant power; the DPP is often referred to as a far right
party, but is a typical left-wing party in everything except pushing Denmark toward "multiculturalism".
Sweden's centre-left government, on the other hand, brought in hundreds of thousands of Third World immigrants and then refused
even to admit, let alone discuss, the glaring problems with integration within its immigrant community.
Result: the Sweden Democrats, a bona fide neo-Nazi party, are set to do extremely and alarmingly well in Sweden's September
elections.
This super-rich elitist from Hungary is trying to buy American democracy and reshape it in his image regardless of what We
The People want. And the Democrats are on his payroll and totally owned by this foreign agent!
Soros' flaw is that he only tolerates centralized socialist democracy. He cannot stand the idea of democracy in the form of
a federal republic with a weak central government. Interestingly, he made his billions as a predatory capitalist now he turns
on capitalism. He also exhibits a particularly vicious elitism: No one should be allowed to own guns except his private security
guards. He knows that umarmed men are always someone's slaves.
Soros is a hypocrite who did one thing and is now out to create a legacy. All is shows is he is driven by both greed and ego.
His blatant hypocrisy probably did more harm than good - common denominator, it's always about him. Hey Soros, don't do us plebes
any more favors, ok?
Democracy is alive and well, regardless of what Soros thinks. He does not represent democracy, he was never been elected to
any public office. He represents open borders mass migration, as the name of one of his NGOs implies, Open Society Foundation.
Brexit voters, and other voters across the west are increasingly voting against his philosophy. Voters in the US, Hungary, Poland,
Czech Republic, Italy, Slovenia, etc, have democratically chosen as their leaders conservative controlled borders leaders, and
to underscore, all were elected via the democratic process.
Open Borders and globalism that Soros is pushing is increasingly being rejected in voting booths in the EU and the US.
It is hardly undemocratic to increasingly vote against what Soros is selling – chaotic mass migration made possible by open
borders.
He represents [neo]liberal democracy, and voters increasingly favor conservative democracy.
George Soros is the epitome of corruption – penetration and distortion of political process by obscene wealth. It does
not matter what his true intentions are – he can say whatever he wants but we will never know for sure. And stop calling that
"philanthropy".
Red Cross and Salvation Army is philanthropy. What Soros is doing is imposing his personal political beliefs and ideas
on everybody by buying political influence with his money - that is called "corruption" pure and simple.
Sure, he is not the only one doing that, but he is the one doing that most overtly and blatantly. He seems to relish being
the face of the elitist disregard for the masses. What he does is not democracy promotion - it is the exact opposite – democracy
destruction. It is good to know that he is failing in that effort.
Neoliberalism has failed to improve democratic governance and reduced distribution of wealth, just as leftists predicted.
Soros benefitted financially, which has increased his privilege to participate in governance voters cannot achieve. Despite Soros'
wealth, successfully manipulating currency markets does not easily transfer to manipulating electorates. Even if Soros believes
his projects would produce good governance, he lacks the ability to convince voters what is in their best interests.
I am elated to hear that George Soros might be losing.
What pharaonic globalist plutocrats like him mean by "Liberal Democracy" encompasses a sinister set of objectives. Prominent
among which are these two:
1). Full support for neocon/neoliberal destabilization, confrontation, and military interventionism.
2). The destruction of borders, nations, and cultures -- particularly Western Culture here and in Europe.
Soros and his peers want unhindered unlimited access to cheap Third World labor as well as to have complete control over
the entire global economy. To his class nationalism and culture are speed bumps on the way to those self-serving goals.
"... The activities of the organization are gussied up in sanctimonious prose about aiding the poor and raising the living standards of the third world. Don't be fooled. These bailouts are really about protecting interests of Chase Manhattan, J.P. Morgan, and Fidelity Investments ..."
"... for inexplicable reasons, ..."
"... harshly worded ..."
"... To be sure, there were unsettling reports of shady dealings during the takeovers, but most observers explained them away as inevitable side effects of such a far-reaching transformation. ..."
"... for the best of reasons ..."
"... Americans, who thought their money was helping a stricken land, have been dishonored; and the Russian people who trusted us are now in debt twice what they were in 1991 and rightly feel themselves betrayed. ..."
Within four weeks they bought $6.5 billion and transferred most of it to foreign banks.
[8] Most of the rest of IMF loan was a stealth bailout for western financial institutions
which had some $200 billion worth of loans and investments in Russia. The banks feared the
prospect of Russian default which would leave them with crippling losses. These risks became
even more acute in the aftermath of the 1997 East Asian financial crisis that would engulf
Russia in 1998.
In a testimony before the U.S. Congress, veteran investor Jim Rogers characterized IMF's
assistance to Russia as follows: " The activities of the organization are gussied up in
sanctimonious prose about aiding the poor and raising the living standards of the third world.
Don't be fooled. These bailouts are really about protecting interests of Chase Manhattan, J.P.
Morgan, and Fidelity Investments ."
[9]
In addition to loading Russia up with unproductive debt, IMF also engineered Russia's
hyperinflation and liquidity crisis. After eliminating price controls, IMF obliged Russia to
maintain the ruble as the common currency for all Soviet Union successor states, giving each of
the 15 new countries the incentive to issue ruble credits for their own benefit while fueling
inflation for all others. Sachs reported that he strenuously argued with the IMF against this
measure but " for inexplicable reasons, " he was consistently rebuked.
The result was a one-year delay in the introduction of national currencies for the former
Soviet republics, pushing Russia into hyperinflation and needlessly prolonging its economic
depression. At this same time, the IMF engineered Russia's staggering liquidity crisis that
made it almost impossible for enterprises to pay their suppliers and workers. Under IMF's
dictate, Russian economy struggled along on less than one sixth of the currency required to
operate an economy of its size.
The extent of IMF's iron-fisted control over Russian economy was exemplified in a letter
from the IMF's representative Yusuke Horaguchi to Russia's central bank chairman Sergei Dubinin
. The letter specified the precise schedule of Russia's ruble supply along with " harshly
worded " instructions regarding bank credits, the state budget, energy policy, price
levels, trade tariffs and agricultural policies. Horaguchi's letter even included a warning
that any acts of the parliament contravening the IMF mandates would be vetoed by president
Yeltsin.
[10]
It is clear that shock "therapy" was little more than a relentless, cruel strangulation of
Russia's economy to facilitate looting of her vast industrial and resource wealth .
Nonetheless, most Western-published analyses of this episode tended to treat it as failure of
good intentions. While lamenting the outcomes and certain questionable practices, most analysts
essentially attribute the failure of Russian transition to honest errors, Russia's endemic
corruption, and perhaps inexperience in many of the drama's protagonists.
Goldman Marshall
of Harvard and the Council of Foreign Relations wrote: " To be sure, there were unsettling
reports of shady dealings during the takeovers, but most observers explained them away as
inevitable side effects of such a far-reaching transformation. "
Naturally, Marshall fails to detail how or where he polled these "most observers," but his
message to the readers is unmistakable: move along folks, there's nothing to see here –
especially pay no attention to the fact that many of those thousands of Westerners who came to
Russia " for the best of reasons ," including Bill Browder , Andrei Schleifer and
Jonathan Hay ,
[12] returned from Russia as multi-millionaires. Financial reporter Anne Willamson , who
covered Russia for the New York Times and Wall Street Journal rightly remarked in her
Congressional testimony that, " Americans, who thought their money was helping a stricken
land, have been dishonored; and the Russian people who trusted us are now in debt twice what
they were in 1991 and rightly feel themselves betrayed. "
[12] During his time managing the HIID's Moscow operation, Andrei Schleifer and Jonathan
Hay took advantage of their position and relationships to make personal investments in Russia.
An investigation by the FBI and U.S. Justice Department found evidence of fraud and money
laundering by Harvard's consultants. In 2004, Schleifer was found guilty of fraud and he agreed
to pay a $31 million fine to settle the case. Not only did Harvard University persist in
defending Schleifer over the 8 years of investigations and trials, it paid the bulk of
Schileifer's fine and kept him on university's faculty.
"... This silly article is proof, as if more was needed that what passes for Russia scholarship in the US is little more than politicized group-think. ..."
"... Russia has risen from utter economic, political, and societal collapse (gold reserves, factories, military secrets, science labs stripped bare and shipped or brain-drained out of the country; millions of pre-mature deaths; plunging birth rates) to recover, within a mere 20 years, to the point where the population has stabilized and the nation can credibly hold its own again on the world stage. Infrastructure is being rebuilt and modernized, the military has been restructured and re-equipped, pensions and salaries have risen 3 or 4-fold. ..."
"Vladimir Putin rode a counter-wave of anti-Western nationalism to power in Moscow."
Uh, no. Putin came to power at a time when Russia seemed to be falling apart, quite
literally. There was war in Chechnya, open criminal activity on the streets, and clear social
decay. Putin's popularity begins with his address to the nation after the bombing of the
Moscow metro, promising that the government (which he did not then lead) would chase those
responsible down and kill them, even if that meant chasing them into outhouses. The
relationship between the bombing and Putin's rise is so well-known that the conspiracy
theorists who have Jay Nordlinger's ear over at National Review claim that the bombing was a
set up by Putin's pals in the FSB, precisely to bring Putin to power.
My wife is Russian, from the city of Kazan in the Tatar Republic (part of Russia; it's
complicated), and when we were merely pen pals in 2003 she wrote me what it was like. It was
bad, very bad. At one point her entire neighborhood was placed under curfew on account of
open warfare between criminal gangs. And of course when we visit the cemetery today one sees
the striking spike in tombstones whose date of death is at some point in the mid- to late
90's, when it all seemed to be going to pieces and the government didn't even pay its own
employees for half a year.
Today, by contrast, Russians can walk the streets more or less without fear, count on a
paycheck, read in the news how their country has sent yet another capsule of Western
astronauts to the international space station (because Westerners haven't been able to do
that for the better part of a decade, thanks to Bush and Obama), and even find jobs in a
successful tech sector (Kaspersky, JetBrains, Yandex, the list goes on).
But, hey, if you want to fantasize that Putin's rise is thanks to anti-Western sentiment,
you go ahead and do that.
One other comment, if I may. I share the concern most Westerners have about Russia's seizure
of Crimea. But where is our concern about Turkey's 40-plus-year occupation of northern
Cyprus, also sparked by internal political disorder on the island? Why is it alright for a
NATO country to invade another nation and prop up its separatists, expel the inhabitants of a
disfavored ethnic group -- in this case, the Greeks?
Shame on TAC for publishing this garbage. For one, Putin more or less saved Russia as a
sovereign state, it is easy to forget the sorry condition Russia was in at the turn of the
century. Without him, Russia would've most likely been dismembered or simply colonized by the
West and China. He has performed admirably in the face of massive odds. Russia will still
exist in 100 years as the state of the Russian and other native people of its land –
can the same be said of the United States? Russia is slowly climbing its way out of the pit
of despair created by 80 years of Communism, the United States is crawling into the very same
pit.
I am much more concerned that voter roll purges, suppression of the vote, Citizen's United
Dark Money and folks like the Kochs and Addelson are undermining US democracy than the
Russians. As for the aggression of military machines around the world, the US wins hands
down.
Like Fran my inclination was to bail after the first paragraph but I pushed on.
In the first paragraph Mr Desch lays out his position which is well within the bounds of
polite discussion that Russia is a corrupt oligarchy but don't worry because it's an economic
and military basketcase.
Where to start?
1. Corrupt kleptocracy. The Russian oligarchy/ mafia was a biproduct of the
privatization binge that followed the collapse of the USSR. This evolved under the disastrous
Yeltsin aided and abetted by US elites. The case of William Browder is instructive. Putin has
taken significant measures to reassert government control and has greatly improved the lot of
the average Russian.
2. Political freedom. Putin did not inherit a developed liberal democracy. Russia
needs to be judged in the context of its own historical timeline in this regard not compared
to western democracies. Do you prefer Stalin, Brezhnev, Andropov? In contrast compare the
state and trajectory of US democratic institutions to, say the 1970s.
3. Human rights. Again the situation in Russia vis a vis human rights needs to be
judged in terms of Russia's history not against Western nations with a long-standing
tradition of human rights and political freedoms. That said, the illusion of political
repression is largely overstated. For example Putin is routinely accused of murdering
journalists but no real proof is ever offered. Instead, the statement is made again in this
article as though it were self evident.
4. Foreign aggression. This is my favorite because it flies in the face of
observable reality to the point of being ridiculous. Russia did not invade Ukraine. It
provided support to ethnic Russians in Ukraine who rebelled after the illegal armed overthrow
of the Russian leaning democratically elected president.That coup was directly supported by
the United States. Far from ratcheting up tensions Russia has consistently pressed for the
implementation of the Minsk accords. Putin is not interested in becoming responsible for the
economic and political basket case which is Ukraine. The "largely bloodless" occupation of
Crimea was actually a referendum in which the citizens of Crimea overwhelmingly supported
annexation to Russia. Again This result makes sense in light of even a basic understanding of
Russian history. Finally, in the case of Georgia Russia engaged after Georgia attacked what
was essentially a Russian protectorate. This was the conclusion reached by an EU
investigation.
Russia's so-called aggressive foreign-policy has been primarily in response to NATOs
continuous push eastward and the perceived need to defend ethnic Russians from corrupt
ultranationalist governments in former republics of the USSR. This is what Putin was talking
about when he called the dissolution of the USSR one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th
century – the fact that, overnight 20 million Russians found themselves living in
foreign countries. It wasn't about longing for a Russian empire.
As for the current state of Russias military capabilities, Mr Desch Would do well to read
Pepe Escobar's recent article in the Asia Times. Russian accomplishments in Syria illustrated
a level of technology and strategic effectiveness that rivals anything the US can do. Name
one other nation – other than the US – that can design and build a world class
6th generation fighter jet or develop its own space program. Even Germany can't do that.
This silly article is proof, as if more was needed that what passes for Russia
scholarship in the US is little more than politicized group-think.
VG1959
"It is in the pursuit of empire that Putin, like Napoleon or Hitler before him, threatens the
stability of Europe and by extension world peace."
Ah! ha!ha! Right.
Like Russia with a population of 150 million persons inhabiting a land mass that stretches
across 9 or 10 time zones, from the Arctic pole to the Black Sea is chafing for "lebensraum"
!?
No, Russia just wants to develop what it already owns. And, trying to do it on the
strength of their own efforts (no overseas colonies filling the coffers), on a GDP as
Winston, above, has pointed out which is smaller than that some US states. They're focussed,
not on grabbing tiny, constipated territories like Estonia. Latvia, and Lithuania (full of
Nazi sympathizers), but on bringing back to life those ancient trade routes which are their
inheritance from the past (the Silk Road, primarily).
Why not just leave them alone and see what they can do? Those who have been relentlessly
picking fault with Russia (and North Korea) might want to put down their megaphones and start
taking notes.
What I mean is: pause for a moment to consider that:
1. Russia has risen from utter economic, political, and societal collapse (gold
reserves, factories, military secrets, science labs stripped bare and shipped or
brain-drained out of the country; millions of pre-mature deaths; plunging birth rates) to
recover, within a mere 20 years, to the point where the population has stabilized and the
nation can credibly hold its own again on the world stage. Infrastructure is being rebuilt
and modernized, the military has been restructured and re-equipped, pensions and salaries
have risen 3 or 4-fold.
2. North Korea, in 1953, had been so destroyed by war that no structures over a single
story were left standing (and American generals were actually barfing into their helmets at
the horror of what had been done to those people). The DPRK authorities, helpless to assist
the population, could only advise to dig shelters underground to survive the winter. Yet, 70
years later, under international sanctions designed to starve those traumatized people into
surrender, North Korea has restored its infrastructure, built modern cities, and developed a
military apparatus able to credibly resist constant threats from abroad.
See: rather than picking nits to find things that are not yet perfectly hunky-dory with
the governing structures/systems in those countries, I'm taking notes!!
Because, I'm convinced that if those people (those nations) were able to do what they've
done with the time and resources they've had to work with, there is absolutely no reason and
no excuse for our rich nations of "the West" to be caught in a nightmare of austerity
budgeting, crumbling infrastructure, collapsing pensions, and spiralling debt.
Funny how the English speaking world SO resisst learning something that could actually do
us a whole lot of good. I don't know who coined the terms "stiffnecked" and "bloodyminded",
but it sure describes us!
"From Moscow's perspective, the events in Kiev in late 2013 and 2014 looked suspiciously like
a Western-backed coup."
Gee, ya think? Kinda reminds one of the 1996 Russian election. But, hey, don't broadcast
this because, after all, too many people might start, er, noticing.
" American politicians like Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman "
American? I beg to differ. All of those turncoats serve their Master Israel and kiss the nether regions of those TBTF Wall
Street Casinos.
Browder is one of those nine Russian oligarchs -- eight of whom are Jews -- who stole hundreds of billions from Russia when
it was decompressing from being the USSR, helped by the drunken buffoon Yeltsin and a battery of Wall Street financial sharpies
who also filled their pockets.
Watch the tough guy Browder run like a scared bunny rabbit in NYC from a process server.
Browder needs to be arrested by Interpol, tried, convicted and spend the rest of his sorry life in a Super Max prison for his
thefts, frauds and helping to poison the relationship between the USA & Russia, in an effort to save his sorry ass from prosecution.
"Yeltsin had won a fraudulent election in 1996 supported by the oligarch-controlled media and by President Bill Clinton,
who secured a $20.2 billion IMF loan that enabled him to buy support. Today we would refer to Clinton's action as "interference
in the 1996 election," but at that time a helpless and bankrupt Russia was not well placed to object to what was being done
to it."
[emphasis mine]
So Mother Russia was raped, and by Bill Clinton, of all people. Where is the outrage? #MeToo
Although I posted this comment under another thread, I think it bears repeating here (especially relevant to your point is
the bolded part):
I think debunking the vulture capitalist Bill Browder's false claim of being, of all things, a human rights advocate is
the key to unraveling the Russia-gate hoax. I also think the following information goes a long way in doing that:
1. Nekrasov's documentary, The Magnitsky Act: Behind The Scenes, now available for viewing
2. Alex Krainer's The Killing of William Browder, now available online; and
3. Bill Browder's Previzon deposition in which he claims "I can't remember" at least 50 times and answers "I don't know"
fully 211 times.
Notwithstanding these facts, it appears Mr. Browder is an untouchable. The Russians have issued a Red Notice at least
six times and he has managed to walk away scot free on each occasion.
The zinger was when the Senate Judiciary Committee invited him to testify as an expert witness against Fusion GPS, arguing
that it should have registered under FARA because it was working on behalf of a foreign government, in this case the Russian.
The irony of this scene was incredible. The hallowed chamber in which this inquiry took place is completely bought and paid
for by The Lobby but not a peep about having it register under FARA. Totally surreal!
An interesting thing about this that has gone almost completely unreported is that HSBC quietly held a series of closed-door meetings
with Russian authorities earlier this year regarding the tax fraud charges leveled at Browder and his businesses (HSBC jointly
managed Hermitage) and decided to pay up some of the cash he illegally siphoned out of the country (22 million dollars I believe,
so a drop in the ocean given the scale of his endeavors, but it's something.)
"Bill Browder declined to comment" according to one of the few articles on the matter.
Isn't all of that more or less tantamount to an admission of guilt?
(2) How does a respectable congress pass a law based solely on the testimony of someone convicted of a crime by another country?
No jury in the world would reach a verdict based solely on the word of a convict, without it being substantiated by numerous pieces
of other circumstantial and direct evidence.
(3) Even if he paid everyone oodles of money and brought a thousand lawsuits, why would gazillionaire corporations cave in
to his demands to ban books, movies, organizations, etc.?
There is something more powerful about Bill Browder than just his pile of money.
In fact, most (not all) US lawmakers long ago became a euphemism for incompetence, corruption and lies. So, no -- modern US
Congress is not respectable by people and numbers reflect that. Hopefully, sometime in the future, some honorable and loyal to
their country people will make it there.
Can someone help me remember the names of those 9 oligarchs?
These are the ones I remember:
1) Anatoly Chubais
2) Browder
3) Boris Berezovsky
4) Mikhail Khodorkovsky
5) Vladimir Gusinsky
Who were the others? Thanks.
Of these 5, Chubais remained in Russia but the others fled. Chubais was the one who was instrumental in starting the loans-for-shares
scheme. My understanding is that those who fled are real scum, since Putin offered all oligarchs the chance to keep their money
so long as they avoided politics. Most vulture capitalists agreed to this arrangement, but the worst of the Jewish oligarchs were
too greedy and lustful to give in. So I have heard, anyway.
"... There are many modern myths. One of them is about the events of 1989 as being the culmination of a grand historical struggle for freedom and liberty. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For years prior to 1989 the West through a combination of both legal business and criminal activity had interpenetrated the Communist elites with lucrative deals and promises of all kinds. ..."
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
-- Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar"
There are many modern myths. One of them is about the events of 1989 as being the
culmination of a grand historical struggle for freedom and liberty. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For years prior to 1989 the West through a combination of both legal business and criminal
activity had interpenetrated the Communist elites with lucrative deals and promises of all
kinds.
This situation was even more pronounced in "non-aligned" Yugoslavia who for years had
maintained CIA and American and West European business contacts.
In effect, the "cold war" witnessed a rapid convergence between the economic and power
interests of both Western and Communist elites.
The "Communists" (in name only of course) quickly realized the economic benefits available
to them through at times open at times clandestine cooperation with Western business/criminal
interests.
Eventually, Communist elites realized that they had an unprecedented economic opportunity on
their hands: state privatization made possible, in part, with active Western participation.
For them, "Freedom" meant the freedom to get rich beyond their wildest dreams.
And the 1990's were just that. A paradise for thieving on an unimaginable scale all under
the rubric of the rebirth of "capitalism and freedom".
The true outcome of that decade was that the old communist elites not only retained their
social and political power behind the scenes; they also were able to enrich themselves beyond
anything the communist dictatorships could ever hope to offer them in the past.
Yes, the price was to give up imperial, national, and ideological ambitions. But it was a
very small price to pay; since the East European elites had ceased to believe in any of those
things years earlier.
The only firm belief they still held was the economic betterment of themselves and their
families through the acquisition by any means of as many asset classes as possible. In effect,
they became the mirror image of their "enemy" the "imperialist capitalist West".
This was not a case of historical dialectics but historical convergence. What appeared as a
world divided was actually a world waiting to be made whole through the basest of criminal
business activity.
But being clever thieves they knew how to hide themselves and their doings behind
superficially morally impeccable figures such as Vaclav Havel and Lech Wałęsa, to
name just a few. These "dissidents" would be the faces they would use to make a good part of
the world believe that 1989 was a narrative of freedom and not outright pubic theft which it
was.
Yes, people in the east, even in Russia, are freer now than they were. But it should never
be forgotten that the events of 1989/1990 were not even remotely about those revolutionary
dreams.
It was about something much more mundane and sordid. It was about greed. It was about the
maintenance of power. And finally it was about money.
How deep has the Western nexus of power and wealth gone into the heart of the East? So far
indeed that one can easily question to what extent a country like Russia is truly a "national"
state anymore and rather just a territory open to exploitation by both local and global
elites.
For that matter, we can ask the same question about the USA.
" The US fabricated evidence to start the Vietnam war and the US fabricated WMD talk on the second war in Iraq. US intelligence
had no idea the Berlin Wall was about to fall. The US meddled in Russia supporting a drunk named Yeltsin because we erroneously
thought we could control him."
YUP! AMEN.
It's amusing to me that the Leftist's NOW have a blind-faith trust in government, whereas during the Vietnam war, and at the
start of the Iraq war the opposite was (justifiably) the case.
And remember, the [neoliberal] Left was all OVER how we manipulated Russia into an Oligarchy:
"... While not being a fan of Stalin, I acknowledge that only the people who rose to the top before Bolsheviks took power were good for anything. Those who rose after, from Khruschev on, were worthless nonentities. I consider this negative selection of leaders as one of the drawbacks of the Soviet system. ..."
Compared to modern western leaders Kruschev was rather good leader and Brezhnev is
downright genius. I was and am actually fond of Dear Leonid Iliich. So I believe it is not a
matter of social political organization but systematic and probably human feature.
The West has been producing non entities, idiots and morons at the top with unerring
consistency. It is just that conditions in the West are far more forgiving than in Russia.
Also we have not mentioned destruction and suffering caused by war in ussr somewhat lagging
in few aspects of life standards. Socialism slogan is from everyone by their abilities to
everyone for their contribution.
Hence obviously hardworking and better contributing people should be rewarded especially
like in Stalin times via glorifying and promoting them to higher status. Stahanov movement
comes to mind.
I think Stalin genius is underappreciated. Regarding weapons manufacturing I believe it
was a matter of great patriotic war shock.
That war in every respect has caused great damage to us including probably due to huge
loss of Tim and best human material laying foundation for further problems. Stalin wasted
8-10 years of his life to first win the war and then rebuild the country. Imagine no war. I
am pretty sure there would be no 1991.
While not being a fan of Stalin, I acknowledge that only the people who rose to the
top before Bolsheviks took power were good for anything. Those who rose after, from Khruschev
on, were worthless nonentities. I consider this negative selection of leaders as one of the
drawbacks of the Soviet system.
Materially the people in some Western countries lived better than the Soviet people.
However, the difference was ~2-3-fold at best, not 10+-fold as many in the USSR believed, and
there were (and are) very few countries with higher living standards than Russia. As far as
psychological wellbeing is concerned, the USSR compared to the West even better, except for
the people with excellent education and willingness to work hard, like me. That's the PR
campaign Soviet authorities lost to their peril: the support of better intellectually
equipped and the most active people.
I agree that nobody, even the laziest and most useless, should go hungry today, but the
difference between what those get and what hard-working people get should be many-fold.
Otherwise, the society provides disincentive for the people who can contribute, dragging
itself down.
Also, USSR should have paid more attention to the production of consumer goods, even if it
meant fewer tanks and artillery pieces. It's policies made all these tanks useless, anyway,
not to mention that today these tanks and other military hardware is used against Russia by
former "brothers" (with "bothers" like that, who needs enemies).
I agree that the people who went to college in Soviet times are better educated and more
creative than recent graduates. I am pretty sure that recent successes of Russian MIC are
largely due to the Soviet legacy. We'll see what happens next, as "effective managers" they
are cranking out now are totally useless in real life.
"... However, the truth – at least in retrospect – was that, in the Cold War years, the Soviets were actually doing Washington a strange, if unnoted, favor. Across much of the Eurasian continent, and other places from Cuba to the Middle East, Soviet power and the never-ending contest for influence and dominance that went with it always reminded American leaders that their own power had its limits. ..."
"... This, as the 21st century should have (but hasn't) made clear, was no small thing. It still seemed obvious then that American power could not be total. There were things it could not do, places it could not control, dreams its leaders simply couldn't have. Though no one ever thought of it that way, from 1945 to 1991, the United States, like the Soviet Union, was, after a fashion, "contained." ..."
"... In those years, the Russians were, in essence, saving Washington from itself. Soviet power was a tangible reminder to American political and military leaders that certain areas of the planet remained no-go zones (except in what, in those years, were called "the shadows"). ..."
"... The Soviet Union, in short, rescued Washington from both the fantasy and the hell of going it alone, even if Americans only grasped that reality at the most subliminal of levels. ..."
Think of it as the all-American version of the human comedy: a great power that eternally
knows what the world needs and offers copious advice with a tone deafness that would be
humorous, if it weren't so grim.
If you look, you can find examples of this just about
anywhere. Here, for instance, is a passage in The New York Times from a piece on the
topsy-turvy Trumpian negotiations that preceded the Singapore summit. "The Americans and South
Koreans," wrote
reporter Motoko Rich, "want to persuade the North that continuing to funnel most of the
country's resources into its military and nuclear programs shortchanges its citizens' economic
well-being. But the North does not see the two as mutually exclusive."
Think about that for a moment. The US has, of course, embarked on a trillion-dollar-plus
upgrade of its already massive nuclear arsenal (and
that's before the cost overruns even begin). Its Congress and president have for years proved
eager to sink at least a
trillion dollars annually into the budget of the national security state (a figure that's
still rising and
outpaces by far that of any other power on the planet), while its own infrastructure
sags and crumbles. And
yet it finds the impoverished North Koreans puzzling when they, too, follow such an extreme
path.
"Clueless" is not a word Americans ordinarily apply to themselves as a country, a people, or
a government. Yet how applicable it is.
And when it comes to cluelessness, there's another, far stranger path the United States has
been following since at least the George W Bush moment that couldn't be more consequential and
yet somehow remains the least noticed of all. On this subject, Americans don't have a clue. In
fact, if you could put the United States on a psychiatrist's couch, this might be the place to
start.
America contained
In a way, it's the oldest story on Earth: the rise and fall of empires. And note the plural
there. It was never – not until recently at least – "empire," always "empires."
Since the 15th century, when the fleets of the first European imperial powers broke into the
larger world with subjugation in mind, it was invariably a contest of many. There were at least
three or sometimes significantly more imperial powers rising and contesting for dominance or
slowly falling from it.
This was, by definition, the history of great powers on this planet: the challenging rise,
the challenged decline. Think of it for so many centuries as the essential narrative of
history, the story of how it all happened until at least 1945, when just two "superpowers," the
United States and the Soviet Union, found themselves facing off on a global scale.
Of the two, the US was always stronger, more powerful, and far wealthier. It theoretically
feared the Russian Bear, the Evil Empire , which it
worked assiduously to " contain " behind that famed Iron
Curtain and whose adherents in the US, always modest in number, were subjected to a mania of
fear and suppression.
However, the truth – at least in retrospect – was that, in the Cold War years,
the Soviets were actually doing Washington a strange, if unnoted, favor. Across much of the
Eurasian continent, and other places from Cuba to the Middle East, Soviet power and the
never-ending contest for influence and dominance that went with it always reminded American
leaders that their own power had its limits.
This, as the 21st century should have (but hasn't) made clear, was no small thing. It still
seemed obvious then that American power could not be total. There were things it could not do,
places it could not control, dreams its leaders simply couldn't have. Though no one ever
thought of it that way, from 1945 to 1991, the United States, like the Soviet Union, was, after
a fashion, "contained."
In those years, the Russians were, in essence, saving Washington from itself. Soviet power
was a tangible reminder to American political and military leaders that certain areas of the
planet remained no-go zones (except in what, in those years, were called "the shadows").
The Soviet Union, in short, rescued Washington from both the fantasy and the hell of going
it alone, even if Americans only grasped that reality at the most subliminal of levels.
That was the situation until December 1991 when, at the end of a centuries-long imperial
race for power (and the never-ending arms race that went with it), there was just one gigantic
power left standing on Planet Earth. It told you something about the thinking then that, when
the Soviet Union imploded, the initial reaction in Washington wasn't triumphalism (though that
came soon enough) but utter shock, a disbelieving sense that something no one had expected,
predicted, or even imagined had nonetheless happened. To that very moment, Washington had
continued to plan for a two-superpower world until the end of time.
America
uncontained
Soon enough, though, the Washington elite came to see what happened as, in the phrase of the
moment, " the end of
history ." Given the wreckage of the Soviet Union, it seemed that an ultimate victory had
been won by the very country its politicians would soon come to call "the last superpower," the
"
indispensable " nation, the " exceptional
" state, a land great beyond imagining (until, at least, Donald Trump hit
the campaign trail with a slogan that implied greatness wasn't all-American any more).
In reality, there were a variety of paths open to the "last superpower" at that moment.
There was even, however briefly, talk of a "peace dividend" – of the possibility that, in
a world without contesting superpowers, taxpayer dollars might once again be invested not in
the sinews of war-making but of peacemaking (particularly in infrastructure and the well-being
of the country's citizens).
Such talk, however, lasted only a year or two and always in a minor key before being
relegated to Washington's attic. Instead, with only a few rickety "rogue" states left to deal
with – like gulp North Korea, Iraq and Iran – that money never actually headed
home, and neither did the thinking that went with it.
Consider it the good fortune of the geopolitical dreamers soon to take the reins in
Washington that the first Gulf War of 1990-1991, which ended less than a year before the Soviet
Union collapsed, prepared the way for quite a different style of thinking. That instant victory
led to a new kind of militarized dreaming in which a highly tech-savvy military, like the one
that had driven Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait in such short order, would
be capable of doing anything on a planet without serious opposition.
And yet, from the beginning, there were signs suggesting a far grimmer future. To take but
one infamous example, Americans still remember the Black Hawk Down moment of 1993
when the world's greatest military fell victim to a Somali warlord and local militias and found
itself incapable of imposing its will on one of the least impressive not-quite-states on the
planet (a place
still frustrating that military a quarter-century later).
In that post-1991 world, however, few in Washington even considered that the 20th century
had loosed another phenomenon on the world, that of insurgent national liberation movements,
generally leftist rebellions, across what had been the colonial world – the very world of
competing empires now being tucked into the history books – and it hadn't gone away. In
the 21st century, such insurgent movements, now largely religious, or terror-based, or both,
would turn out to offer a grim new version of containment to the last
superpower.
Unchaining the indispensable nation
On September 11, 2001, a canny global jihadist by the name of Osama bin Laden
sent his air force (four hijacked US passenger jets) and his precision weaponry (19
suicidal, mainly Saudi followers) against three iconic targets in the American pantheon: the
Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and undoubtedly the Capitol or the White House (neither of
which was hit because one of those jets crashed in a field in
Pennsylvania). In doing so, in a sense bin Laden not only loosed a literal hell on Earth, but
unchained
the last superpower.
William Shakespeare would have had a word for what followed: hubris. But give the top
officials of the Bush administration (and the neocons who supported them) a break. There had
never been a moment like it: a moment of one. A single great power left alone, triumphant, on
planet Earth. Just one superpower – wealthy beyond compare, its increasingly high-tech
military unmatched, its only true rival in a state of collapse – had now been challenged
by a small jihadist group.
To president Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, and the rest of their crew, it seemed like
nothing short of a heaven-sent opportunity. As they came out of the shock of 9/11, of that "
Pearl
Harbor of the 21st century ," it was as if they had found a magic formula in the ruins of
those iconic buildings for the ultimate control of the planet. As secretary of defense Donald
Rumsfeld would instruct an aide
at the Pentagon that day, "Go massive. Sweep it up. Things related and not."
Within days, things related and not were indeed being swept up. The country was almost
instantly said to be "at war," and soon that conflict even had a name, the Global War on
Terror. Nor was that war to be against just al-Qaeda, or even one country, an Afghanistan
largely ruled by the Taliban. More than 60 countries said to have "terror
networks" of various sorts found themselves almost instantly in the administration's potential
gunsights. And that was just to be the beginning of it all.
In October 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan was launched. In the spring of 2003, the
invasion of Iraq followed, and those were only the initial steps in what was increasingly
envisioned as the imposition of a Pax Americana on the Greater Middle East.
There could be no doubt, for instance, that Iran and Syria, too, would
soon go the way of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush's top officials had been nursing just such dreams
since, in 1997, many of them formed a
think-tank (the first ever to enter the White House) called the Project for the New American
Century and began to write out what
were then the fantasies of figures nowhere near power. By 2003, they were power itself and
their dreams, if anything, had grown even more grandiose.
In addition to imagining a political Pax Republicana in the United States, they truly
dreamed of a future planetary Pax Americana in which, for the first time in history, a single
power would, in some fashion, control the whole works, the Earth itself.
And this wasn't to be a passing matter either. The Bush administration's "unilateralism"
rested on a conviction that it could actually create a future in which no country or even bloc
of countries would ever come close to matching or challenging US military power. The
administration's National Security Strategy of 2002 put the
matter bluntly: The US was to "build and maintain" a military, in the phrase of the moment,
" beyond challenge
."
They had little doubt that, in the face of the most technologically advanced, bulked-up,
destructive force on Earth, hostile states would be "shocked and awed" by a simple demonstration of
its power, while friendly ones would have little choice but to come to heel as well. After all,
as Bush said at a Veterans of
Foreign Wars convention in 2007, the US military was "the greatest force for human liberation
the world has ever known."
Though there was much talk at the time about the "liberation" of Afghanistan and then Iraq,
at least in their imaginations the true country being liberated was the planet's lone
superpower. Although the Bush administration was officially considered a "conservative" one,
its key officials were geopolitical dreamers of the first order and their vision of the world
was the very opposite of conservative. It harkened back to nothing and looked forward to
everything.
It was radical in ways that should have, but didn't, take the American public's breath away;
radical in ways that had never been seen before.
Shock and awe for the last
superpower
Think of what those officials did in the post-9/11 moment as the ultimate act of greed. They
tried to swallow a whole planet. They were determined to make it a planet of one in a way that
had never before been seriously imagined.
It was, to say the least, a vision of madness. Even in a moment when it truly did seem
– to them at least – that all constraints had been taken off, an administration of
genuine conservatives might have hesitated. Its top officials might, at least, have approached
the post-Soviet situation with a modicum of caution and modesty.
But not George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and pals. In the face of what seemed
like the ultimate in possibilities they proved clueless when it came to the possibility that
anything on Earth might have a shot at containing them.
Even among their critics, who could have imagined then that, more than 16 years later,
having faced only lightly armed enemies of various sorts, still wealthy beyond compare, still
with a military funded in a way the next seven
countries couldn't cumulatively match,
the United States would have won literally nothing?
Who could have imagined that, unlike so many preceding imperial powers (including the US of
the earlier Cold War era), it would have been able to establish control over nothing at all;
that, instead, from Afghanistan to Syria, Iraq deep into Africa, it would find itself in a
state of "
infinite war " and utter frustration on a planet filled with ever more failed
states , destroyed
cities , displaced people , and
right-wing "populist" governments, including the one in Washington?
Who could have imagined that, with a peace dividend no longer faintly conceivable, this
country would have found itself not just in decline, but – a new term is needed to catch
the essence of this curious moment – in what might be called self-decline?
Yes, a new power, China, is finally rising – and doing so on a planet that seems
itself to be
going down . Here, then, is a conclusion that might be drawn from the quarter-century-plus
in which America was both unchained and largely alone.
The Earth is admittedly a small orb in a vast universe, but the history of this century so
far suggests one reality about which America's rulers proved utterly clueless: After so many
hundreds of years of imperial struggle, this planet still remains too big, too disparate, too
ornery to be controlled by a single power. What the Bush administration did was simply take one
gulp too many and the result has been a kind of national (and planetary) indigestion.
Despite what it looked like in Washington once upon a time, the disappearance of the Soviet
Union proved to be no gift at all, but a disaster of the first order. It removed all sense of
limits from America's political class and led to a tale of greed on a planetary scale. In the
process, it also set the US on a path to self-decline.
The history of greed in our time has yet to be written, but what a story it will someday
make. In it, the greed of those geopolitical dreamers will intersect with the greed of an ever
wealthier, ever more gilded 1%, of the billionaires who were preparing to swallow whole the
political system of that last superpower and grab so much of the wealth of the planet, leaving
so little for others.
Whether you're talking about the urge to control the planet militarily or financially, what
took place in these years could, in the end, result in ruin of a historic kind. To use a
favored phrase from the Bush years, one of these days we Americans may be facing little short
of "regime change" on a planetary scale. And what a piece of shock and awe that's likely to
prove to be.
All of us, of course, now live on the planet Bush's boys tried to swallow whole. They left
us in a world of infinite war, infinite harm, and in Donald Trump's America where cluelessness
has been raised to a new power.
Mixture of interesting although almost irrelevant information about personalities such as
Gorbachov and his wife (viewed over rose glasses) with some idiotic statements. Avoid.
The collapse of the USSR was the collapse of the society which ideology (Marxism-leninism)
collapsed and replacement it with neoliberalism. Neoliberal counterrevolution.
Also the economics of the USSR was a war economics. Part of it was due to the threat from the West and embargo on high tech.
Part due to own military-industrial complex. Agriculture was a failure. The net result was deterioration of he standard of
living in 80th. People because seduced by western consumerism and elite was seduced by neoliberal ideology. So
neoliberal revolution (counter-revolution) logically followed
April 5, 2017
In this lecture, William Taubman, professor of Political Science at Amherst College and the
Pulitzer Prize-winning author, sheds a light on how Mihail Gorbachev undermined the Soviet
system in pursuit of his dream of the democratized country.
The West will always hate Russia. Because the Soviet Union destroyed the colonial world
order where the rules of the West. Despotism of the "white man" was destroyed, and enslaved
peoples of Africa, Asia, Islamic world, Latin America was released. In the 19th century, the
West ruled the world, now only n their historical lands. Russia has caused considerable
damage to Western domination.
Why USSR collapsed according to America, Fake news. The USSR empire collapsed for the same
reasons that European empires collapsed. The American empire has been in decline for a while
now and will eventually collapsed too.
The USSR was doomed to collapse. It is a totally corrupted union, with selfish leaders who
lived in luxury while the people lived in poverty. However, it devoted its resources to
military development. No extra resources were given to production of consumer goods and foods
for the people. Its union comprises many countries with different races and cultures, which
could never be reconciled. Its collapse is just a matter of time, and could not blame
Gorbachev.
Paul Craig Roberts is right about dominance of neoliberal economics in Russia. But what is the alternative?
Notable quotes:
"... If the neoconservatives had self-restraint, they would sit back and let America's Fifth Column -- Neoliberal Economics -- finish off Russia for them. Russia is doomed, because the country's economists were brainwashed during the Yeltsin years by American neoliberal economists. It was easy enough for the Americans to do. Communist economics had come to naught, the Russian economy was broken, Russians were experiencing widespread hardship, and successful America was there with a helping hand. ..."
"... For example, neoliberal economics exposes Russia's currency to speculation, manipulation, and destabilization. Capital inflows can be used to drive up the value of the ruble, and then at the opportune time, the capital can be pulled out, dropping the ruble's value and driving up domestic inflation with higher import prices, delivering a hit to Russian living standards. Washington has always used these kind of manipulations to destabilize governments. ..."
"... Neo-liberal economics has also brainwashed the Russian central bank with the belief that Russian economic development depends on foreign investment in Russia. This erroneous belief threatens the very sovereignty of Russia. The Russian central bank could easily finance all internal economic development by creating money, but the brainwashed central bank does not realize this. The bank thinks that if the bank finances internal development the result would be inflation and depreciation of the ruble. So the central bank is guided by American neoliberal economics to borrow abroad money it does not need in order to burden Russia with foreign debt that requires a diversion of Russian resources into interest payments to the West. ..."
"... As Michael Hudson and I explained to the Russians two years ago, when Russia borrows from the West, the US for example, and in flow the dollars, what happens to the dollars? Russia cannot spend them domestically to finance development projects, so where do the dollars go? They go into Russia's foreign exchange holdings and accrue interest for the lender. The central bank then creates the ruble equivalent of the borrowed and idle dollars and finances the project. So why borrow the dollars? The only possible reason is so the US can use the dollar debt to exercise control over Russian decision making. In other words, Russia delivers herself into the hands of her enemies. ..."
"... Putin is struggling to have Russia integrated into the Western economic system while retaining Russia's sovereignty (an unrealistic goal), because Putin has been convinced by the element in the Russian elite, which had rather be Western than Russian, that Russia's economic development depends on being integrated into the Western economy. As the neoliberal economic elite control Russia's economic and financial policy, Putin believes that he has to accept Western provocations or forfeit his hopes for Russian economic development. ..."
This is the lecture I would have given if I had been able to accept the invitation to
address the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in Russia this weekend.
Executive Summary:
From the standpoint of Russia's dilemma, this is an important column.
Putin's partial impotence via-a-vis Washington is due to the grip that neoliberal economics
exercises over the Russian government. Putin cannot break with the West, because he believes
that Russian economic development is dependent on Russia's integration within the Western
economy. That is what neoliberal economics tells the Russian economic and financial
establishment.
Everyone should understand that I am not a pro-Russian anti-American. I am anti-war,
especially nuclear war. My concern is that the inability of the Russian government to put its
foot down is due to its belief that Russian development, despite all the talk about the
Eurasian partnership and the Silk Road, is dependent on being integrated with the West. This
totally erroneous belief prevents the Russian government from any decisive break with the West.
Consequently, Putin continues to accept provocations in order to avoid a decisive break that
would cut Russia off from the West. In Washington and the UK this is interpreted as a lack of
resolve on Putin's part and encourages an escalation in provocations that will intensify until
Russia's only option is surrender or war.
If the Russian government did not believe that it needed the West, the government could
give stronger responses to provocations that would make clear that there are limits to what
Russia will tolerate. It would also make Europe aware that its existence hangs in the balance.
The combination of Trump abusing Europe and Europe's recognition of the threat to its own
existence of its alignment with an aggressive Washington would break the Western alliance and
NATO. But Putin cannot bring this about because he erroneously believes that Russia needs the
West.
If the neoconservatives had self-restraint, they would sit back and let America's Fifth
Column -- Neoliberal Economics -- finish off Russia for them. Russia is doomed, because the
country's economists were brainwashed during the Yeltsin years by American neoliberal
economists. It was easy enough for the Americans to do. Communist economics had come to naught,
the Russian economy was broken, Russians were experiencing widespread hardship, and successful
America was there with a helping hand.
In reality the helping hand was a grasping hand. The hand grasped Russian resources through
privatization and gave control to American-friendly oligarchs. Russian economists had no clue
about how financial capitalism in its neoliberal guise strips economies of their assets while
loading them up with debt.
But worse happened. Russia's economists were brainwashed into an economic way of thinking
that serves Western imperialism.
For example, neoliberal economics exposes Russia's currency to speculation, manipulation,
and destabilization. Capital inflows can be used to drive up the value of the ruble, and then
at the opportune time, the capital can be pulled out, dropping the ruble's value and driving up
domestic inflation with higher import prices, delivering a hit to Russian living standards.
Washington has always used these kind of manipulations to destabilize governments.
Neo-liberal economics has also brainwashed the Russian central bank with the belief that
Russian economic development depends on foreign investment in Russia. This erroneous belief
threatens the very sovereignty of Russia. The Russian central bank could easily finance all
internal economic development by creating money, but the brainwashed central bank does not
realize this. The bank thinks that if the bank finances internal development the result would
be inflation and depreciation of the ruble. So the central bank is guided by American
neoliberal economics to borrow abroad money it does not need in order to burden Russia with
foreign debt that requires a diversion of Russian resources into interest payments to the
West.
As Michael Hudson and I explained to the Russians two years ago, when Russia borrows from
the West, the US for example, and in flow the dollars, what happens to the dollars? Russia
cannot spend them domestically to finance development projects, so where do the dollars go?
They go into Russia's foreign exchange holdings and accrue interest for the lender. The central
bank then creates the ruble equivalent of the borrowed and idle dollars and finances the
project. So why borrow the dollars? The only possible reason is so the US can use the dollar
debt to exercise control over Russian decision making. In other words, Russia delivers herself
into the hands of her enemies.
Indeed, it is the Russian government's mistaken belief that Russian economic development is
dependent on Russia being included as part of the West that has caused Putin to accept the
provocations and humiliations that the West has heaped upon Russia. The lack of response to
these provocations will eventually cause the Russian government to lose the support of the
nationalist elements in Russia.
Putin is struggling to have Russia integrated into the Western economic system while
retaining Russia's sovereignty (an unrealistic goal), because Putin has been convinced by the
element in the Russian elite, which had rather be Western than Russian, that Russia's economic
development depends on being integrated into the Western economy. As the neoliberal economic
elite control Russia's economic and financial policy, Putin believes that he has to accept
Western provocations or forfeit his hopes for Russian economic development.
Russian economists are so indoctrinated with neoliberal economics that they cannot even look
to America to see how a once great economy has been completely destroyed by neoliberal
economics.
The US has the largest public debt of any country in history. The US has the largest trade
and budget deficits of any country in history. The US has 22 percent unemployment, which it
hides by not counting among the unemployed millions of discouraged workers who, unable to find
jobs, ceased looking for jobs and are arbitrarily excluded from the measure of unemployment.
The US has a retired class that has been stripped of any interest payment on their savings for
a decade, because it was more important to the Federal Reserve to bail out the bad loans of a
handful of "banks too big to fail," banks that became too big to fail because of the
deregulation fostered by neoliberal economics. By misrepresenting "free trade" and "globalism,"
neoliberal economics sent America's manufacturing and tradeable professional skill jobs abroad
where wages were lower, thus boosting the incomes of owners at the expense of the incomes of US
wage-earners, leaving Americans with the lowly paid domestic service jobs of a Third World
country. Real median family income in the US has been stagnant for decades. The Federal Reserve
recently reported that Americans are so poor that 41 percent of the population cannot raise
$400 without selling personal possessions.
Young Americans, if they have university educations, begin life as debt slaves. Currently
there are 44,200,000 Americans with student loan debt totalling $1,048,000,000,000 -- $1.48
trillion! https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/
In the US all 50 states have publicly supported universities where tuition is supposed to be
nominal in order to encourage education. When I went to Georgia Tech, a premier engineering
school, my annual tuition was less than $500. Loans were not needed and did not exist.
What happened? Financial capitalism discovered how to turn university students into
indentured servants, and the university administrations cooperated. Tuitions rose and rose and
were increasingly allocated to administration, the cost of which exploded. Today many
university administrations absorb 75% of the annual budget, leaving little for professors' pay
and student aid. An obedient Congress created a loan program that ensnares young American men
and women into huge debt in order to acquire an university education. With so many of the
well-paying jobs moved offshore by neoliberal economics, the jobs available cannot service the
student loan debts. A large percentage of Americans aged 24-34 live at home with parents,
because their jobs do not pay enough to service their student loan debt and pay an apartment
rent. Debt prevents them from living an independent existence.
In America the indebtedness of the population produced by neoliberal economics -- privatize,
privatize, deregulate, deregulate, indebt, indebt -- prevents any economic growth as the
American public has no discretionary income after debt service to drive the economy. In America
the way cars, trucks, and SUVs are sold is via zero downpayment and seven years of loans. From
the minute a vehicle is purchased, the loan obligation exceeds the value of the vehicle.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Mike Meru, a dentist earning $225,000 annually, has
$1,060,945.42 in student loan debt. He pays $1,589.97 monthly, which is not enough to cover the
interest, much less reduce the principal. Consequently, his debt from seven years at the
University of Southern California grows by $130 per day. In two decades, his loan balance will
be $2 million.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-meru-has-1-million-in-student-loans-how-did-that-happen-1527252975
If neoliberal economics does not work for America, why will it work for Russia? Neoliberal
economics only works for oligarchs and their institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, who are
bankrolled by the central bank to keep the economy partially afloat. Washington will agree to
Russia being integrated into the Western system when Putin agrees to resurrect the Yeltsin-era
practice of permitting Western financial institutions to strip Russia of her assets while
loading her up with debt.
I could continue at length about the junk economics, to use Michael Hudson's term, that is
neoliberal economics. The United States is failing because of it, and so will Russia.
John Bolton and the neocons should just relax. Neoliberal economics, which has the Russian
financial interests, the Russian government and apparently Putin himself in its grip, will
destroy Russia without war.
[May 27, 2018] Turning on Russia by Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould
"... Coming Next, Part 2: The post WWII global strategy of the neocons has been shaped chiefly by Russophobia against the Soviet Union and now Russia ..."
"... * Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story , Crossing Zero The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire and The Voice . Visit their websites at invisiblehistory and grailwerk .com ..."
In this first of a two-part series, Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould trace the origins
of the neoconservative targeting of Russia.
By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould April 29.2018
The German newsmagazine Der Spiegel last September reported
that, "Stanley Fischer, the 73–year-old vice chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, is
familiar with the decline of the world's rich. He spent his childhood and youth in the British
protectorate of Rhodesia before going to London in the early 1960s for his university studies.
There, he experienced first-hand the unravelling of the British Empire Now an American citizen,
Fischer is currently witnessing another major power taking its leave of the world stage the
United States is losing its status as a global hegemonic power, he said recently. The U.S.
political system could take the world in a very dangerous direction "
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the creation of the so called Wolfowitz
Doctrine in 1992 during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, the United States
claimed the mantle of the world's first and only. Unipower with the intention of crushing any
nation or system that would oppose it in the future. The New World Order, foreseen just a few
short years ago, becomes more disorderly by the day, made worse by varying degrees of
incompetence and greed emanating from Berlin, London, Paris and Washington.
As a further sign of the ongoing seismic shocks rocking America's claim to leadership, by
the time Fischer's interview appeared in the online version of the Der Spiegel , he had
already announced his resignation as vice chair of the Federal Reserve -- eight months ahead of
schedule. If anyone knows about the decline and fall of empires it is the "globalist" and
former Bank of Israel president, Stanley Fischer. Not only did he experience the unravelling of
the British Empire as a young student in London, he directly assisted in the wholesale
dismantling of the Soviet Empire during the 1990s.
As an admitted product of the British Empire and point man for its long term imperial aims,
that makes Fischer not just empire's Angel of Death, but its rag and bone man.
Alongside a handful of Harvard economists led by Jonathan Hay, Larry Summers, Andrei
Shleifer, and Jeffry Sachs, in the "Harvard Project," plus Anatoly Chubais, the chief Russian
economic adviser, Fischer helped throw 100 million Russians into poverty overnight –
privatizing, or as some would say piratizing – the Russian economy. Yet, Americans never
got the real story because a slanted anti-Russia narrative covered the true nature of the
robbery from beginning to end.
As described by public policy scholar and anthropologist Janine R. Wedel in her 2009 book
Shadow Elite: "Presented in the West as a fight between enlightenment Reformers trying
to move the economy forward through privatization, and retrograde Luddites who opposed them,
this story misrepresented the facts. The idea or goal of privatization was not controversial,
even among communists the Russian Supreme Soviet, a communist body, passed two laws laying the
groundwork for privatization. Opposition to privatization was rooted not in the idea itself but
in the particular privatization program that was implemented, the opaque way in which it
was put into place, and the use of executive authority to bypass the parliament."
Intentionally set up to fail for Russia and the Russian people under the cover of a false
narrative, she continues "The outcome rendered privatization 'a de facto fraud,' as one
economist put it, and the parliamentary committee that had judged the Chubais scheme to 'offer
fertile ground for criminal activity' was proven right."
If Fischer, a man who helped bring about a de facto criminal-privatization-fraud to
post-empire Russia says the U.S. is on a dangerous course, the time has arrived for post-empire
Americans to ask what role he played in putting the U.S. on that dangerous course. Little known
to Americans is the blunt force trauma Fischer and the "prestigious" Harvard Project delivered
to Russia under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. According to The American Conservative's James Carden "As the Center for Economic and Policy
Research noted back in 2011 'the IMF's intervention in Russia during Fischer's tenure led to
one of the worst losses in output in history, in the absence of war or natural disaster.'
Indeed, one Russian observer compared the economic and social consequences of the IMF's
intervention to what one would see in the aftermath of a medium-level nuclear attack."
Neither do most Americans know that it was President Jimmy Carter's national security
advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1970s grand plan for the conquest of the Eurasian heartland that
boomeranged to terrorize Europe and America in the 21 st century. Brzezinski spent
much of his life undermining the Communist Soviet Union and then spent the rest of it worrying
about its resurgence as a Czarist empire under Vladimir Putin. It might be unfair to say that
hating Russia was his only obsession. But a common inside joke during his tenure as the
President's top national security officer was that he couldn't find Nicaragua on a map.
If anyone provided the blueprint for the United States to rule in a unipolar world following
the Soviet Union's collapse it was Brzezinski. And if anyone could be said to represent the
debt driven financial system that fueled America's post-Vietnam Imperialism, it's Fischer. His
departure should have sent a chill down every neoconservative's spine. Their dream of a New
World Order has once again ground to a halt at the gates of Moscow.
Whenever the epitaph for the abbreviated American century is written it will be sure to
feature the iconic role the neoconservatives played in hastening its demise. From the chaos
created by Vietnam they set to work restructuring American politics, finance and foreign policy
to their own purposes. Dominated at the beginning by Zionists and Trotskyists, but directed by
the Anglo/American establishment and their intelligence elites, the neoconservatives' goal,
working with their Chicago School neoliberal partners, was to deconstruct the nation-state
through cultural co-optation and financial subversion and to project American power abroad. So
far they have been overwhelmingly successful to the detriment of much of the
world.
From the end of the Second World War through the 1980s the focus of this pursuit was on the
Soviet Union, but since the Soviet collapse in 1991, their focus has been on dismantling any
and all opposition to their global dominion.
Pentagon Capitalism
Shady finance, imperial misadventures and neoconservatism go hand in hand. The CIA's
founders saw themselves as partners in this enterprise and the defense industry welcomed them
with open arms. McGill University economist R.T. Naylor, author of 1987's Hot Money and the
Politics of Debt , described how "Pentagon Capitalism" had made the Vietnam War
possible by selling the Pentagon's debt to the rest of the world.
"In effect, the US Marines had replaced Meyer Lansky's couriers , and the European central
banks arranged the 'loan-back,'" Naylor writes. "When the mechanism was explained to the late
[neoconservative] Herman Kahn – lifeguard of the era's chief 'think tank' and a man who
popularized the notion it was possible to emerge smiling from a global conflagration – he
reacted with visible delight. Kahn exclaimed excitedly, 'We've pulled off the biggest ripoff in
history! We've run rings around the British Empire.'" In addition to their core of
ex-Trotskyist intellectuals early neoconservatives could count among their ranks such
establishment figures as James Burnham, father of the Cold War Paul Nitze, Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Brzezinski himself.
From the beginning of their entry into the American political mainstream in the 1970s it was
known that their emergence could imperil democracy in America and yet Washington's more
moderate gatekeepers allowed them in without much of a fight.
Peter Steinfels' 1979 classic The
Neoconservatives: The men who are changing America's politics begins with these fateful
words. "THE PREMISES OF THIS BOOK are simple. First, that a distinct and powerful political
outlook has recently emerged in the United States. Second, that this outlook, preoccupied with
certain aspects of American life and blind or complacent towards others, justifies a politics
which, should it prevail, threatens to attenuate and diminish the promise of American
democracy."
But long before Steinfels' 1979 account, the neoconservative's agenda of inserting their own
interests ahead of America's was well underway, attenuating U.S. democracy, undermining
détente and angering America's NATO partners that supported it. According to the
distinguished State Department Soviet specialist Raymond Garthoff, détente had been
under attack by right-wing and military-industrial forces ( led by Senator "Scoop"
Jackson ) from its inception. But America's ownership of that policy underwent a shift
following U.S. intervention on behalf of Israel during the 1973 October war. Garthoff writes in
his detailed volume on American-Soviet relations Détente
and Confrontation , "To the allies the threat [to Israel] did not come from the Soviet
Union, but from unwise actions by the United States, taken unilaterally and without
consultation. The airlift [of arms] had been bad enough. The U.S. military alert of its forces
in Europe was too much."
In addition to the crippling Arab oil embargo that followed, the crisis of confidence in
U.S. decision-making nearly produced a mutiny within NATO. Garthoff continues, "The United
States had used the alert to convert an Arab-Israeli conflict, into which the United States had
plunged, into a matter of East-West confrontation. Then it had used that tension as an excuse
to demand that Europe subordinate its own policies to a manipulative American diplomatic gamble
over which they had no control and to which they had not even been privy, all in the name of
alliance unity."
In the end the U.S. found common cause with its Cold War Soviet enemy by imposing a
cease-fire accepted by both Egypt and Israel thereby confirming the usefulness of
détente. But as related by Garthoff this success triggered an even greater effort by
Israel's "politically significant supporters" in the U.S. to begin opposing any
cooperation with the Soviet Union, at all.
Garthoff writes, "The United States had pressed Israel into doing precisely what the Soviet
Union (as well as the United States) had wanted: to halt its advance short of complete
encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army east of Suez Thus they [Israel's politically
significant supporters] saw the convergence of American-Soviet interests and effective
cooperation in imposing a cease-fire as a harbinger of greater future cooperation by the two
superpowers in working toward a resolution of the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian problem."
I am starting wondering what was the role of intelligence agencies, especially CIA is creation of the neoliberal myths and
spreading of the ideology... What connections to CIA has such figured and Milton Friedman and Hayek? Harvard
mafia definitely has such connections.
Neoliberalism is the refinement of this basic human tendency for domination. It is a
camouflaged form of oppression that is revealed through its ultimate effect, not what it does
at the moment. A neoliberal is a disguised raider or conquerer.
Notable quotes:
"... It got to be a running joke how these gang bosses and members were always denying that the mafia was an actual thing. ..."
"... Could it be that the neoliberals took a page out of their book and adopted the same tactic of denying the existence of neoliberalism while actively pushing it at every opportunity? ..."
"... To extend your analogy, much like the mafia, there's a handful of shadowy law breakers who benefit from neoliberalism and a whole lot of people that suffer violence so that those benefits can flow up to that few. ..."
"... Like the concurrent and related "Conservative revolution"(1973-), they stole the Cell Structure from the Comintern, and bought out the competition. ..."
Hey, I just remembered something. When I was a kid growing up everybody knew all about the
mafia but all those in the know denied that there was any such thing when questioned in a
court of law. It got to be a running joke how these gang bosses and members were always
denying that the mafia was an actual thing.
Could it be that the neoliberals took a page out of their book and adopted the same
tactic of denying the existence of neoliberalism while actively pushing it at every
opportunity?
And like the line from 'fight club', the first rule of neoliberalism is that you don't
talk about it.
To extend your analogy, much like the mafia, there's a handful of shadowy law breakers
who benefit from neoliberalism and a whole lot of people that suffer violence so that those
benefits can flow up to that few.
this is why I keep Mario Puzo next to Adam and Karl on the econ shelf in my library. It's
not so much Omerta, as gobbdeygook and wafer thin platitudes.
Like the concurrent and related "Conservative revolution"(1973-), they stole the Cell
Structure from the Comintern, and bought out the competition.
I am inclined to believe that the Libertarian Party was a vehicle for this
counterrevolution, too. And finally, with the DLC, they were able to buy the "opposition
party" outright and here we are.
UUUge mistake, Jimmy Dore; you should have done some homework before you elevated Jeffrey
Sachs to truth-teller status. Spend a few minutes with The Saker -- William Engdah interview:
http://thesaker.is/the-rape-of-russia-saker-blog-exclusive-interview/
Sache is not trustworthy.
Sachs worked closely w/ Soros to plunder USSR/ FSU. His job now is to establish
Jews/Israel/banker class, Deep State of which he's a part, and think tankers as absolutely
innocent of any complicity in the destruction of Syria. He's most likely in it up to his
eyeballs.
"... What the US Government under George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush Senior organised together with CIA, old boy networks of his, in terms of the breaking up of the Soviet Union and the looting of the assets, this open theft, the destruction of pensions, security, the health system and everything. The only appropriate word is the rape of Russia. They just pondered anything that they could. ..."
"... And the West, the Bush networks recruited a handful of KGB agents around Yeltsin who literally promoted Yeltsin to the top when they engineered the August 1991 fake coup. ..."
"... And through that the – this network, this corrupt network within the KGB that was working with the CIA, working with General Philip, Bob [unclear] is one of them, so called at that time the KGB brain. He was head of the KGB Fifth Directorate controlling to roll this in. ..."
"... They engineered a complete opening up of the assets of the Russian Federation which called today the Russian Federation, the largest part of the former Soviet Union and they made it such that the Russian Federation would assume all of the debts of Ukraine, of Kazakhstan and the other socialist republics of the Soviet and all the assets, all the crucial assets that were within the Russian Federation so the aluminium Rusal that's in the headlines yesterday, the nickel, the oil, the gas, just hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars' worth of assets that came into Yeltsin's control. ..."
"... Soros was very intermittently tied with Jeffrey Sachs and the whole Harvard to become a shock therapy group and working with Lawrence Summers team at the US Treasury under Clinton. ..."
"... So, Chubais was as an adviser to Yeltsin at that time and the key person on the economy arranged the secret meeting with George Soros. And Soros agreed to finance of course on behalf of Yeltsin, the referendum campaign. So he funnelled money over a million dollars by some accounts to offshore accounts set up to be used by Chubais to buy media. ..."
"... In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer program using an investment strategy to bring about the economic destruction of the Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the ruble, funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Given the depth of the fall, the rise (under Putin) has been remarkable. ..."
Lars Schall: Hello ladies and gentlemen. I am now connected with F. William Engdahl, who has
written a new book, Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance. Hi William.
F. William Engdahl: Hello, Lars. Good to be with you again.
LS: Great to have you with us. And first off, let me read something to you and our audience
that was written by the economist Dean Baker earlier this month.
As a long-term columnist at the NYT, Thomas Friedman apparently never feels the need to
know anything about the topics on which he writes. This explains his sarcastic speculation that
Putin could be a CIA agent since he has done so much to hurt Russia.
For all his
authoritarian tendencies, it is likely that most Russians think primarily about Putin's impact
on the economy, just as is typically the case among voters in the United States. On that front,
Putin has a very good record.
According to data from the IMF Russia's economy had plunged in the 1990s under the
Yeltsin presidency. When Putin took over in 1998, per capita income in the country had shrunk
by more than 40 percent from its 1990 level. This is a far sharper downturn than the United
States saw in the Great Depression. Since Putin took power its per capita income has risen by
more than 115 percent, an average annual growth rate of more than 3.9 percent.
While this growth has been very unequal, that was also the case even as Russia's economy
was collapsing under Yeltsin. The typical Russian has done hugely better in the last two
decades under Putin than they did in the period when Yeltsin was in power.
For this reason, there are probably few Russians who would have sympathy for Friedman's
speculation about Putin's ties to the CIA. The same would not be the case for Boris
Yeltsin.
Now, I think this is a good starting point for our discussion William because in your book,
you have a chapter entitled The Rape of Russia, the CIA's Yeltsin Coup d'état. Why do
you talk about rape related to Russia?
FWE: What the US Government under George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush Senior organised together
with CIA, old boy networks of his, in terms of the breaking up of the Soviet Union and the
looting of the assets, this open theft, the destruction of pensions, security, the health
system and everything. The only appropriate word is the rape of Russia. They just pondered
anything that they could.
And what you just read from Mr. Friedman is of course horse rubbish but the real CIA asset
of this whole collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s was in fact Boris Yeltsin and the
so called Yeltsin Family, the Yeltsin Mafia. And in my book, the Manifest Destiny book I
document and detail at great lengths the relation of a handful of KGB very, very senior persons
who worked with the Bush Senior old boys CIA networks in the West and their banks to create a
group of oligarchs around Yeltsin, you know the famous Russian oligarchs, well, The New York
Times and other Western Media portrayed them as Russian Mafia. They were kind of mafia but the
real point was that they were a CIA-run mafia. They were run by the West. They betrayed their
own country, their own people and literally stole billions and billions and billions of dollars
of assets. And that's the reason for the title in that chapter.
LS: And Boris Yeltsin was very essential for this.
FWE: He was the key figure. He had been selected as a regional governor and brought into
Moscow and a certain point Gorbachev saw him as a rising star and someone that could help with
a little bit more liberal image as [unclear] was – the Russian economy was running into
serious trouble in the '80s, the Star Wars of Reagan, the Nicaragua and above all the war in
Afghanistan which is a CIA project with the Mujahideen, that took 10 years long that was
bleeding the Soviet economy, the Soviet Union's Vietnam, as Brzezinski used to call it.
And the West, the Bush networks recruited a handful of KGB agents around Yeltsin who
literally promoted Yeltsin to the top when they engineered the August 1991 fake coup. You
remember, I'm sure many people remember the picture of Boris Yeltsin standing there
courageously on top of a Soviet tank in front of the Russian White House or Soviet House, the
Supreme Soviet building and reading a speech defying Gorbachev and so forth. Well, that was a
KGB CIA-engineered coup d'état in June 1991. And through that the – this network,
this corrupt network within the KGB that was working with the CIA, working with General Philip,
Bob [unclear] is one of them, so called at that time the KGB brain. He was head of the KGB
Fifth Directorate controlling to roll this in. And he later joined the [#inaudible 00:06:40-0#]
oil and to this day he's still a member of the State Duma giving him prosecution immunity.
So, some of these people are still around after some 23, 25 years and incredibly enough but
others of them have died off, have been killed, or murdered or whatever. But the operation that
was done with Yeltsin, this corrupt KGB network working with the CIA financed Yeltsin's the
silent seat of the presidency of the Russian Federation. And once they had their man in
controlling the Russian Federation which is the largest of the former Soviet Union, the
Socialist Republic, they were able to engineer through the international monetary fund that was
mandated to oversee the transformation of the Soviet economy.
They engineered a complete opening up of the assets of the Russian Federation which called
today the Russian Federation, the largest part of the former Soviet Union and they made it such
that the Russian Federation would assume all of the debts of Ukraine, of Kazakhstan and the
other socialist republics of the Soviet and all the assets, all the crucial assets that were
within the Russian Federation so the aluminium Rusal that's in the headlines yesterday, the
nickel, the oil, the gas, just hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars' worth of
assets that came into Yeltsin's control.
LS: But those assets were sold to a price that was rather ridiculous.
FWE: Someone estimated that that gets into the whole coupon privatisation that was set up
under Yeltsin in the '90s. The coupon privatisation issued one coupon to every single Russian
man, woman and child 140 million in total. And the value of those coupons was such someone
estimated that the totality of Russian Soviet's Fed assets or Russian Federation assets now was
equal to the value of the stock at that point of General Electric Company on the New York Stock
Exchange. I mean that's just laughable. Russia had financial bankruptcy because the shock
therapy, the Jeffrey Sachs and others from Harvard and elsewhere brought in, George Soros and
his pals. That created bankrupt companies that couldn't stand on their own and suddenly they
had no, no resources. But the assets, the assets on the ground, the nickel, the aluminium, the
uranium that Hillary Clinton knows more than a little bit about them, all of these were
estimated to be in the trillions of dollars. And this is what the Bush operation aimed at. And
they used NGOs, they used the National Endowment for Democracy, they used, George Soros' Open
Society Foundation and so forth to bring this about.
LS: You've mentioned already the coup d'etat attempt of August 1991. Highly important for
things to come was something that took place in early 1991 and that was the theft of the Soviet
gold. Please tell us about this.
FWE: The, under the Soviet Union, this is a very crucial point about the transition that
Washington forced on the Russian Federation because Yeltsin was, I think as long as he was
well-supplied with vodka he didn't protest very much. But under the Soviet system and the
Russian Federation took this over, there was a state bank, not a private central bank like the
Federal Reserve or the European Central Bank today but a state bank that was an entity of the
Russian State apparatus and that was called the Gosbank. And a man named Viktor Gerashchenko
was the chairman of Gosbank at the time of Yeltsin's early start in 1991.
And Gerashchenko made a speech around that time in November of '91 to the Russian Duma or
the parliament such as it was and said, "I have to report to you ladies and gentlemen that of
perhaps 3,000 tons of Gosbank state-owned gold reserves, we have an estimated less than 400
tons that we can account for." And then he had to go to tell, shock members of parliament that
he had no idea what happened to the missing gold, which of course was a lie. And Gerashchenko
had created right after 1989 to prepare this coup d'etat coup, which was the CIA and Bush's old
boys, he had created something called [unclear] on the Channel Islands in the Island of Jersey
to handle the Russian foreign currency reserves.
And the Jersey was exempt from European supervision, so this was a perfect place to hide
money, dirty money or stolen money and they managed something like $37 billion between 1993 and
1998. The Gerashchenko and the Gosbank even went to the lengths of hiring a New York Financial
Detective firm called the Financial CIA back then called Jules Kroll Associate. And they were
told to track the Soviet gold, find out what happened to it and something like $14 billion of
communist party assets that were missing as well. And the Cruel which was tied with the CIA
linked AIG Insurance Group Hank Greenberg whom you remember from the 2008 to the bail out of
Henry Paulson.
LS: Yes.
FEW: The Kroll Associates after a few months announced that they had no results in the
attempt to find the missing Soviet Gosbank gold. Then to add insult to injury, the IMF came in
and rewrote the constitution of the Russian Federation under Yeltsin and took the power of
money creation just like the Federal Reserve took the power of money creation from the congress
in 1913. They took the power of money creation from the state and created the Russian
Federation Central Bank, the Russian Central Bank and gave it a mandate for two things. One, to
control inflation and the other to create currency stability.
Now, in Russia that day that meant stability of the ruble against the US dollar. So it
effectively hammer-locked the Russian money creation into the US dollar. And unfortunately that
constitution amendment holds until the present day. It's one of the difficulties that Vladimir
Putin has been having to try to persuade the Independent Central Bank to lower interest rates
more rapidly as inflation is simply managed as a problem in Russia in the last two years.
So, they looted the gold so that there would be no stability to the ruble. If you don't have
any gold-backing, then western investors are going to lack confidence which is sort of what
happened. And then they began working with very select western bankers to get their money out
of Russia.
LS: And instrumental to get money out of Russia were Valmet and Riggs. Can you tell us
please about some crucial personnel that was employed there at Valmet and Riggs?
FWE: Valmet Riggs was kind of a fusion of a Swiss bank and Riggs Bank of Washington D. C.
And Riggs Bank, this is really quite a fascinating and very little discussed aspect of the
reign of Russia back in the '90s.
So you have something called Riggs Bank in Washington and they were set up decades earlier
since the 1960s CIA Bay of Pigs operation, they were known as the CIA tied bank. They invested
the assets of people like Marcos of the Philippines until when he was close to the CIA. And
there was a former NATO Ambassador named Alton Keel and in 1989 when the Soviet KGB generals
and they had a group of protégés called the 'Kids' by George Bush Senior. The
protégés were in their 30s and a couple of them were in their 40s but rather
young. And they were the ones who were nominated to become the oligarchs, the frontal men for
taking these state assets the aluminium, the oil assets and other things and looting the
Russian Federation.
And Alton Keel just as the Russians were setting up men at a bank for the oligarchs to
funnel their stolen assets, de facto stolen assets, Keel went from NATO and the National
Security Council to become a head of international banking of Riggs Bank in Washington and its
deputy chairman.
Now, it gets even more interesting because the international banking group of Riggs included
a new entity that had been created called Riggs Valmet SA in Switzerland, and Riggs Valmet was
set up by a man named Jonathan J. Bush, a private banker, who just happened to be the brother
of George Herbert Walker Bush. So, Bush brother and Alton Keel set up Riggs Valmet, there was a
money laundering apparatus in Geneva and Riggs then through their help bought the major share
in Geneva Valmet to create Riggs Valmet.
So, you have the brother of the president of the United States up to his eyeballs in this
whole Yeltsin CIA money laundering operation. And then Jonathan Bush was created CEO of
something called Riggs Investment in Connecticut where he lived and at that point the looting
and taking of the dollar assets out of Russia was just unstoppable. It was in the billions and
tens of billions of dollars.
LS: William, there is one guy who was working closely with those people and he was working
on Wall Street but later on he was personally recruited by George Tenet then the Director of
CIA to become the number three at the CIA, and this is Alvin Bernard "Buzzy" Krongard.
FWE: Yes. We meet "Buzzy" Krongard at Bankers Trust, which bought up Alex Brown, and
Krongard became vice chairman of Bankers Trust along with another charming character named
Carter Beese. And at the time of the 1998 collapse of the ruble, Krongard was formally made, as
you've pointed out, number three, the executive director at the CIA under George Tenet. So,
it's a CIA network from beginning to end, from the banking side to you know the direct CIA
side. You have Carter Beast, you have "Buzzy" Krongard, Jonathan Bush and Alton Keel and they
were the ones working with Valmet as the Riggs Valmet Bank in Geneva to pull this money out
through shell companies.
And the oligarchs, this is an interesting part of this whole thing that you know right now
Theresa May and the foreign secretary Boris Johnson in the UK are accusing Putin of murdering
almost everybody since the birth of Jesus Christ. And one of them was the person who had been
the trusted bodyguard of one of the oligarchs living in London Boris Berezovsky.
And Berezovsky was one of the dirtiest of these oligarchs. He'd financed the Ukrainian
Colour Revolution back in 2003, 2004 as a revenge against Putin because he at first thought
Putin could be bought like Yeltsin and suddenly he realized that he was up against the faction
of nationalists within of what had been the KGB but wanted to stabilise and preserve Russia as
a functioning nation today. And so Mikhail Khodorkovskyi, Roman Abramovich, who is listed on
the sanctions list yesterday, and Berezovsky were some of the leading oligarchs that were created
by this Bush operation.
LS: And to jumpstart all of this, we have to talk about something that is well, that is
stranger than fiction and that is something called for example "Yamashita's Gold". If our
audience is interested in this, they could for example look for an article written by Chalmers
Johnson, the famous Asian expert, The Looting of Asia, which was published at the London Review
of Books on the 20 th of November of 2003 because then they can find something on
this topic of Yamashita's gold on an instant basis in the internet ( https://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n22/chalmers-johnson/the-looting-of-asia
). I think this is just fair
FWE: Yeah.
LS: because no one really is aware of this whole story. Please tell us about this.
FWE: The Yamashita Gold story is one of the, as you've said really incredible stories of
post-World War II. During the Second World War, the Japanese Imperial Family looted the gold of
occupied Arch of China, they looted the gold of all the parts of Asia that they had
conquered.
LS: Basically from 1895 to 1945.
FWE: Yeah, yeah. And because they had no guarantee that Japan was going to win the war, the
emperor ordered the gold to be hidden away in, mostly in the Philippines as far as we know and
literally untold tons of gold were buried so deep underground in tunnels around the Philippines
and the people who dug the tunnels in many cases were later shot you know so that they couldn't
tell. But Marcos who was a CIA asset initially, the dictator of the Philippines through much of
the '70s and into the '80s, yeah through the '70, Ferdinand Marcos somehow came upon some of
this gold. So, the Japanese looted war body was buried in the early '40s before the end of the
war on orders of Emperor Hirohito should they lose the war.
And at some point in the 1970s, Marcos discovered some of the sites where Hirohito's
soldiers had buried the gold and the gold was stolen from China, Korea, Philippines, Indonesia
and other countries occupied by the Japanese forces. And Marcos, and I think this is the major
reason the CIA dumped him, got a little bit greedy and took that gold and started selling it
under the market through selective secret Swiss banks. But he used the CIA asset, the Saudi
billionaire named Adnan Khashoggi to help them get the gold under the market. And what he
didn't realise was that Khashoggi would double cross him. He got a better deal from Bush Senior
and the old boys.
LS: We have to say Khashoggi is a figure who is involved for example in B.C.C.I. and in
Iran-Contra.
FWE: Back in the '70s he was involved in everything dirty that Bush and the CIA were
involved in. B.C.C.I. Bank, the money laundering bank of the CIA, the arms deals, Khashoggi was
a huge arms dealer during the Iran and Iraq war the CIA was feeding. He was involved in almost
every dirty thing the CIA was doing.
LS: He was aware of this gold.
FWE: Supposedly he was helping Marcos to sell the gold out of the market. So he was not only
aware of it, he was right in the middle of it. But then once Marcos was tackled by the CIA Bush
got rid of Marcos in 1986. Then someone named Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Armitage and Khashoggi
began to work with someone in Canada to create something called – Peter Munk was his
name, a rather dubious businessman there – to found something called Barrick Gold of
Canada and later it went on to become the world's largest gold mining company.
But Barrick Gold, all available evidence is that buried gold was used to melt down the
– I don't want to get too much into the details of this but basically to melt down the
Emperor Hirohito's gold that had been discovered by Marcos in the Philippines, to melt it down
and use that as collateral for derivatives that would be the collateral used to take over the
Russian Federation assets.
LS: The money was basically transformed into bank loans into Russia so that the would-become
oligarch people could buy up those assets
FWE: Yes, exactly. So, Yegor Gaidar, the economic privatisation adviser of Yeltsin and his
sidekick Anatoly Chubais privatisation had kind of guided this whole process together with
Jeffrey Sachs and a group from Harvard University. #00:28:37-8#
LS: Yeah. Let us talk about this. This is known as Harvard Shock Therapy.
FEW: Well, the Jeffrey Sachs Shock Therapy, but the Harvard shock therapy is – well,
what happened, the next phase of this incredible story and it's important to keep all this in
mind, this is one reason that I wrote the book because of what was clear after the CIA coup
d'etat of 2014 in Ukraine and all the sanctions against Putin's Russia and so forth, that if
you don't understand what really happened in the '90s, the deep-seated hatred there is on these
neoconservatives around Washington and their think tanks as well as, the US political
establishment for Putin's Russia and the nationalism behind group Russia. You can't make much
sense out of what's going on today with all these incredible lies and accusations against
Russia for every crime under the book.
So, what happened is the, as I mentioned the IMF, the International Monetary Fund which had
done a beautiful job for Washington in terms of, and George Soros and others in terms of
looting the assets of the dead economies of Latin America, Yugoslavia, Poland and others during
the oil crisis in the 1970s. The IMF was used and a group of economists around Jeffrey Sachs, a
young professor at Harvard University then to impose what Sachs called shock therapy.
And the idea was that Sachs convinced Yeltsin, let prices rise through western market prices
and this will increase the supply of goods, you know the stores had a paucity of goods back in
the Soviet Times and get rid of trade barriers so foreign commodities could flow in to fill the
shelves of Russian stores. The problem was that was a lie. The shops had been full. Okay, you
could say it wasn't Kellogg's Corn Flakes and Fried Perdue Chickens or whatever, but they were
full of Russian food products until November of '91 when Yeltsin announced that the exact date
on December 31 st of 1991, that price controls would be suddenly lifted. So, shop
owners immediately hid their goods and waited for December 31 st . So, suddenly the
shops were empty and rationing was imposed and so forth. It's just unbelievable.
So, into this, this was Jeffrey Sachs on shock therapy and a group of Harvard University
under the auspices of the Harvard Institute for International Development, a group of, among
other things later documented CIA agents set up shop in Moscow and worked with Yeltsin's
economic team Gaidar and Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais and themselves got in on the thunder
the Russian East Harvard economist working. Now we have a transition in '93 through the Clinton
Administration and there former Harvard professor and former World Bank Chief Economist
Lawrence Summers became the deputy secretary of treasury responsible for the looting of Russia,
effective and responsible for the gold economic transition in the Russian Federation.
And all of the key actors were named by Summers and they were all involved in the
privatisation of Russia. They were all from this Harvard Mafia. For example of David Lipton, a
former consulting partner of the Jeffrey Sachs, became deputy assistant secretary of treasure
for former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and Sachs himself was named Director of Harvard HIID
that oversaw the looting of Russia through the voucher privatisation and so forth. And they got
grants from the USAID, AID works very closely with the CIA in different parts of the world,
this is documented. And so it was really a tight-knit cabal around Lawrence Summers that
oversaw this complete theft through these pieces of paper called privatisation coupons.
And what you had was the economic situation under Yeltsin had become so severe I mean people
literally they had no jobs because of the freeing up of prices, they could afford to buy little
or nothing. So, most people, millions of Russians sold their privatisation vouchers on the
street corners to the highest bidder. And of course the would-be oligarchs were the ones with
hard currency dollars that they could buy these things up as you pointed out earlier when we
talked about them. So, they had credits from their friends in the West, the Riggs Valmet and so
forth to buy up these vouchers and therefore they were able when the cost came up, were able to
simply steal the property titles, the ownership titles of some of the most valuable investor
assets and mineral assets in the world.
LS: And we can talk about this as a classical case of leveraged buyout – even though
it was a covered leveraged buyout, if it was?
FEW: Well, you could call it a leveraged buyout. I know Anne Williamson has used that term,
the earlier descriptions of it. I think it was simply legalised theft, leveraged buyout gives
it too much dignity. That was a term that was quite popular in the financial world back in the
'80s and the early '90s. But whatever name you want to give it, it was certainly not a
conventional leveraged buyout, it was bizarre in every sense of the word.
LS: An influential figure in this was mentioned by you already, George Soros. And in 1994,
as you point out in your book, he was described with the following words from The Guardian in
London, "Soros extraordinary role not only as the world's most successful investor but now
possibly fantastically as the senior most powerful foreign influence in the whole of the former
Soviet Empire, it tricks more suspicion than curiosity." What was he doing back then in
Russia?
FWE: Soros was very intermittently tied with Jeffrey Sachs and the whole Harvard to become a
shock therapy group and working with Lawrence Summers team at the US Treasury under Clinton.
And in 1993 already the opposition inside what was left of Russia when the old communist party
was in the Duma and so forth and the population generally was such that the opposition
threatened to get out of hand and Yeltsin was forced to agree to hold a national referendum on
the entire privatisation. So, this was in April of '93 and the referendum that was given to the
population had four questions, yes or no. Do you support Yeltsin? Yes or no? Do you support
Yeltsin's economic policy? Yes or no? Do you want early election for president? Yes or no? And
do you want early elections for parliament? Yes or no?
So, Chubais was as an adviser to Yeltsin at that time and the key person on the economy
arranged the secret meeting with George Soros. And Soros agreed to finance of course on behalf
of Yeltsin, the referendum campaign. So he funnelled money over a million dollars by some
accounts to offshore accounts set up to be used by Chubais to buy media. And so the media
campaign and by this time most of the national media had been bought up by the oligarchs around
Yeltsin so they were able to exercise undue influence. So they barely squeak through and got a
yes to the privatisation scheme that Harvard, Jeffrey Sachs and George Soros and others had
going on. And then of course Soros' company himself benefitted enormously from this
privatisation just a little bit later when the auctions took place.
LS: A figure that connects yesterday with today is Vladimir Putin who came to international
attention first in 1998, the same year when the ruble crisis took place.
FWE: This was 1999 and in August '98 you had the collapse of the ruble. This was part of the
Bush "Operation Hammer's" original design. You had a huge scam going on in the GKO Russian Bond
market where the interest rates were just unbelievably high. So, you had all sorts of hot money
coming in, making profits and pulling it up including Soros Fund, quantum fund and so
forth.
And finally, Yeltsin was getting near the end of his ability to hold this thing together. And he appointed in August '99, he
appointed a young former KGB officer who served
during the Cold War in East Germany named Vladimir Putin. And briefly Putin had been a deputy
mayor in St. Petersburg and briefly had been the head of the successor to the KGB called FSB
and the oligarchs around Putin, I've heard various Russian accounts have had this happen but
Berezovsky, Brzezinski and other, the Yeltsin oligarchs thought they could take this young guy
Putin and do business with him and you know that he was young and had no political base.
So, at that point Putin gave the ultimatum to Yeltsin, resign or face serious consequences
and it turned out that Putin which has later been confirmed was the spokesperson for a
nationalist faction within the intelligence community, a patriotic faction, call it what you
want but Russian nationalist. And so Yeltsin was told, "If you resign and just get out of
politics, we'll leave you alone." So he took the offer and ran. And before he did that he named
Vladimir Putin as acting president until elections in March the following year.
So, Putin then came into power and called a meeting as it were of the most powerful
oligarchs who had made staggering fortunes at the expense of Russia and he called them creators
of a corrupt state through insider dealings and began criminal prosecution against oligarchs
like Vladimir Gusinsky and Media-Most, a financial group led by Vladimir Potanin who is in the
newspaper today and soon left an oil company controlled by a Roman Abramovich and Boris
Berezovsky. So, at that point Putin began the uphill battle of trying to stabilise Russia as a
functioning economy. And the recent re-election of Putin indicates that the Russian people by
and large support that effort of Putin's.
LS: Meanwhile he also had to react to something new that was taking place then and that was
NATO was marching east.
FWE: The negotiations and this is, has been confirmed by former US Ambassador to Russia Jack
Matlock and that was the negotiations between the Bush administration in 1991 Germany and
Gorbachev included a solemn guarantee as Jack Matlock, Ambassador Matlock who was in Moscow in
'87 until '91 in this period. He said that we gave a categorical assurance to Gorbachev when
the Soviet Union still existed that if United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not
move eastward. So, of course that pledge like so many pledges of Washington under Bush
successor governance was honoured in the breach and the newly created National Endowment for
Democracy that I write about quite a bit in the Manifest Destiny.
You had, Vin Weber was the chairman of the NED at that time and he took US taxpayer money
through the NED to supposedly bring democracy into former communist states. Then Weber was also
a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the neocon think tank which really
shaped the personnel of George W. Bush in the year 2000 and 2001. And Vin Weber was also a
lobbyist for the largest military industrial conglomerate of the US Lockheed Martin.
So, he was instrumental together with another military industrial Lockheed Martin, former
Vice President for Strategy named Bruce Jackson, Bruce P. Jackson to promote back democracy in
former communist countries including Russia. And they started the process of expanding NATO to
the east in strict violation of the pledges that had been given back in the early '90s. So, by
2003, they had begun this whole expansion of NATO into Poland, into Hungary, all the former
communist countries.
LS: And the countries at the Baltic Sea.
FWE: So, at the Baltic Sea right on the doorstep of the Russian Federation, and Poland,
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and so forth. And you began to see a very
definite NATO encirclement of Russia. And then in 2003-2004, the National Endowment for
Democracy, George Soros' Foundation, the whole arm of the fake democracy NGOs of Washington,
began to create the so called Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and also the Rose Revolution in
Georgia next door. And if you look at a map, if you bring a pro NATO government into power in
Ukraine, this they did under Viktor Gerashchenko in 2004, then you're presenting a pretty
formidable military threat to the national security of Russia.
Now, at that time 2003, Russia was in no shape to do much more than feebly protest as loud
as they could but of course they were ignored. Then you had something quite dramatic in 2006,
the end of 2006. The George W. Bush administration Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defence
back then announced that they were installing ballistic missile defence now I'll get to that in
a minute but it's anything but defensive. In Poland, in the Czech Republic and that those
anti-missile defence installations which included missiles would be aimed at a rogue nuclear
attack from Iran.
In early 2007, Vladimir Putin personally came as president of Russia Federation to the
Munich Security Conference, the International Security Conference held here in Munich Germany
and gave a speech which really defines the security position of Russia right up to the present
date. He said of course this is not aimed at Iran or North Korea as Washington says. That's a
lie. It's like taking your right arm to scratch your left ear we say in Russian. It's aimed at
Russia. And we consider this intolerable as a threat to our national security and we will be
forced to respond.
LS: And it is aimed at Russia as a first strike possibility.
FWE: Yeah. Well, the point about the missile defence is I – in connection with the
book, I interviewed, in an earlier book I wrote, I interviewed Colonel Robert Bowman who had
been briefly the head of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars or missile defence programme. And became a
very, very severe critic of the Bush administration's reckless policies withdrawing from the
antiballistic missile ABM Treaty and so forth, said that missile defence is the missing link to
Nuclear Primacy. First strike capability.
And that's something that Pentagon planners had been opting for since the 1950s. And he
said, "If you can block the counterattack from your opponent and you then have this possibility
to make a first strike and wipe them out because they can't simultaneously fire an effective
counterstrike." So, that in a nutshell destroys the whole cold war doctrine of mutual and sure
destruction that kept nuclear options off the table up until that time. And the Russians
understand military strategy rather well I would say. And said, "This is simply intolerable. We
have to respond and we will respond but in our own way and you will see."
LS: And the Russians have reacted.
B: The Russians have reacted, and if we can go for a minute up until the present
LS: Please
FEW: On March 1st Putin gave an address to the Federal Assembly in Moscow televised to the
nation. The beginning part of the speech, his annual speech there, was about the Russian
economy and plans for the future. This was shortly before the Russian elections that
overwhelmingly gave him a new term. But the crucial part of that speech to the Federal Assembly
was Russia's military technologies and this is as he put it. He referred to that 2007 speech in
Munich and he said, "We said at that time that Russia would have to reply and since the
expansion of NATO to the east which really to be honest that's – see there is no reason
after 1991 or certainly after 2000 for the existence of NATO other than the reason given when
NATO was created by the first secretary general of NATO to keep the Russians out the Germans
down and the Americans in."
But Putin's speech talked about nuclear primacy and the Russian response and he outlined the
military are the developments that they had quietly brought online since Washington tore up,
unilaterally tore up the ABM Treaty in 2002/2003. So he outlined an awesome array of missiles,
hypersonic low flying stealth missiles carrying nuclear warheads, unpredictable trajectories,
invisible against perspective missile defence and air defence systems, unmanned submersible
vehicles to great depth that could go many times higher than the speed of submarines cutting
edge torpedoes just and commentators in the West like CNN. They said, "Oh, this is just bluff
and so forth."
People who know Russian military technology and the intensity of the kind of research and
development that's focused on defending the nation confirm that this is no joke. Hypersonic
aircraft five times the speed of sound, that's hypersonic and they have something called the
[unclear] which goes 10 times mark 10 and as Putin described it, "This missile flying 10 times
faster than sound can manoeuvre in all phases of the flight trajectory, overcome all
prospective and aircraft county missile defences in a range of 2000 kilometres."
He outlined about six or seven of these I would call them not even cutting edge, bleeding
edge military technology and as The Saker commented in his blogpost after the speech, it's
indeed set marching game over for the empire. There's no more military option against
Russia.
This all is to make a point that the entire history up until now, these fake accusations of
Putin would have an interest or Russia would have an interest to meddle with the US elections
when you have a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to accuse Putin and Russia of
international violations of law by allowing a referendum to take place in Crimea after the CIA
coup d'etat in Kiev and now it's come out from actual mercenary snipers that were brought in
from Georgia under [#inaudible 00:55:08-0#] umbrella that they were paid by the CIA or promised
to be paid by cut outs to the CIA to create the Maidan Square February 2014 chaos that led to
the collapse of the government and the coup d'etat.
So, you know, this is not Russia is the arch Evel Knievel looking for a fight every corner
of the world. It's not Russia doing bad things in Syria. It's Russia trying to stop a NATO and
Saudi and other embedded destruction of the Middle East and create some kind of peace and
stability. And anyone modest to take the slightest bit of care and follow this, they can read a
running commentary on my website williamengdahl.com but not only there, it's all over the
place. You realise that the fake media is the media that dominates and is guided by NATO public
relations strategy in the West and it's not the so called critical media that's being
sanctioned and censored right now.
LS: Let's talk further about the present, William, by closing one circle of our interview.
As we've discussed the Russian gold vaults were empty since the early 1990s. This has changed
since basically the financial crisis broke out in 2007, 2008, 2009. Since then the Russian
Central Bank is buying gold like basically no other nation in a very rapid tempo.
FWE: Since the financial crisis and especially since the opposition of sanctions after the
annexation of Crimea in 2014, it's been the policy of the Russian Central Bank and the Russian
Federation to buy as much gold for reserves of the ruble as they can get their hands on. And
they are now I think number five or number six in the world in terms of gold reserves and
correct me if I'm wrong but just slightly behind the people's republic of China which has also
been vigorously adding gold towards Central Bank reserves for the yuan.
So, what Russia is doing is creating a buffer gold, by the way in my view has never ceased
being an object of value to stand behind currencies. If you have currencies like the dollar
after all this 1971 when Nixon took the dollar off the bread and wood, gold exchange [unclear],
then if you have a military you might or manipulate the oil price petrodollar and so forth, you
can create money if you have the reserve currency you can create money without them. So what
the Russia is doing is creating a security in terms of its currency and now that security is
probably going to be tested by the economic warfare division of the US Treasury in these new
sanctions.
But Russia is merging together with China. Interestingly enough after 2014 when the CIA coup
d'etat Ukraine took place, Putin responded not by getting bogged down in the destructive war
inside the Eastern Ukraine but he responded by turning east, strengthening his relationships
with China, with the new president of China then Xi Jinping bringing the Asian economic Union
which Russia is the leading economy in, together with Belarus and Kazakhstan, Armenia and
others, bringing that in a coherence with Xi Jinping's Belt and Road Initiative One Belt, One
Road to link the infrastructure, the energy pipelines, the high-speed rail networks, the deep
water ports and so forth to create a Eurasian, some people call it the land bridge but it's an
economic space in Eurasia that would have the majority of the world's population, would have
every raw material resource that the world needs including rare earth metals that China is
world's leading supplier of at the moment.
And Russia has vast oil and gas reserves and military technology, civilian technology, an
educated labour force that is probably one of the finest in the world and scientific country
and so forth. And independent of the bankrupt economies of Britain and the United States and
very rapidly of the European Union where this banking crisis has, since the crisis of 2008 has
just been swept under the rug but it's ready to explode on a moment's notice. So, you have a
depth loaded western NATO world. Let's call it a NATO world, a world of the NATO member
countries and you have Russia together, which by the way, Russia has unbelievably small
LS: Debt.
FWE: National debt.
LS: Yes.
FWE: Something like 13 to 17% of the gross domestic product.
LS: And now they have this huge stock of gold relative to very little sovereign debt. It's
almost ideal.
FWE: Yes, and that's by design. That is by Putin's intention to create this independence.
And one thing, I am very often in Russia, have a very, very dear special friends in Russia over
the years, the first time I was there was 1994. That was a vastly different, that was in the
middle of the Yeltsin and the insanity. The Russians are very not only proud people but they
are very determined and they protect their existence and have done that I would say for well
over 1000 years going back to the great schism between the Western church in Rome and the
Eastern Church in 1054. I think that was a pivotal date in modern history, the division
there.
But certainly the Russians have gone through two World Wars and the rape of Russia under
Yeltsin, unbelievable trials and tribulations and they are not shying away from defending their
existence. That's something I think the west or certainly Washington with these neocons really
doesn't have a sense of.
LS: One thing that I would like to ask you about as my final question is the following. You
are a renowned expert for the geopolitics and the history of oil. And since this month we have
a future's contract in Shanghai, denominated in yuan for oil and we also hear that the Chinese
are planning to price oil that they import in yuan which is safe for this buying of oil
internationally via yuan, Russia would be the candidate number one as the exporter?
FWE: Definitely. Most definitely and Russia and China are connecting their financial markets
ever closer. The Russian government is the in the process sometime this year of issuing Russian
bonds denominated new Chinese yuan. The announcing of the petrol yuan, the oil futures
contracts being sold in Shanghai, ultimately it won't happen overnight but it's certainly off
to a positive start in the marketing acceptance. That has the basis for taking oil sales.
Let's step back a moment to the 1970s and I document this at length in two of my books,
Myths, Lies and Oil Wars and A Century of War. In the early 1970s when Nixon took the dollar
off of gold, the dollar relative to the German mark and the Japanese yen dropped like a stone,
something like 40% over a period of five or six months. And in order to stop that because the
New York Banks were hurting quite a bit from that, there was a oil price shock that was
orchestrated. I won't go into the details it's documented quite extensively in those two books
of mine.
LS: And Sheikh Yamani had said something about this, too.
FWE: Yes. He invited me after reading my book to his annual energy retreat in London in
2000, September 2000. And then called me to a private dinner discussion at his home outside of
London to talk about what I wrote about in the book. And he later went on CNN on an interview
and mentioned my book by name. In the written transcript it's in there and in the television
version they spliced it out so that you couldn't realise that it'd been in there. But Sheikh
Yamani told me you are the first journalist or the first person outside of myself that writes
correctly what happened with that oil shock. And that was manipulated by among others Henry
Kissinger, the Secretary of State and by a group in the Atlantic establishment called the
Bilderberg meeting in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden back in May of that period before the Yom
Kippur War.
In any case, the US circles around Rockefeller, who at that point was the chairman of the
board of USA Incorporated, I would say. They had engineered a 400% price rise in oil and to
make sure that Germany and Japan and other countries wouldn't make deals to buy oil in German
mark but keep the dollar demand high and the dollar value high. They send a delegation from the
US Treasury to sign an agreement with the Saudi Arabian monetary agency for a new relationship
taking surplus Saudi petrodollars or OPEC petrodollars and buying US government debt.
LS: Yeah, and outside of the normal auction to privileged conditions.
FWE: Yes. In return, Washington agreed to give the Saudis tens and billions of dollars of
defence equipment.
LS: Yeah, and Saudi Arabia would use its status as a swing producer in OPEC that it would
only accept dollars as a pricing for oil.
FEW: And the quid pro quo was after 1975, this was formalised that Saudis would as swing
producer in OPEC guarantee that OPEC sold its oil only in dollars and that held up until the
time of Saddam Hussein during the sanctions shortly before the US invasion and Saddam Hussein
began buying oil through a French bank denominated in Euros and not in dollars.
LS: And he made a plus, he made a net plus because he did sell his oil in Euro.
FWE: Yeah, yeah. And so this, what that has done up until the present is prop up the US
dollars despite the fact that the internal industrial economy import activity of the United
States went down the tubes over the past 40 years since the taking the dollar off of gold and
the, putting of English dollars for the world economy. So, the idea than China and Russia would
trade in energy and that other economies would begin to sell oil to China, Iran for example is
a prime candidate in the petro yuan not in petrodollars, this began slowly like acid drops
begins to erode the reserve currency status of the US dollar. And if that goes, it's end game
for the US as a financial global power.
LS: We have to make clear to our audience. The fact that you have to buy oil in dollar makes
sure that you need dollar, that you acquire dollar in order to buy oil.
FWE: Yeah.
LS: And so if this mechanism goes, well then the US has a problem because the dollars that
are floating around internationally would find their way back into the homeland of the US.
FWE: Well, the other thing is that in order to sell now you have under this wonderful
Trumponomics as I call it, you have projections that the US annual government deficit, shortage
of tax income from tax outgo, spending outgo will by 2020 exceed one trillion dollars a year
for every year as far as the eye can see. And by end of 2020, 2028 I think was figured by the
congressional budget office, the US public debt is estimated to be well over $33 trillion, it's
20 now, 38 maybe, it's just out of control. So, if the ability of the US dollar to command use
in the world economy is severely undermined, you're going to have to raise interest rates so
high to sell this debt and it just becomes dysfunctional.
LS: Yes, but you have already in the last few years interest rates payments on this already
existing that of per annum $400 billion.
FWE: Yeah.
LS: And if interest rates go up
FWE: Yeah and that was under zero interest rates, but now, you know, if they have to put up
interest rates to five, six, seven, 8% like it was in the 1980s. the whole thing just blows up
sky high.
LS: And so coming back to gold, gold has the advantage relative to bonds or shares or the US
dollar or other Fiat currencies that there is no counterparty risk. If you have the gold in
physical form, there is no counterparty risk.
FWE: Right.
LS: So would you say that gold will be one of the ultimate winners of the ongoing financial
crisis when it goes into full gear?
FWE: Well, it's documented that J. P. Morgan, Chase and other select banks with this
collusion of the Federal Reserve have been artificially depressing the price of gold for years.
Every time there's a new financial crisis, they intervene and keep gold within a very tight
range. At a certain point that's not going to work anymore and then some people estimate to
follow the gold markets much more than I do but it could quickly go up to $10,000 an ounce or
even beyond that.
Be that as it may, gold as you point out has no counterparty risk and it's a historic store
of value. It's one of the beautiful commodities out there and it has a special – the
other just being special significance economically and historically, the other thing is that
China is the number one mining producer of gold in the world today, not South Africa. South
Africa has fallen far behind
LS: Yeah, and Russia is number three.
FWE: Russia is number three.
LS: And a lot of member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are producers or are
buying gold.
FWE: At the rail connections of the circle of the China Belt Road Initiative in part are
aiming to go in the areas where there are known gold reserves but no infrastructure during the
Soviet era to bring that gold down to market. So, we have an extremely fascinating prospect,
not just for China and Russia, for the world really to build up instead of tear down, destroy
and burn and bankrupt which is the only policy that Washington seems able to follow these
days.
LS: Yeah. To sum it up with a famous Chinese proverb. "May you live in interesting times"
– you and all the others.
FWE: We certainly do.
LS: Okay. great. Thank you very much, William, for this interview.
In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer
program using an investment strategy to bring about the economic destruction of the
Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the
ruble, funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major
energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union.
Those resources would subsequently be turned over to international bankers and
corporations. On November 1, 2001, the second operative in the Bush regime, President
George W. Bush, issued Executive Order 13233 on the basis of "national security" and
concealed the records of past presidents, especially his father's spurious activities
during 1990 and 1991.
Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses
immense riches. And Putin does not dare to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a
Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's
establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution
centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism. This is the Deal.
The rise has been astounding and all because they have a leader that can't be bought ,
not corrupt and loves his country. That is why he literally was swept in in the last
election. The Western leaders will not admit it but I am sure they are terribly envious
.
It open eyes on how the West political elite are a criminal rotten cancer syndicate
and Georg Bush Sr. shows up to be even worse than the disgusting profile he already has
in media and Georg Soros bad reputation gets confirmed.
No police or court are available to take this out. We only have John Connor or The One
to count on.
Choice is the problem now. We will have to make a choice.
I know b is not fond of us posting content from other blogs but the Saker has just put up
a must-read interview with a personal favorite author of mine, F. William Engdhal, entitled
"The rape of Russia". Very informative, it documents the strategies put in place during the
Yeltsin years to plunder the assets of the new CIS. Enjoy!
After collapse of the USSR the mount of infometion that has flown to the West is staggering.
KGB might be then most open of intelleigence services in this sense. multiple defector probably
created a very complete picture of the organization and its methods.
July 2, 1996
A NOTE ON KGB STYLE
Wayne Lambridge
The KGB like any enduring institution has a style, its own way of doing things. When we
seek to understand the service and its officers, we should perhaps pay attention to how they
do business as well as to what kind of business they do. This article is intended to raise
the subject for discussion, to present largely one man's opinion. It is far from a definitive
study.
By way of indicating something about KGB style, consider the implications for the
organization as a whole of a communication system that carries one tenth or less as much
traffic -- both electric and by pouch -- as its American equivalent. The KGB sends very few
cables and its dispatches are infrequent. For maximum security, they are pouched on
undeveloped microfilm, which is recovered and printed when the dispatch reaches its
destination. Although Moscow headquarters does excellent and prompt printing, both exposure
and development are sometimes haphazard in the field. Ten years ago, they were downright
unreadable at times. Now, the quality is generally better. Volume, however, does not seem to
have risen much.
The prints of the developed films are seen by the Rezident (the KGB Chief of Station) and
by the case officer concerned. In large Rezidentury (KGB Stations) some intermediate may also
read the traffic, but that is by no means always the case. The Rezident keeps a file --
sometimes in the form of notes or perhaps as copies of pertinent cables and dispatches -- for
reference. The case officer keeps all his files in a briefcase or a notebook. Calling them
"files" is perhaps misleading. It is better to say that the KGB officer keeps a movable
In-Box. When a document leaves that box it is either returned to the Rezident or destroyed
and the fact of destruction recorded. The case file is really in the case officer's head. The
excellent memory that KGB officers often display concerning the details of their operations
may well be traceable to the necessity of remembering the vital information on each operation
that they cannot look up anywhere. Of course, when a new case officer replaces an old one,
especially if the latter has been unable to brief his successor fully, complications may
ensue. Illness, car accidents and PNG'ing have led to real chaos in some KGB operations when
a harassed new man has tried to tie down the broken threads of a departed colleague's dropped
contacts.
Although the amount of paper that he sees is small, the KGB case officer is held strictiy
accountable for each sheet of it. When he destroys a document, a notation to that effect is
included on a record. Even his scrap paper may bear a serial number and have to be accounted
for. At the Moscow headquarters each document is sewn into the file by the senior officer
directly responsible for the case. A special record of all documents in the file is kept by
the case officer and its accuracy is regularly verified by the case officer's supervisor.
Safe storage areas are locked and sealed with wax each night.
The ritual of sewing in the documents is often regarded as a waste of time by senior case
officers in Moscow. Nevertheless, they would not dream of delegating the job. It seems to
have a symbolic significance as an embodiment of both their authority and their
responsibility.
The KGB case officer is his own intel assistant. At headquarters he does his own traces,
gets his own documents from the archives and handcarries his own messages. Not too long ago,
he also often wrote or typed his own dispatches. Even now he may write his own telegrams and
personally take them and dispatches to his supervisor for review. In the field he is, if
anything, even more responsible for doing everything connected with his operation except for
technical surveillance and the like where he must call on experts.
The field case officer under official cover often works at his cover job about as much as
do his colleagues who do not have intelligence responsibilities. This obligation is usually
not as demanding on the case officer's time as it might first appear because KGB cover slots
are usually selected so that cover duties complement intelligence tasks to a substantial
degree. By contrast, other KGB officers have virtually no serious cover responsibilities and
rely on the all-embracing security system of the Soviet colony to protect their true
affiliation. In either case, the 'KGB officer is not expected to spend much time on the
administrative or reporting aspects of his intelligence job. Within the limitations of his
cover assignment, he is supposed to be out on the street, making contacts, working agents and
performing other intelligence tasks, reporting only the highlights and the most crucial
information back to headquarters.
In developing new sources, he will usually bring things along to the point where
recruitment or some other substantial development is clearly foreseeable before asking for
traces from headquarters or getting approval to go ahead with his plan. Local informers and
support agents are sometimes picked up without reference to headquarters at all, except
perhaps after the fact of recruitment. The KGB officer must account with some precision,
however, for his operational expenditures and is usually quite limited in what he can spend
for development prior to coming up with a concrete proposal for recruiting a source.
Once an agent is recruited or is established as a source, headquarters' control and
demands for accountability are exacting, though never voluminous. For a recruited source with
significant access, a senior officer, such as a branch chief or his deputy is specifically
charged with responsibility for the case. Moscow's concern to insure that information is
really coming from the source as described by the case officer and that the source is bona
fide is very considerable. Somewhat by contrast, Moscow's requirements (outside of S&T
operations) sometimes seem quite general, apparently leaving it up to the case officer and
source to report what seems to them most important. On the other hand, reporting is expected
to be factual and documentary, if possible. Sometimes the KGB seems obsessed with documents
as the only reliable sources. Speculation is not usually encouraged.
In such a system of extreme compartmentation and vertical lines of communication and
authority, the advisory role of staffs and other elements not within the chain of command is
small. The First Chief Directorate, the foreign intelligence arm of the KGB, has a
counterintelligence unit, for example, that actually takes over a case from the regular chain
of command in the event that the agent appears to be doubled, compromised or in danger of
compromise. The field case officer may remain the same, but in Moscow the Counterintelligence
Service assumes full authority for directing the case. Deception and some types of complex
political action operations often appear to be run directly by the headquarters element,
Department A, that prepares the operation in Moscow. In such cases, of course, local assets
of a Rezidentura may well be employed in support, but the operations are frequently run by
specialists.
The typical KGB officer, trained in an environment where political agitation is part of
daily fare, sees political action and propaganda as part of his regular routine. There are
numerous examples of Soviet officers around the world who seem to concentrate almost
exclusively on pushing the Soviet line on the issues of the day with whatever contacts they
meet. To them the political approach is not something apart from spotting, developing,
assessing, recruiting and agent handling. It is integral to that effort. Some do it crudely,
some ineffectively, some with great skill. The point is that in almost all cases, it is a
part of the operation.
In addition to politics, KGB recruiting and training of staff personnel emphasizes
operational and area knowledge and experience from bottom to top. The main sources for new
KGB officers are the institutes of International Affairs and Eastern Languages in Moscow.
These institutions, which are better compared to the U.S. service academies than to other
organizations of higher learning in America, prepare young Soviet citizens for careers abroad
not only in the intelligence services, but for the foreign service, the Ministry of Foreign
Trade, Radio Moscow, etc. Assignment of a student after graduation is worked out among the
various consuming organizations. The students are under what amounts to military discipline
and are required to accept the assignment given them. Few students, see much difference among
the organizations these days except for differences in pay, length and location of overseas
service and other practical matters.
In the course of their education the students learn two or three foreign languages well
and study the history and culture of the area in which they specialize in considerable
detail, although current politics is likely tobe a much weaker course than history. Access to
native sources is still circumscribed. A substantial number of students go for a year or more
as exchange students or as trainees with Soviet organizations working abroad. As a result,
they often end up knowing the area, its language, its politics, customs, police systems,
local geography and so on very well. Although the old-style Soviet intelligence officer who
was raised in the shadow if not the institutions of the Komintern and could recruit agents
through appeals to an international revolutionary ideology are long since past, the newest
generation of Soviet intelligence officers can be quite effective by trading on their precise
knowledge of target personalities and the problems and frustrations of the countries in which
they operate.
A KGB officer is ranked in his service by two systems. He progresses up the ladder from
junior lieutenant to senior lieutenant and so on up to colonel and general. At the same time,
he is classified as a junior case officer, case officer or senior case officer and then as he
progresses further by his position, such as Rezident, which he may hold. His pay depends on
his ranking in both hierarchies and there is no necessary coincidence between where he stands
in one and where he stands in the other. The operational designations are based on his
experience and performance as an operator. His formal rank is largely based on length of
service up through major or lieutenant colonel. The chain of command is designated through
the operational positions rather than formal rank. For example, a major of State Security
from some other part of the KGB might be transferred into the First Chief Directorate under
the designation of junior case officer and find himself subordinate to a senior lieutenant
who had attained the position of case officer.
The phenomenon of marked disparity between formal rank and operational designation was
probably more common during the period of considerable expansion of the First Chief
Directorate's personnel ten and more years ago than it is today. At that time officers from
other branches of the service were being brought into the First Chief Directorate more
frequently than they are now. Nevertheless, the emphasis on operational experience and
operational ability continues to be a marked element of the KGB style. The top officers in
the service, for example, usually involve themselves directly in operations. They meet and
develop agent candidates, they recruit and they handle agents.
In part this is a consequence of the strongly operational orientation of the KGB as a
whole. A direct involvement in operations comes naturally to almost everyone in the
organization. This operational orientation is manifest also in the concentration of
relatively few cases per case officer. Generally, one man may handle four or five agents or
targets under development. He is not expected to spread his range of intelligence activities
further, although he may well be encouraged to develop a large circle of casual contacts from
whom a relatively small number of serious targets may be selected.
From the foregoing one can see that the typical KGB officer is a man who sees himself in a
strict vertical chain of command. He expects to do everything necessary for his operation
without much outside help, except in technical matters. Depending upon circumstances, the
case officer may be closely guided by the Rezident in a particular operation, but he is not
supposed to discuss it with anyone else. (Gossip and shop-talk are endemic, however, in part
to overcome the excessive official compartmentation.) Although the case officer is held
strictly to account for the results of his actions, he is not expected to report on
day-to-day developments to headquarters and in fact the capacity of his communications system
is far too limited to permit him to do so. He is street-oriented in the concept of his job
and does not put in a lot of time at the desk writing reports, reading guidance from
headquarters or maintaining his files. When he has a problem he takes it up with his boss and
he is generally not expected to have many problems. He is supposed to know the difference
between what he really needs consultation about and what he ought to be able to handle on his
own.
His boss in turn has the responsibility of not only guiding the case officers that work
for him, but of ensuring that vital information pertinent to the work of one case officer but
acquired through another is made available. In both operational guidance and information
sharing, the role of the Rezident is crucial. There is virtually no lateral distribution of
communications and an extreme emphasis on compartmentation. Although the rigid
compartmentation of the system is probably a major vulnerability, superiors both in the field
and headquarters are usually able to keep up with each case because they are not overwhelmed
with paper. Relatively primitive (in terms of capacity) communications equipment and the
custom that each officer prepare his own reports and keep them brief make it possible for
such reports as do get written to be read all the way up the chain of command. The general in
command of the First Chief Directorate has been reported on several occasions as reading all
the incoming traffic. Much of the outgoing traffic is also signed personally by him.
The strictness of the chain of command and the limited amount of communications place a
great weight of responsibility on each Rezident and on each case officer. As with all Soviet
officials, KGB case officers have a norm to fulfill for the year and are usually called to
account for their activities during part of the annual home leave in the Soviet Union. In a
system like that, if something goes wrong, someone must be found to have been responsible.
This can encourage an extreme of caution, particularly when the relations between case
officer and the Rezident are not of the best or when the headquarters desk officer is not
cooperative and understanding of the problems in the field.
Although we are accustomed to think of Soviet organizations as highly impersonal, in the
KGB personalities and the private connections of individual officers are often crucial to the
success or failure of an operation -- or a career. In many ways, the KGB is an organization
made to order for the man who wants to claim all the glory for himself and put all the
mistakes on the backs of his subordinates. Family connections or other personal contacts have
special significance in this sort of an organization because they can provide a secure and
effective second channel for communication in a system in which there is otherwise only one
narrow route watched over by jealous monitors for all the messages an officer may want to
send.
The emphasis on the role of the individual in the organization also has its advantages, of
course. A capable officer, particularly one from an influential family, working under a
Rezident who knows his business and will accept responsibility is likely to find himself in a
stimulating work environment that may compensate very well for shortcomings of the service or
the Soviet system as a whole that might otherwise disturb him.
While the KGB style as outlined above is in many ways admirably suited to running
operations, it appears to have limitations in the way it makes use of the product of its
operations and in evaluating whether the operations themselves are really worthwhile. There
are enough instances on record to permit the generalization that in political matters
especially Moscow is often reluctant to receive bad news. The ambitious case officer may find
himself frustrated by pressure to conform, either from his Rezident or from Moscow, when he
tries to report things as he sees them. To a large degree this is probably an inevitable
manifestation of the extreme isolation from the outside world in which the Soviet policy
makers live and their lack of exposure to unwelcome information. In addition, the emphasis on
operations as such and the overall environment of the KGB, which is predominantly an internal
security, criminal investigation, and antisubversive organization, probably discourages the
kind of critical intellect by whom frank reporting, regardless of its content, is most
prized.
This last consideration, the emphasis on an investigative, operational style at the
expense of analytical curiosity, may well be the source of considerable tension within the
First Chief Directorate today. Bigoted and inflexible ultimate consumers are problems enough.
But also the older generation of KGB officers, including many of today's Rezidenty, was
largely trained in war time and internal security operations. Their juniors, speaking
broadly, are more academically inclined, more tempted to discourse on their theories, more
interested in foreign societies and politics per se and less dedicated to fulfilling the
obligations of the party and the state. They are often perceptive and realistic about
developments not only abroad, but also in their own country. Bearing in mind the importance
of personal relations and the dependence of juniors on seniors in the rigid chain of command,
the signs we see these days of tension and cynicism among these younger officers should not
be surprising.
As they rise in the KGB, we may see some organizational changes over time. If these
changes preserve the laconic style of communication while at the same time do away with some
of the most cumbersome and archaic aspects of the communications and records keeping systems,
the KGB could become an even more formidable institution than it is today. The problem of
encouraging intelligence analysis and imaginative, critical thinking is a problem for Soviet
society as a whole. As a part of that society, the KGB shares the problem, but probably not
in greater degree than other Soviet institutions and possibly less than many.
Judgments about the influence the KGB style has on KGB officers as individuals, about the
implications for KGB operations of the way they do business, about the relevance of the style
to Western operations against Soviet targets, and about many other related matters lead us
beyond the scope of this note which, as stated in the introductory paragraph, hopes only to
raise an interesting topic for further comment. If this piece succeeds in making the point
that KGB organizational style is important to Western intelligence and that we should concern
ourselves with it more than we have, it will have served its purpose.
"... 'A relatively recent body of research has shown that mafias emerge in societies that are undergoing a sudden and late transition to a market economy, lack a legal structure that reliably protects property rights or settles business disputes, and have a supply of people trained in violence who become unemployed at this specific juncture.' ..."
"... Of course, this means that we know nothing of what Putin has managed to accomplish in Russia, beyond the fact that we apparently aren't supposed to like him much, or understand why he enjoys the kind of support that he apparently does. ..."
"... What is bizarre now is the c ombination of an unreal sense of danger relating to non-existent or grossly exaggerated threats, with a lack of any sense of danger relating to our current practice of making actually or potentially unstable areas of the world even more unstable (pushing Humpty-Dumpty off the wall, one might call it.) ..."
Another point may be worth bringing into the discussion. One thing that Oxford University does rather well nowadays, perhaps
ironically, is mafia studies – they have two splendid Italian professors, Diego Gambetta and Federico Varese. As the latter put
it in his 2011 study 'Mafias on the Move':
'A relatively recent body of research has shown that mafias emerge in societies that are undergoing a sudden and late transition
to a market economy, lack a legal structure that reliably protects property rights or settles business disputes, and have a supply
of people trained in violence who become unemployed at this specific juncture.'
An interesting feature of this work is that a great deal of it is really an application of 'rational choice' theory. Applied
in the conditions of the Soviet Union in the Nineties, 'shock therapy' actually created pressing 'rational' incentives leading
to extensive criminalisation.
If property rights cannot be protected by an effective state, they will be protected by private enterprise – which means mafias.
And if at the same time a vast military, intelligence and internal security apparatus is being demobilised, some of its members
have the strongest incentives to join mafias.
Some kind of reconstruction of the Russian state – and also of Russian patriotism – was clearly necessary if large parts of
Eurasia were not to be permanently locked in a state of criminalised anarchy.
People can legitimately disagree about the merits and demerits of Putin's approaches, and the interpenetration between organised
crime, supposedly 'legitimate' business and politics continues to be a massive problem.
However, any argument based upon the belief Russia was 'on the right lines' in the Yeltsin years quite patently makes it impossible
to understand what the possibilities are in the country today – in particular as, precisely as rkka says, it leads to the conclusion
that Putin's supporters are suffering from a massive case of 'false consciousness'.
"Of course, this means that we know nothing of what Putin has managed to accomplish in Russia, beyond the fact that we apparently
aren't supposed to like him much, or understand why he enjoys the kind of support that he apparently does."
Exactly. In the '90s, oligarchs felt no need to pay wages to workers or taxes to the government, preferring to offshore every
kopek they could get their hands on. Hence, workers suffered and the government was bankrupt.
And the FreeMarketReformers were fine with this.
When Putin arrived, he offered the oligarchs a deal: Keep your swag from the '90s, but behave from this point on. Most took
him up on it. Several refused and tried to do as they had before. And when these were exiled or jailed, the Angosphere Foreign
Policy Elite and Punditocracy (AFPE&P) howled with outrage at Putin 'violating their human rights'
However, the Russian people know by their own experience that they now live far better than they did while FreeMarketReformers
were running the place. This is the simple reason Putin is popular with Russians. The AFPE&P say its because the Russian government
dominates Russian media and propagandizes the ignorant masses. The AFPE&P lie about this, from both ignorance and malice.
USG is clearly out of date by at least a decade and a half, or more likely, two or more, when it comes to Russia. After all, isn't
that when we supposedly "won" the Cold War? If my speculation is right and no serious Russia experts came near the loci of power
in USG since then, I shudder to think how out of date our information about the rest of the world (besides Russia and its surroundings)
are.
Of course, this means that we know nothing of what Putin has managed to accomplish in Russia, beyond the fact that we apparently
aren't supposed to like him much, or understand why he enjoys the kind of support that he apparently does.
I would absolutely agree with everything you write.
Some tentative thoughts in response.
In relation to British imperial experience, it may be relevant that the distinctive nature of Indian society, both the religious
issues involved and the critical issue of caste, facilitated imperial control over a population which was not simply 'primitive'
in the way that was the case in, for instance, most of Africa.
But 'divide et impera' can only be practised on the basis of understanding. Moreover, there were clear penalties for obtuseness,
as we discovered in 1857.
What is bizarre now is the c ombination of an unreal sense of danger relating to non-existent or grossly exaggerated threats,
with a lack of any sense of danger relating to our current practice of making actually or potentially unstable areas of the world
even more unstable (pushing Humpty-Dumpty off the wall, one might call it.)
As regards alien cultures, it is certainly not necessary either to agree with or to 'respect' them. What however strikes
me is the apparent marginalisation of a sense of interest – which I think has catastrophic consequences for intelligence.
An example from British intelligence history may be to the point. The unit in MI6 which handled the material from Enigma
relating to the Abwehr, the German intelligence service, was headed by Hugh Trevor-Roper. A classicist turned historian of
early modern Europe – and a strange, feline creature – his response to the chaos of the time was to identify strongly with
an eighteenth-century Enlightenment tradition.
But he made sense of the accumulating evidence about the nature of the Nazi regime through a perspective shaped by a tradition
of interpretation of despotism going back through Gibbon to Tacitus, and knowledge of millenarian and apocalyptic cults in
early modern Europe.
Doing so enabled him to see something which both Roosevelt and Churchill failed to grasp – that the view of the Second World
War as a continuation of its predecessor, and the enemy as 'Prussianism', was at best a half-truth, and a dangerous one at
best, obscuring the radical gulf in attitudes between the nihilistic millenarians of the 'Sicherheitsdienst' and the German
General Staff.
One of the most fascinating counterfactuals of the war is what might have happened had Trevor-Roper's attempts to get the
British to respond to the overtures from the Abwehr chief Admiral Canaris born fruit.
"Anders Aslund's deep knowledge of Eastern European politics"
During the 1990's in Russia the illusions of Mr. Aslund and others facilitated the
transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the Russian Federation.
It appears that Mr. Aslund continues to serve a useful purpose.
It was decided in the 1990's not to thank Mr. Aslund, Mr. Sachs and others for their
complicity since such was deemed to be indelicate, so perhaps now this should be
rectified.
God bless Putin and Russia for standing against the Zionist NWO
You are correct Desert Fox. The prime variable in history is economics. Economics before
politics and before war.
Our illuminist friends manipulate the strings of international bank capital for their one
world government. In effect, the West has been infested with a tiny cadre of plutocrats, who
operate a usury mechanism to extract wealth from host peoples and nations.
Russia was to be broken up into parts. ((Harvard boys)) came to the 'rescue" and
privatized Russia with various schemes, the most important of which was to saddle Russian's
with "dollar" debts. Russians as hewers of wood and drawers of water, were to sell their
"earth" in exchange for finished dollar priced goods. Middle Class Russian labor is then cut
out of wealth production inherent in making finished goods. For example, Russian platinum is
used to make high value catalytic converters elsewhere, while only a few Russian's get
wealthy (in dollar terms) by poking holes in Russian land to extract minerals. Former Russian
nuclear scientists walk around drunk as they are not fit for being good labor to extract oil,
platinum, etc.
In effect, our ((friends)) turned Russia into African economy, never mind that Russian's
aren't African's. This desire to rape and pillage the earth, to then take rents on the world,
to then think of yourselves as god (note a little g) is a sophisticated, yet criminally
insane method akin to parasitism.
Russian's were infested by parasites, and yet Russian people as hosts have become stronger
year on year, to eject their parasite. Putin was instrumental in this transformation.
All nationalist economies in the past, which had the temerity to eject these parasites
have come under attack. I'm thinking Nazi Germany as well – oh the horror. This
economic attack is often under the guise of liberalism, which has a knock on effect of
breaking down civil society. In other words, liberalism is a symptom of parasitic financial
oligarchy (and illuminism) a control method to make a host weak, to then be re-colonized.
Russia DOES need to take full control of its Central Bank and eject its fifth columnists
(atlantacists), a final act that hasn't been done yet. On this point, it is factual and fair
to criticize Putin, because once Russian's have their own money power, they can accelerate
even faster. http://www.sovereignmoney.eu
Like many high demand cults neoliberalism is a trap, from which it is very difficult to escape...
Notable quotes:
"... A large, open-border global free market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism. ..."
"... Globalists, as neoliberal capitalists are often called, also understood that democracy, defined by a smattering of individual rights and a voting booth, was the ideal vehicle to usher neoliberalism into the emerging world. Namely because democracy, as commonly practiced, makes no demands in the economic sphere. Socialism does. Communism does. These models directly address ownership of the means of production. Not so democratic capitalism. This permits the globalists to continue to own the means of production while proclaiming human rights triumphant in nations where interventions are staged. ..."
"... The enduring lie is that there is no democracy without economic democracy. ..."
This 'Washington Consensus' is the false promise promoted by the West. The reality is quite
different. The crux of neoliberalism is to eliminate democratic government by downsizing,
privatizing, and deregulating it. Proponents of neoliberalism recognize that the state is the
last bulwark of protection for the common people against the predations of capital. Remove the
state and they'll be left defenseless .
Think about it. Deregulation eliminates the laws. Downsizing eliminates departments and their
funding. Privatizing eliminates the very purpose of the state by having the private sector take
over its traditional responsibilities.
Ultimately, nation-states would dissolve except perhaps for armies and tax systems. A large, open-border global free
market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the
whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism.
Globalists, as neoliberal capitalists are often called, also understood that democracy, defined
by a smattering of individual rights and a voting booth, was the ideal vehicle to usher
neoliberalism into the emerging world. Namely because democracy, as commonly practiced, makes
no demands in the economic sphere. Socialism does. Communism does. These models directly
address ownership of the means of production. Not so democratic capitalism. This permits the
globalists to continue to own the means of production while proclaiming human rights triumphant
in nations where interventions are staged.
The enduring lie is that there is no democracy
without economic democracy.
What matters to the one percent and the media conglomerates that disseminate their worldview is
that the official definitions are accepted by the masses. The real effects need never be known.
The neoliberal ideology (theory) thus conceals the neoliberal reality (practice). And for the
masses to accept it, it must be mass produced. Then it becomes more or less invisible by virtue
of its universality.
"... Just think about who can go down with Trump is such a case. It's not only Bill and Hillary. It is also a very dangerous thing to open this can of worms as "the people" might learn something that neoliberal elite does not want them to know -- specifically the USA and intelligence agencies role in creating Russian mafia and oligarchs after the dissolution of the USSR. Do you, by any chance, know such a name as Andrei Shleifer and such a term as "Harvard Mafia" ? Please Google those if you do not. ..."
My understanding is Fusion GPS does research for both sides. Soros giving them money is
entirely plausible but assuming that money equals control is a bit of a leap.
It appears to be some Russians seeking to discredit the investigation with clever
BS/truthiness.
I suspect a few absurdly wealthy Russians harbor a deep fear of Mueller. They may believe
he is primarily after them and they may be right. I see Mueller as an old-school lawman, and
suspect he is using all this as a golden opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian
mobsters, particularly in their money laundering. It would not surprise me if he hopes he
will not be forced to nail Trump himself to the wall, which would drag all kinds of political
noise into the trials, some of the people around Trump will be bad enough. Using some of
them, at least for the moment, is unavoidable, it's the politics is the source of his mission
and resources.
If only our press had the bandwidth necessary to distinguish those few Russians from ALL
Russians...
"I suspect a few absurdly wealthy Russians harbor a deep fear of Mueller."
"I see Mueller as an old-school lawman, and suspect he is using all this as a golden
opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian mobsters"
Thank you ! You have such a refreshing level of naivety that I really enjoyed your
posts.
How one in his sound mind can call Mueller "an old-school lawman" if one remember
Mueller's role in 9/11 and anthrax investigations.
And FYI those "absurdly wealthy Russians" represents the US fifth column in Russia (as
guarantors and protectors of neoliberalism in Russia; Google such a name as Chubais
https://www.rusjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Yeltsin_Putin.pdf
) and to destroy them might not be in best USA interests. Moreover, such a move actually will
be do Putin a huge favor, strengthening his hand.
As for "a golden opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian mobsters" the danger of such
a brilliant move is to reveal criminal connections with Russian oligarchs (and financial
oligarchs in general as you never know where the oligarch ends and the mafia boss starts) and
the Democratic Party.
Just think about who can go down with Trump is such a case. It's not only Bill and
Hillary. It is also a very dangerous thing to open this can of worms as "the people" might
learn something that neoliberal elite does not want them to know -- specifically the USA and
intelligence agencies role in creating Russian mafia and oligarchs after the dissolution of
the USSR. Do you, by any chance, know such a name as Andrei Shleifer and such a term as
"Harvard Mafia" ? Please Google those if you do not.
FYI Bill Clinton took a huge bribe in the form of speech fee from people very close to
"Russian Mobsters" (organized crime figures should probably more correctly be called "the
informal neoliberals" ;-)
There was an interesting discussion in Quora in 2016 on this topic:
From Yeltsin to Putin: Chubais, Liberal Pathology, and Harvard's Criminal Record
Matthew Raphael Johnson
Johnstown, PAWhen the USSR collapsed in 1990-1991, Gorbachev was
incapable of handling thesituation. Boris Yeltsin came to power both bureaucratically and
popularly. He was named theChief of the Presidium, but in June of 1991, he was elected in a
popular election where heearned 57% of the popular vote.
With a small army of American advisers, Yeltsin began selling off Soviet era assets.The
problem was that the process had nothing to do with markets. Privatization of assets wentto a
handful of well-connected politicians and bureaucrats who came to control the economyas a
whole.1 They had amassed a huge number of shares by 1995, and hence, the post-Sovietoligarchy
was born. The fact is that the work of 70 years of Soviet labor went to the pocketsof two or
three dozen people.2
The rising oligarchs could easily manipulate the court system and tax police, sincethere was
no real law governing private enterprise. Russia was led to the brink of anarchy. By1998,
according to a paper by Sergei Guriev and Andrei Rachinsky, the oligarchs comprisedabout 700
individuals that completely controlled Russia's economic assets.3
The Western Elites and the Ivy League as a Criminal Syndicate
In NS Leonov's book
(only in Russian), The Way of the Cross: Russia from 1991-2000, he states, as the first
"reform" of Yeltsin's government :
Government "reforms" that began Gaidar's privatization scam was the seizure of the savings
of the people. These were taken by force, though not directly. Inflation and economic collapse
made the transfer of funds easy. State control was removed from prices and the "free market"
would ensure the enrichment of corruption. This was the level of cynicism the new democracy had
reached, while simultaneously preaching the sanctity of private property. What did not melt
away in the deliberate fleecing of the people was taken by other means. An estimate of the
total taken thisway is about 300 billion rubles, and it had the proper effect: without money,
rebellion was difficult. They cried out in frustration.4
Nothing was done according to democratic norms, which is odd since democracy was the
buzzword that made these economic decisions seem political. At almost no time in the history of
the USSR did one man, Chubais and his allies, have such total and irresponsible control over
the Russian economy. When the voucher program was introduced in 1992, massive inflation
resulted. Soon, each 10,000 ruble voucher was worth very little. It was rendered null
regardless, since the state refused to consider the vouchers as legal tender.
1 Hoffman, D. The Oligarchs: Wealth And Power In The New Russia. Public Affairs Books, 2011
(cf esp ch12).
2 Kotz, D.M. Russia's Financial Crisis: The Failure of Neoliberalism? Z Magazine, (1998),
28-32
4 Leonov, NS. The Way of the Cross: Russia from 1991-2000. Moscow: Russia House, 2002 (All
citations aremy translations from the Russian.
Making the entire scam even more blatant, Chubais inserted a rider to the law stating that
the value of the voucher would only exist until late 1993. In 1992, Yeltsin's popularity went
from 50% in January to 30% in August, and from there to single digits.
By July of 1992, Chubais was hated. This led Yeltsin to limit the power of parliament,
increase his executive power and totally dominate the regions. This was done with western
backing and was a far greater centralization of power than Putin was later to be condemned for.
He had already banned the Communist Party, helping to break his main opposition and prevent
their imminent reelection in Parliament. The fraud of democracy was clearly open.
Soon Chubais and his crew stated that there was no benchmark value for any sold property.
The institution in charge of this, the Russian Federal Property Fund and related agencies,
therefore, began from arbitrary benchmarks. Ultimately, major firms were being sold for 1-5% of
their value. Worse, some of these were defense plants, bought up by shallcompanies operates by
the CIA – this was Hay's job. Therefore, scientific advances of the USSR were now
entirely in American hands.
In 1992, Yeltsin did fairly well in a referendum, receiving about 50% approval, but at this
date, privatization had just begun. Elections a bit later were to belie this vote. Yeltsin
himself clearly had no confidence in this referendum. Having no confidence in that vote,
Yeltsin then, again with western backing, banned all opposition protests in Moscow. Then,
making matters worse, he signed order 1400 in September of 1993 which stripped the Congress of
People's Deputies of all power. For the upcoming elections, Yeltsin passed a law saying that
only 25% of voters needed to show for it to be valid. This was a means of making sure that
opposition boycotts could not win. Yeltsin soon after banned the main opposition newspaper.
Russia's privatization scam was created, directed and imposed by Harvard University and
carried out by two "professors" whose incompetence is rivaled only by their lack of
accountability. Anatoly Chubais, probably the most hated man in Russia, was an old friend of
Harvard "economist" Andrei Shleifer, who was also working with Harvard don Jonathan Hay (who
according to the FSB, is CIA). Chubais, functioning as a Russian dictator since Yeltsin was not
functional at the time, put the privatization scheme into Harvard's hands. Apparently having no
workable knowledge of Russian life, the Harvard elite, believing themselves infallible, quickly
proved their theories not only false, but directly responsible for ruining thelives of
millions.5
1994-1995 was the period of the solidification of the oligarchic clans, their connection
with the United States, and the complete collapse of the state. Oligarchic clans, created by
Chubais, filled the vacuum with private armies, political machines and newspapers. In the US,
conservative and liberal alike called this the "free market" and democracy. Vladimir
Zhirinovsky, of Jewish origin and endlessly changing political positions, became the
government's ace in the hole: whenever the US questioned the increasingly obvious destruction
of Russia, Yeltsin would trot this clown out to make some typically outrageous statement. In
1995, it was clear that Zhirinovsky both "loved Hitler" and was "proud" of Russia's victory in
the Great Patriotic War. Clearly in the pocket of Yeltsin, Zhirinovsky a)kept US aid money
coming into his efforts, b) siphoned off serious criticism, c) easily associated nationalist
views with this kind of rhetorical nonsense.
Chubais continued to hang onto power. Not being a Russian citizen (and yet having all that
power), he clearly equated the oligarchic clans as "democracy." In Davos, 1996, he met with the
heads of all the clans including Guzinsky, Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, Friedman, Potanin and many
others, and formed a political movement designed to keep nationalist and communists out of
power.
This move shows that Chubais backed the oligarchs, did not consider them "unintended
consequences" and sought their assistance to stay in power: All in the name of democracy.
Yeltsin, now at 3% (with the same margin of error) began to implement populist measures, but
now was isolated. Winning a strangely high 33% of the vote in the 1996 elections, it can only
be attributed to a) electoral fraud, or b) the fact that Gen. Alexander Lebed had been talked
into entering a sort of coalition with Yeltsin. If they won, then Lebed's rival Pavel Grachev,
would be history. Yeltsin won the second round with just over 50%, as the oligarchs and Chubais
personally spend a small fortune bribing artists, journalists, writers and, making an even
worse mockery of democracy, busing thousands of urban youth into Moscow to ensure their
support.
Harvard's Sinister Role
Harvard University spent quite a bit of its money to
restructure Russia. The US government sued some of them, specifically, Andrei Shleifer, for
breach of contract. Many economists from Harvard worked for the State Department so as to be
able to control Russia for the better. The fraud of the Russian economy was in part blamed on
these advisers, whowere forced to pay more than $31 million to the US government for
"conspiracy to defraud."
Harvard had authored the plan that Gorbachev had requested to turn Russia into a capitalist
state. This was the plan that was enacted. The Harvard Institute for International Development
in Russia was the group created at Harvard and sponsored by the US government. This is what was
sued over. The US government argued that the reform program was a failure, and the planners,
living in America, knew it was a failure and continued to defend it – with taxpayer
money. Even worse, as it turns out, Shleifer was rigging some of the auctions himself,
investing his own money in firms that he knew would turn a profit, even if overseas.
The US Justice Department in 2000 sued, among others, Shleifer and Hay for defrauding the US
government. The Justice Department stated:
The United States alleges that Defendants' actions undercut the fundamental purpose of the
United States' program in Russia -- the creation of trust and confidence in the emerging
Russian financial markets and the promotion of openness, transparency, the rule of law, and
fair play in the development of theRussian economy and laws.6
Since they were using $40 million in taxpayer money, the cold-blooded desolation of Russia
implicated the US. The civil lawsuit argued, to simplify, that Harvard's economists, especially
Shleifer (and his wife), was investing taxpayer money in Russian companies about which they
were giving financial advice. Harvard admitted guilt in the form of a $25 million settlement.
How much of this assisted their victims in Russia is not known.7
In response to the suit, lawyers for Shleifer and his co-conspirator, Jonathan Hay, sneered
to the press: "We are confident that, as the civil case unfolds, the court will confirm that
the Harvard program significantly fostered Russian reform and that the government received its
money's worth." As it turns out, even their lawyers did not believe this, since their defense
rested, not on the denial that conflict of interest existed, but that they were never bound by
such ethical rules.8
6 "United States of America, Plaintiff v. the President and Fellows of Harvard College,
Andrei Shleifer, Jonathan Hay, Nancy Zimmerman, and Elizabeth Hebert, Defendants" (2000)
7 His crimes and the full nature of the lawsuit and evidence can be found here: Wedel, J.
Who Taught CronyCapitalism to Russia? How Harvard and the 'U.S. Government's Aid Agency
became part of the RussianProblem. The Wall Street Journal Europe, March 19, 2001
In 2005, a federal judge found Shleifer guilty of professional fraud. The disgraced
"professor" paid the US government $2 million, and his wife, operating yet another scam,
settled out of court for $1.5 million. Harvard paid about $10 million in legal fees to defend
their role in the starvation of Russia.9
For all that, Shleifer remains a celebrated professor at Harvard and the toast of academia
worldwide. His academic stock has not suffered in theleast from this. Just as puzzling, Harvard
suffered no diminution in prestige. This is especially puzzling in that ivy league scandals
erupt seemingly on a daily basis. This Teflon world exists partly due to the protection of
former Harvard President, World Bank economist and Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, also a
pivotal figure in the Russian fiasco.10
Summers is partly to blame for the American sub-prime mortgage disaster since hewas pivotal
in removing many of the regulatory barriers that forbade predatory lendingpractices. Therefore,
the execrable Summers is the co-author of not one but two national meltdowns. Summers,
after being forced to resign from Harvard based on an unrelated set of sins,11 was quickly
rehired as a "professor" by the government. Then, Summers became a leading figure in Obama's
economic brain trust, was soon after appointed as part of the "oversight"panel for the UN's
economic programs and became a member of the Group of 30, a highlyelite and secretive
organization created by the Rockefeller family.
Like Summers and Shleifer, Chubais was also handsomely rewarded for his direct role in the
Russian cataclysm. He was soon placed on the board of JP Morgan, and, to no one's surprise, was
granted a seat on the ultra-elite Council on Foreign Relations, another powerful conclave
within the Rockefeller cult.12
Summer's career, his almost comic legacy of failure and ignorance, and the criminal
impoverishment of Russia (not to mention the 2007 US meltdown) wholly destroy the "elitestatus"
of places like Harvard.13 This set of scandals, largely unknown to a bewildered and exhausted
American public, shows the profound and pervasive putrescence of academia, especially in the
Ivy leagues. It brought into question academic tenure, unearned salaries, and the famed
academic insulation from consequences arising from their theories. The Harvard civil suit and
all it entails demonstrates the incompetence of those paid to implement policy and their
ability to get their hands on taxpayer money. It shows a reprehensible and reckless disregard
for the welfare of others that is rewarded with academic posts, social prestige, ostentatious
wealth and immense power.
It might be worth mentioning that the behavior patters of Chubais conforms almost perfectly
to the Triarchic diagnostic model of psychopathy as developed by Skeem, et al in 2011. First,
it is typified by a pathological arrogance. The victim has full confidence that he is above the
law, or that the law only applies to others. Second, the victim shows an impulsive and
anti-social temper that focuses only on short term gratification based on the lowest motives.
Because of these two symptoms, the victim either does not perceive or does not have any
restraints on his destructive behavior. Finally, and most significantly, the victim feels no
remorse for the consequences of his actions. Other criteria related to these includeparasitic
behavior, superficial charm, grandiosity, ingenious criminal ideas, and assertive narcissism.14
Yeltsin, quoted in Leonov's book, called Chubais "an absolute Bolshevik by temperament and
mentality." The basic consensus about Chubais' behavior is that he cared little for
construction, and only for destruction.
8 Seward, Z. Harvard To Pay $26.5 Million in HIID Settlement. Crimson, July 20059 The
guilty verdict and settlement issues are summarized in the Crimson article above.
10 Finucane, M "Feds Sue Harvard over Russia Advisers." ABD News; also see Wedel, Janine
R. The HarvardBoys Do Russia. The Nation, 2008; and "Larry Summers, Robert Rubin: Will The
Harvard Shadow EliteBankrupt The University And The Country?" The Huffington Post, Jan 2010:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-r-lewis/larry-summers-robert-rubi_b_419224.html
11 These had something to do with comments about intellectual differences between men and
women. That this contrived controversy erupted just as Harvard was paying off the federal
government is no coincidence.
12 Levy, Ari. Summers Joins Andreessen Horowitz as a Part-Time Adviser to Entrepreneurs.
Bloomberg, June2011 and Greenwald, Glenn. Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Wall Street's
ownership of government.Salon, 2009
13 As far as ivy league fraud and incompetence go, this is just one scandal out of
hundreds.
The political lesson of this is unfortunate: the diagnostic criteria for criminal
psychopathy are precisely the qualities required for success in big business and government.
Even the best intentioned politician or businessman must display some combination of thesevices
in order to successfully compete in these fields. What passes as virtue in libera lcapitalism
is actually an undisguised form of mental illness.
Leonov speaks in more detail about his pathology:
Evil lurks in Chubais' colorless eyes. He arrogantly uses his supporters in public.
Assertiveness and phony composure is his cynical way. Yeltsin was seen by him as merely
manageable. Yeltsin was easy to manipulate due to his unpopularity. He did not have the
intellectual wherewithal to fight back. He was compliant and signed anything on cue. He saw
the Duma as mere formalism that can be bypassed. In reality, he just relied on Presidential
decrees.
Of course, all of this in the name of democracy. Rather than deal with the fallout for the
sins of others, Yeltsin did one excellent thing for Russia – appointed Vladimir Putin
astemporary president on new year's eve, 1999. As was proper, Putin guaranteed Yeltsin immunity
from prosecution, which meant he could no longer be used as a scapegoat. Putin, to make a long
story very short, brought Russia from a GDP that was 98th in the world to 2014,where it is 8th.
For the period 1991-1997, the transfer of wealth from Russia to the oligarchs was roughly $1.75
trillion. This was not "lost" to Russia, since wealth is not "lost." It merely changed hands.
Under Chubais and Harvard, the economic contracted by almost 90%.
For all that, Yeltsin's party received 15% of the vote. With instructions from the US,
Yeltsin, after this humiliation, created the idea of a "consensus document." The point is to
create the illusion of agreement. Several western NGOs designed a position paper which
supported "free market" reforms. Representatives of the new rich in Russia signed this
document, which was then trumpeted as proof of social cohesion around Yeltsin.
Bernard Black et al, writing in 2009, described the devastation of this shock treatment
for Russia and Ukraine in 1994:Russia's mass privatization. . . permitted insiders (managers
and controlling shareholders) to engage in extensive "self" or "inside" dealing. . . which
the government did nothing to control. Later privatization "auctions" were a massive giveaway
of Russia's most important companies at bargain prices to a handful of well-connected
"kleptocrats". . . Medium-term prospects are grim; the Russian ruble has plunged; the Russian
government has defaulted on both its dollar denominated and ruble-denominated debt; most
banks are bankrupt; corruption is rampant; tax revenues have collapsed; capital flight is
pervasive; and the government (whomever the Prime Minister happens to be at the moment) seems
clueless about what to do next.15
14 Skeem, JL, Polaschek, DLL, Patrick, CJ, and S Lilienfeld. Psychopathic Personality:
Bridging the GapBetween Scientific Evidence and Public Policy. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest 12 (3): 95–1622011
15 Black, et al, 1
This scheme represents one of the most luridly thoroughgoing, colossal and overwhelming
failures in economic history. The role of the US government, international financial agencies
and elite academia in this monumental disaster is well known. During the well publicized
destruction and starvation of Russia, the British journal Euromoney named Chubais the
"Worlds Greatest Finance Minister," as yet another means of displaying theelite's lack of
accountability. In the Financial Times of 2004, A. Ostrovsky states "Chubais makes no
excuses and feels no remorse over the most controversial privatization of all - the
'loans-for-shares' deal, in which he handed control of Russia's largest and most valuable
assets to the group of tycoons [sic] in return for loans and support in the 1996 election for
the then ailing Yeltsin."16
Once this became plain, the architects of the plan backed off, blaming everyone else for the
issues. He writes in Foreign Affairs that the "Russian people" must vote for "democracy" in the
2000 elections. At the time, his own popularity was running about 2-3%. Hence, he did not mean
"democracy" in the normal sense of the word. The real change was between 1994-1996. Here, the
oligarchs were openly ruling with Yeltsin, who was often drunk and would disappear for weeks on
end. It didn't matter. The oligarchs bought up most of the banks, then issued licenses to trade
internationally that only they could have. As the government got desperate, the oligarchs
stepped in and loaned Moscow the money to continue to function. Russian was not a "government"
in any sense of the word. About 700 major families controlled almost the entire Russian economy
and hence, the state as well.
The Results of the Scam
Government revenues went down by over 50% in this same
time. Wages went down by about 75% by 1998. In 1992, the inflation rate was almost 1000%. Light
industry, that is, the consumer sector, lost about 90% of its capital, the hardest hit sector
of all. Machinery of all kinds fell by about 75%, meaning that 75% of the machines useful in
the Russian economy had been liquidated (or were just not used) by 1998. The only thing that
kept Russiaafloat was the black market.17
The state could no longer enforce its laws, and hence, men started not showing up for the
draft. Republic after republics declared independence, to be immediately recognized by the US.
So, what can we conclude here? Very few deny that Yeltsin was a failure, but a failure of the
worst kind. This kind of economic destruction has never been seen before outside of warfare.
Government revenues and expenditures collapsed, hence, an already bad infrastructure was made
far worse. Believe it or not, from 1992-1999, the Russian government collected about $6 billion
all told. Hence, the state did not function.
Interest rates were high, about 300% in 1994, so credit was available only to the very rich,
who controlled the (now private) central bank in the first place. Nearly everyoligarchical bank
was connected with organized crime. In fact, there is no substantial difference between the
oligarchs and organized crime.18
Under the oligarchs, tax collection collapsed. Industrial production went down by 25% in
just a few years. By 1997, Russia had defaulted on its debts. Between 1991 and 1998,Russian GDP
fell by almost 40%. Life expectancy went down from 68 to 56 years. Russians became
impoverished. Money was so scarce that, by 1996, most trade was done through barter.
Importantly, these oligarchs became a state within a state. Tax collection had collapsed, and
the new Russia was completely broke. With the Asian meltdown in 1998, interest rates for
Russian borrowing went to 300%. 19
16 Arkady Ostrovsky, Father to the Oligarchs. Financial Times, 2004.
17 Graham, Thomas. From Oligarchy to Oligarchy: The Structure of Russia's Ruling Elite.
Demokratizatsiya7(3), (1997) 325-340
18 ibid
Yeltsin's popularity by 1998 went to about zero. Since then, pro-western (that is, pro
freemarket) parties have polled no more than 5-7% of the vote combined. Yeltsin resigned the
Presidency in 1999 and appointed Vladimir Putin as president.
A man of immense mental and physical strength, he sought to discipline the oligarchs,
rebuild Russia and create a modern economy. As soon as Putin took office, he went after the
media monopoly of Vladimir Guzinsky. Soon, numerous oil firms and banks were investigated for
tax fraud. Some oligarchs fled the country, others like Mikhail Khordokovsky, ended up in
prison. Attempting to split the oligarchs, playing one fraction against another, Putin's
popularity soared, and Russian economic growth recovered.20 Since the meltdown in 1998, the
Russian economy has gone from $1 trillion to $2.5 trillion by 2011. Growth rates remain high,
and Russia enjoys both a trade and budget surplus. In the first eight years of Putin's
presidency, the Russian GDP increased by over 75%.
Near the end of 1993, about 18-20 billion rubles had fled the country. As 1994 dawned, the
population was impoverished. Malnutrition was becoming a problem, and alcoholism was
increasing, as was suicide and all manner of social pathology. By 1994, thedeputy interior
minister, Vladimir Kozlov, stated that about 40% of the economy is nowcriminalized. Leonov
writes,
V. Polevanov [deputy prime minister at the time] notes that the total nominal valueof the
voucher fund (about $1.5 trillion rubles) was 20 times less than the cost fixed assets
industry, fired up for auction. One Moscow, where privatization was notcarried out on the
residual and by market value, gained 20% of the enterprises 1.8 trillion rubles, while income
from the rest of Russia in the first two years of privatization amounted to only $1 trillion
rubles.
The above argument is abstract. In this section, a case study will be analyzed in detail to
show how these forces come to be, how they operate, and how they attempt to insulate themselves
from its consequences. Traumatic economic events do not occur due to abstract or impersonal
forces. People, very powerful people, create the conditions that destroy entire economies.
Economic self-interest is the engine of these irrational policies. Economics depicts social
actors and institutions as calculating machines with no identity or purpose. The result is that
economics is always treated in the passive voice, which is a fundamental mystification.
The Second Half of the 1990s
Showing Chubais complete rejection of supporting
Russian interests, Leonov writes,
Soon, it became clear that Chubais committed his sins only because he was controlled by
others. The real owners of Russia. In 1998, Russia was continuing to disaster, that is, total
bankruptcy. At this point, even after the default, American investors finally got the message
and moved their cash out of Russian securities. This strengthened the effect of the default. As
he became CEO of RAO (etc), he sold to foreigners a 32% chunk of Russian energy concerns, which
violated all Russian laws. This meant, of course, that foreigners now could block Russian
energy policy.
Chubais and his Harvard friends did not believe in their own rhetoric. Their had quickly
moved into the most luxurious apartments and appointed to themselves very high salaries.
Nothing about their world was based on the market principles they hypocriticallyadvocated.
While advocating the rule of law, the oligarchical firms allied with Chubais werenot paying
taxes; but it just so happens that the criminal code recently passed did not considerthis a
crime. In 1997, there was no question that Chubais was evading taxes as well.
19 Ibid, cf esp 330-332
20 Sakwa, R. Putin and the Oligarchs. New Political Economy, 13(2) (2008): 185-191
Admitting his guilt, he paid about 500 million rubles, which was just a small amount of what
he owed. His power did not diminish, but it remains a fact that no dictator in Russian history
had the power that Chubais had. In the name of market reform and the rule of law,Chubais was
receiving millions from shall companies for non existent services. Alexander Lebed remained the
sole source of opposition to Chubais once Yeltsin sought treatment for heart illness. Chubais,
realizing the general's recent spike in popularity for negotiating successfully with Chechen
rebels, invented a slew of charges that the general conspired with these same militants.
Chubais had become so powerful that he was no longer required to be creative. Lebed was
dismissed from his post, proving that Chubais was, in fact, a dictator.21
In the name of the rule of law, Chubais made mafia gangster Boris Berezovsky "deputy
director of the security council." Potanin, another underworld billionaire, was named "Deputy
Prime Minister." Chubais was rubbing Russia's face in his power, typical of thepsychotic. Soon,
all major television channels were in the hands of two mafia dons, Berezovsky and Guzinsky.
Leonov writes:
By 1996, all the financial power was concentrated in the hands of a small group of
businessmen almost exclusively Jewish. It consisted of Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky,
Alexander Smolensky, Pyotr Aven, Boris Chait, and Vitaly Malkin. Major bankers also included
gentiles Potanin and Vinogradov, the only two.
Since the state had collapsed, these oligarchs acted as the state treasury and profited from
it. Billions continued to be looted and wound up in banks in Israel, Britain and the US. Yet,
elections were coming up. An ailing Yeltsin dismissed Chernomyrdin's "government," which
included Chubais. Boris Berezovsky began, in his words, to rally all the "democraticand
reformist forces in Russia" to prevent his own possible dispossession.
Typical of the psychotic, these men knew no limits. They began issuing high yield junk
bonds, eventually promising to pay out, in some cases, 180%. Foreigners were buying these bonds
to the point where almost 30% of all marketable securities of the Russian "state"were owned by
outsiders. It was another scam, and the bankers refused to pay anypercentage, and even more,
demanded the return of Chubais to government. Chubais quicklyflew to Washington, warning of a
communist-nationalist resurgence. $6 billion was quickly given, which was never seen again.
Forming a shadow government, Russia's bankers dictated terms to Yeltsin. In their
generosity, they agreed to not demand immediate debt payment from the Russian taxpayer. Yet, to
punish Yeltsin, this oligarchy declared that it will reduce the sale of foreign currency.
Putting downward pressure on the ruble, the oligarchs got their revenge for the tepid rebellion
of Yeltsin. This is what drove the junk bonds as high as 180%; the ruble was suddenly worth
nothing. In fear, Yeltsin put the banker's friend, Chernomyrdin, back in power in late summer,
1998.22
21 Ostrovsky, Arkady. Father to the Oligarchs. Financial Times, 2004
22 Russian Federation: Selected Issues 2012 International Monetary Fund IMF Country Report
No. 12/218http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/cr12218.pdf and Oliker, O, and T.
Paley. Assessing Russia's
As typical of capitalist democracies, the political clique took the fall for the private
sector. Yeltsin was blamed for the disaster, though his power was nil. That winter, Russia
froze with millions unable to buy fuel. The perfect man was chosen for the prime ministership,
Yevgeny Primakov, with no apparent beliefs of any kind. Quickly, Primakov demanded the return
of Chubais and others who caused the mess, in order to repair it.
The default that August destroyed any bank not immediately under the oligarchs. GDPfell by
200-300 billion rubles. Industry was devastated. In one month, September of 1998, the average
Russian income fell by over 30%. The Federation Council, too late, officially declared Chubais
and crew as "negligent and incompetent." At the same time, the banking oligarchy was
speculating in currency markets, making a profit estimated at the time of 5.5billion rubles in
1997.
Bill Clinton at the time cared only about the possibility of the Lebed coup. Primakov,
however, began to strengthen the state as the only possibly solution to the total dissolution
of Russia as a political entity. Soon, the dependable Zhirnovsky was again trotted out, with
the occasional spray painted swastika to re-direct attention and create the "extremist" threat.
More political groups, heretofore unknown, showed up in Moscow with strange uniforms and
rallies. Gaidar was quick to link them with the communists, creating a convenient, single group
for the masses to visualize.
In the midst of the meltdown, the system took advantage of the perfectly timed murder of
Galina Starovoitova, a westernizing politician. 15,000 members of the opposition were rounded
up and the "democratic forces" demanded emergency powers. The westenizers even created their
own "nationalist" political group, "Fatherland" in order to siphon off opposition activists. In
a display showing excellent acting, Yeltsin, in December of 1998, disbanded the group as a
"threat" to "democracy." Of course, western Russia experts breathed a sigh of relief that
"fascism" was not coming to Russia.
Solzhenitsyn refused to be a part of the charade, refusing to accept the Medal of St. Andrei
from Yeltsin. A long time nationalist, Solzhenitsyn realized that in giving this award, Yeltsin
was currying favor. Another misdirection was the attempted impeachment of Yeltsin in 1998, as
if he was in charge of the disaster he only vaguely understood. Like the Clinton impeachment,
it was an absurdity, deliberately designed to protect those with actual power (that is, the
private sector) who created the disaster. The Commission decided that Yeltsin had "exceeded his
power" as president, as if this is the reason why Muscovites just froze the previous winter.
Using political figures to cover for the banking cartel is as old as the Medicis in Florence.
Then, in another mockery of Russia, Yeltsin was blamed 100% for the disaster ofthe previous
decade.23
Given all this, you are now ready to understand Putin. He came to power as Premier under
Yeltsin when the latter resigned in 1999. Yeltsin's popularity rating was between 3-5%. All aid
from the IMF was stolen and funneled into the hands of the oligarchs. Oil and gas firms had
their profits pocketed in the same way, tax free. As Yeltsin retired, he gave many of his
friends immunity from prosecution.
Putin as the Restorer of Sanity
Putin's leadership restored confidence in the
currency, the state and the law. Oligarchystill exists in Russia (as elsewhere), but the
monopoly position they used to wield is no more.Russian oil firms have come under the control,
though not the ownership, of the state, sinceoligarchs were planning on selling assets to
Exxon-Mobil, which led to the "KhordokovskyDecline. The Rand Corporation,
2002http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1442.pdf23 Guriev, S.
and Andrei Rachinsky (2005). The Role of Oligarchs in Russian Capitalism. Journal of
EconomicPerspectives, 19(1), (2005) 131-150
http://pages.nes.ru/sguriev/papers/GurievRachinsky.pdfaffair." Mikhail Khordokovshy was an
oligarch who controlled YUKOS, one of Russia's mostpowerful oil firms. In the interest of
national security, Putin placed Khordokovsky under arrest. He was indeed guilty of tax evasion,
but his plans to see Russian strategic assets to Americans was too much for Putin to stomach.
The more oligarchs Putin put in jail, the more popular he becomes.
Putin's policy has been to tread softly, taking on only the most powerful and obnoxious of
the oligarchs. He has made strategic alliances with some in order to intimidate others While
Russia has been rebuilt and the state became powerful, the oligarchs still have fight left in
them, and Putin acts cautiously. Putin's basic approach has been to guide investment and
control the flow of investment funds so they benefit Russia, not the oligarchy. The state does
not own the economy, but it does oversee it. The oligarchy gave Putin no other choice.
The oligarchs financed all of Yeltsin's election campaigns and public image in Russia at the
time. The point was to keep Yeltsin in power long enough so that the oligarchs could get their
cash out of the country. They knew that eventually, a popular government would punish them.
Putin, to a great extent, was this punishment.
Putin created an entirely new Russian government, when local districts under his control.
Needless to say, the regional governments had been bought, and Putin could have no dealings
with them. Some of them even had their own foreign policy! All those sent to govern the regions
were from the security services or the army. This was no accident. Putin restructured the Upper
House (the Federation Council) so as to permit his government to have a say in who gets
appointed to it. 24
Putin insisted that local law must be consistent with federal law. This is because local
leaders were creating their own countries, and this could not stand. Putin then permitted
oligarchs and their puppets to be tried as violators of the constitution. Let me give you one
example. In 2003, the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky had taken over the Russian oil giant Yukos.
Now, Putin got intelligence that Khodorkovsky was planning on entering intobusiness with
Exxon-Mobil, permitting their penetration into the Russian market. Realizing this was a
security threat (which it was, since it would mean that Exxon would control much of Russia's
oil), he had Khodorkovsky arrested. Is list of crimes was well known, but the stategot him on
taxes, which was a no-brainier. Putin was immediately attacked or "authoritarianism" by the
press in the west.
So why does the west heap abuse on this man?
He reformed the tax code, putting in place a 13% flat tax on all income and investments.
About half of regional prosecutors were removed from their positions due toe xtreme corruption.
All Russians knew that already. He quickly ended the war in Chechnya, making sure a Chechen,
pro-Russian government was put in charge.
He brought together the top 13 oligarchical families to a conference he organized. He told
them that their rule was over. He forced them to pay millions in back taxes to the state, and
to create several important charitable funds with their stolen money.
He was going to use the state to pressure their media into being more objective, pro-Russian
and pro-state. Since the oligarchs controlled the press, it made sense that this had to be
fought. To call this "assaulting press freedom" is absurd.
He realized that the political opposition in Russia was created by the oligarchy. Hence,
there was no actual party development. Few parties had an agenda (except the communists, who
did well), and these were mostly personal vehicles for their founders.
Putin also shifted investment away from oil and towards higher end items. This was needed to
diversify the economy. The judiciary is independent. Today, about 70% of people who sue the
state for various reasons win. Putin also introduced the jury.25
24 Sakwa, R. Putin and the Oligarchs. New Political Economy, 13(2), (2008), 185-191
It's tough to argue with Putin's success:
Labor productivity grew 49 percent 1995-2005, ranging from a 23 percent improvement in
retailing to a 73 percent rise in construction. Total factor productivity grew by 5.8 percent
per year, and the World Bank estimates that only one third of that increase came from increased
capacity utilization. Firm turnover (i.e. the exit of inefficient firms and the entry of new
ones) accounts for half the total improvement. Stock market capitalization rose to 44 percent
of GDP by 2005, while the RTS index went from 300 in 2000 to 2,360 in December 2007.
In September 2006 the market capitalization of the 200 biggest firms was $833 billion (one
third of which was Gazprom). The percent of the population living in poverty fell from 38
percent in 19998 to 9.5 percent in 2004, and the share of family budgets spent on food fell
from 73% in 1992to 54% in 2004.
The only macroeconomic indicator that gives cause for concern is inflation, which dropped
from 20 percent in 2000 to 9 percent in2006, before creeping back up to 11-12 percent
level.26
Now, "market capitalization" and other such elite measures are not the whole story. They can
exist with an economy failing in other respects. However, before wealth can b eredistributed,
it has to exist. Accumulating what can then be redistributed are what these numbers are telling
us. Given all this, however, it should come as no surprise that those who are condemning Putin
today backed the privatization deals 20 years ago.
W. Thompson, writing in the Guardian in the Summer of 2003, states:
Fiscal consolidation has probably contributed more than any other single factor to
restoring the authority and legitimacy of the formerly bankrupt state. Exceptionally
favorable economic circumstances account for much of this improvement, but so also do better
expenditure management, the reform of tax legislation and more efficient administration. The
state's rule-making capacity has also grown markedly.
Unlike Yeltsin, Putin has a compliant parliament and presides over a government that, for
all its internal divisions, is not riven by the factional conflicts that marked the 1990s.
The result has been a flood of new legislation, much of it directly concerned with state
reconstruction.27
Thompson speaks the truth. "Exceptionally favorable economic circumstances "can not cause
national success. They do not in Ukraine, much of Africa or Detroit. They must be identified
and utilized with substantial skill. Circumstances, of themselves, tell us nothing. The
"compliant parliament" exists because of Putin's popularity, though Thomas seems to suggest
that such legislative cooperation is required in times of emergency. Worried about bureaucratic
corruption, Putin passed several laws limiting the discretionary power of federal agencies.
Reform has reduced corruption, endemic at onepoint. Business is much easier to accomplish.
Putin's reelection numbers roughly mirror his popularity in the country, and his opposition,
backed by the US, has no agenda whatsoever.
25 Lavelle, P Putin's "Authoritarianism" vs. the "Commentariat". Commentary,
2004ahttp://www.futurebrief.com/peterlavelle004.asp and Lavelle, P Russia's Economic Future.
Commentary,2004 http://www.futurebrief.com/peterlavelle.asp
26 Rutland, P. Putin's Economic Record. Wesleyan University, CT, 2008
As of January 1 of this 2013, Russia's anti-bribery legislation is the toughest in the
world. In Russia, about 92% of American businesses think that Russian investment is a good
thing, and that Russia is a decent place to do business. The IMF has stated that part of
Putin's success is is utilization of capital that was left idle. Utilization of the country's
resources has increased from about 50% in 2000 to over 76% today. But in order to do this, he
needed to destroy the power of the oligarchs at the regional level.
Conclusion
The simple fact is that Putin's authoritarianism was forced upon him.
He did use a heavy hand, but not nearly as heavy as Yeltsin. He realized that it was either a
strong hand or chaos. As the state has been rebuilt, so have oversight bodies empowered to
check it'sbehavior. Putin launched a bunch of commissions to look into corruption in different
areas o the country, knowing full well that his popularity is based on that, plus economic
growth.Putin needed to increase the potential of the state before the state itself could grow.
Hence,the reformation of all police agencies gave them a direct line to the Kremlin, but, by
2002,crime was still rife. Now, all that has changed.
It makes sense to call Putin a reaction to Yeltsin, chaos and oligarchy. His policies make
no sense without the background. Things appear differently when contrasted with the free-fall
collapse of the Yeltsin years.
Putin then did two things: first, to build up the rudiments of a new state, one that can
permit business to thrive and destroy oligarchy. He needed a new law code, more centralized
structures and an end to regional independence. Second, he was to create a new macroeconomic
structure, with strong fiscal and oversight measures. Russia now runs a trade and budget
deficit. He then stabilized the currency.
Once economic growth took off, he tried to get as much money out of foreign banks as
possible. He first backed big business (for the sake of growth), then shifted more recently to
backing smaller business. He then engaged in education and pension reform. He turned Russia to
the east, allying with China to cooperate in their tremendous economic growth.
It is easy to forget that all that Putin is "blamed" for was suggested by western elites for
Yeltsin. Liberal democracy in the eastern bloc has, without exception, merely been a cover for
the most cynical sort of exploitation. In the name of "democracy" the eastern bloc melted into
the bank accounts of both foreign and local elites. Warlords developed with private armies
that, in the 1990s, were the subject of some journalistic treatment. A Russia in collapse is
far more dangerous for the west than anything Putin has dreamed about.
Rationally, the enforced, rehearsed and studied contempt of Putin can only exist because the
west had other plans for Russia, as a hinterland for cheap, educated labor and resources.
Western collapse is assured precisely because Russia is not prostrate and under the thumb of
Exxon-Mobil. Putin will have the last laugh, which, when the smoke clears, is the only real
cause of the west's irrational hatred.
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet
Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms
the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by
inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets.
Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981.
Pipes predicts that with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal
fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the
Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of
Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain
Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea
"that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc
of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007,
pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White
House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the
Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is
based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in
what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the
Soviet Union
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin
later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support
for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that in mind, I
don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war
planers, will be regretting, even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved
ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports and other places around
the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in
aftermath of the terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows
what will happens to us if the opposite side start to supply his own proxies with lethal anti
air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such an
escalation.
"... Actually an interesting metamorphose happen right at the border crossing. A crook instantly became the staunch defender of western democracy and its (aka neoliberal) values against Russian backwardness, paranoia and kleptocratic state headed by evil Putin who personally torture innocent girls from Pussy Riot wearing his old KGB uniform ..."
"... BTW I would object about the term "Stubborn Deniers of Reality" applied to Western Journalism. I think a more proper definition is "Creators of artificial reality". Masters of illusion, so to speak. And that's would be a proper classification of Bachelor and Masters degree in journalism instead of "Bachelor of arts", etc. used today. And truth be told this esoteric art reached the level of perfection and sophistication in comparison with which all those circus magicians are just children. ..."
Actually an interesting metamorphose happen right at the border crossing. A crook instantly
became the staunch defender of western democracy and its (aka neoliberal) values against Russian
backwardness, paranoia and kleptocratic state headed by evil Putin who personally torture
innocent girls from Pussy Riot wearing his old KGB uniform :-)
I would call this sudden attraction to democratic values at the border crossing a "crooks
survival instinct" in action. Crooks are always crooks.
BTW I would object about the term "Stubborn Deniers of Reality" applied to Western Journalism.
I think a more proper definition is "Creators of artificial reality". Masters of illusion, so to
speak. And that's would be a proper classification of Bachelor and Masters degree in journalism
instead of "Bachelor of arts", etc. used today. And truth be told this esoteric art reached the
level of perfection and sophistication in comparison with which all those circus magicians are
just children.
BTW who would explain to me the meaning of the term of BS in English. Is this about deception,
or an attempt to cover own incompetence (posturing as an expert in subject about which the BS
artist has no clue) or about pure propaganda or about meaningless drivel designed to hide the
real motives ?
"... So, albeit the USSR registered up to 17% of GDP spending on the "military" (as some sources claim) -- you have to take it with a grain of salt. ..."
"... Another problem with this "too much military" theory is the logic behind it. During the 50s and 60s, the USSR was also spending a lot on the military, but it didn't stop it growing 15%-10% yoy ..."
"... It was only after the mid-70s, when the USSR begun to stagnate (it never had a recession), that the military spending theorists begun to sprout. The question is the same about the ill fate of the welfare state in Western Europe in the end of the 70s: which came first, the egg or the chicken. Putting it in another way: was it the Soviet was spending that caused its long stagnation or was it its long stagnation that made its military spending look big? ..."
The war hawks in my beloved country are the Soviet Politburo clamoring for a larger army,
navy, air force to be equipped with the most expensive weaponry. Back in the 80's the
Soviet Union had an army of 5M, they it is less than 1M and is purely defensive. We on the
other hand have built up our Defense Budget to epic levels and have consultant after
consultant telling us that it is at an all time low.
- Posted by: Christian Chuba | Mar 1, 2018 4:14:46 PM | 20
The USSR had deeper problems than that.
It's not that the Soviet expenditure with the military was a problem. On the opposite: the
Soviet were very familiar with the concept of dual industry, them being the masters of WWII.
Many industries in the USSR that were officially military were actually civilian: the most
colorful example being the airplane industry, which could produce either civilian or military
aircraft. Another example: the USSR was the biggest agriculture tractor producer in the world
at one point. These tractors were produced in the same industrial plants as the one used to
produce battle tanks. So, albeit the USSR registered up to 17% of GDP spending on the
"military" (as some sources claim) -- you have to take it with a grain of salt.
Another problem with this "too much military" theory is the logic behind it. During
the 50s and 60s, the USSR was also spending a lot on the military, but it didn't stop it
growing 15%-10% yoy .
It was only after the mid-70s, when the USSR begun to stagnate (it never had a
recession), that the military spending theorists begun to sprout. The question is the same
about the ill fate of the welfare state in Western Europe in the end of the 70s: which came
first, the egg or the chicken. Putting it in another way: was it the Soviet was spending that
caused its long stagnation or was it its long stagnation that made its military spending look
big?
"... Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip. ..."
"... A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in May 2005. ..."
"... On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi. ..."
"... 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' ..."
"... Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of élite Westerners, which, in honor of Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own, often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear. ..."
"... Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet. ..."
"... (One good example is provided by the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.) ..."
"... When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked. (See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/ .) ..."
"... Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece, Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said.' ..."
"... The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble. ..."
"... Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. ..."
1. Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now
including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip.
It is thus an open question how far it is useful to speak of British intelligence intervening in the American election, rather
than the American section of the 'Borg' and their partners in crime 'across the pond' colluding in an attempt to mount such an
intervention with a greater appearance of 'plausible deniability.'
2. A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial
source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine
Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky
in May 2005.
This describes the education in 'Western banking practices' given to him and his Menatep associates by Michel and Samuelson,
starting as early as 1989, and also their crucial involvement with Berezovsky.
We are told by Belton that: 'With the help of British government connections, Valmet had already built up a wealthy clientele
that included the ruling family of Dubai.' As to large ambitions which Michel and Samuelson had, she tells us: 'Used to dealing
with the riches of Arab leaders, they found Menatep, by comparison still relatively small fry. By 1994, however, Menatep had started
moving into all kinds of industries, from chemicals to textiles to metallurgy. But for Valmet, which by that time had already
partnered up with one of the oldest banks in the United States, Riggs Bank, and for Menatep, the real prize was oil.'
Try Googling 'Riggs Bank' -- a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar.
So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a 'comprador' oligarchy who could loot Russia's raw materials
resources.
3. On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele
and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi.
In the press conference in May 2007 where he responded to the request for his extradition submitted by the Crown Prosecution
Service, he claimed that: 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them
about Russia.'
It seems to me quite likely, although obviously not certain, that this did indeed represent the view of many of the 'StratCom'
operators around Berezovsky of people like Steele.
Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of élite Westerners, which, in honor of
Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own,
often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt
for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus
being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear.
Some fragments of a mass of evidence that this was precisely what Litvinenko did were presented by me in a previous post.
Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence
testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members
of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet.
(One good example is provided by
the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another
is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.)
Accordingly, when I read of anyone treating practically anything that Steele claims as plausible, I try to work out how much
of a 'retard' they must be, starting with a baseline of about 50%.
4. In the light of the way that the reliance on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration is being
defended by Comey and others on the basis that Steele was 'considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau', the question
is how many people in the FBI must be considered to have a 'retard' rating somewhere over 90%.
When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage
issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem
not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked.
(See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/
.)
5. Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September
defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander
Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece,
Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium
poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends
said.'
6. In his attempts to defend the credibility of the dossier, Sipher also explains that its -- supposed -- author was President
of the Cambridge Union. Here, two profiles of Steele on the 'MailOnline' site are of interest.
In one a contemporary is quoted:
"'When you took part in politics at the Cambridge Union, it was very spiteful and full of people spreading rumours," he said.
"Steele fitted right in. He was very ambitious, ruthless and frankly not a very nice guy."
The other tells us that he born in Aden in 1964, and that his father was in the military, before going on to say that contemporaries
recall an 'avowedly Left-wing student with CND credentials', while a book on the Union's history says he was a 'confirmed socialist'.
From my own -- undistinguished and mildly irreverent -- Cambridge career, I can testify that there was indeed a certain kind
of student politician, whom, if I may mix metaphors, fellow-students were perfectly well aware were going to arse-lick their way
up some greasy pole or other in later life.
It was a world with which I came back in contact when, after living abroad and a protracted apprenticeship in print journalism,
I accidentally found employment with what was then one of the principal television current affairs programmes in Britain. In the
early 'Eighties I overlapped with Peter -- now Lord -- Mandelson, who became one of the principal architects of 'New Labour.'
7. Given that at this time British intelligence agencies were somewhat paranoid about CND, there is a small puzzle as to why
on his graduation in 1986 Steele should have been recruited by MI6. In more paranoid moments I wonder whether he did not already
have intelligence contacts through his father, and served as a 'stool pigeon' as a student.
But then, people like Sir John Scarlett and Sir Richard Dearlove may simply have concluded that someone with 'form' in smearing
rivals at the Union was ideally suited for the kind of organisation they wanted to run.
8. From experience with Mandelson, and others, there are however other relevant things about this type. One is that they commonly
love Machiavellian intrigue, and are very good at it, within the worlds they know and understand.
If however they have to try to cope with alien environments, where they do not know the people and where such intrigues are
played much more ruthlessly, they are liable to find themselves hopelessly outclassed. (This can happen not simply with the politics
of the post-Soviet space and the Middle East, but with some of the murkier undergrowths of local politics in London.)
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles
they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American.
This can lead to political misjudgements.
9. So it is not really so surprising that, when Berezovsky's 'StratCom' people told them that the Putin 'sistema' really was
the 'return of Karla', people like Steele believed everything they said, precisely as Lugovoi brought out.
There is I think every reason to believe that, from first to last, the intrigues in which he has been involved have involved
close collusion between them and elements in American intelligence -- including the FBI. As a result, a lot of people on both
sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly got into complex undercover contests in the post-Soviet space which ran right out of control,
creating a desperate need for cover-ups. A similar pattern applies in relation to the activities of such people in the Middle
East.
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles
they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American.
This can lead to political misjudgements.
It is not just "can" it very often does. The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military,
culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people
populating this bubble.
Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry
scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this
IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate
to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced.
In case of Iraq, as an example, it is a tragedy but at least the world is relatively safe. With Russia, as I stated many times
for years--they simply have no idea what they are dealing with. None. It is expected from people who are briefed by "sources"
such as Russian fugitive London Oligarchy or ultra-liberal and fringe urban Russian "tusovka". Again, the level of "Russian Studies"
in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial information about
the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even
for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better aware of
Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they
are not new) which are very worrisome.
"... members of Washington's smart set, Republicans and Democrats alike, declared that the opportunities now presenting themselves went beyond the merely stupendous. Indeed, history itself had ended. With the United States as the planet's sole superpower, [neo]liberal democratic capitalism was destined to prevail everywhere. ..."
"... In the 1990s, rampant victory disease fueled extraordinary hubris and a pattern of reckless behavior informed by an assumption that the world would ultimately conform to the wishes of the "indispensable nation." In the years to come, an endless sequence of costly mishaps would ensue from Mogadishu to Mosul. ..."
"... Trump is not a revolutionary, and he is not the devil. He simply represents an attempt late in a systemic downward cycle to correct few excesses and buy some time. ..."
"... The beneficiaries of the excess policies – cheap labor businesses, ethnic castes, trans-gender professionals, open border fanatics, military extremists – are fighting tooth and nail to keep any change from happening. They are at this point beyond hysteria, they sense the goodies might be slipping from their hands (it is mostly about their jobs and careers). ..."
"... Two fundamental omissions from the analysis are: in domestic policies the devastating impact of affirmative action on the next generation of young, white males. And in foreign policy the equally devastating impact of Bill Clinton's attack on Serbia (to create a 'Muslim' Kosovo statelet in Europe) had on the international law and norms. Iraq inevitably followed Serbia. ..."
1989: The Fall of the Berlin Wall. As the Cold War wound down, members of Washington's
smart set, Republicans and Democrats alike, declared that the opportunities now presenting
themselves went beyond the merely stupendous. Indeed, history itself had ended. With the United
States as the planet's sole superpower, [neo]liberal democratic capitalism was destined to
prevail everywhere.
There would be no way except the American Way. In fact, however, the passing of the Cold War
should have occasioned a moment of reflection regarding the sundry mistakes and moral
compromises that marred U.S. policy from the 1940s through the 1980s. Unfortunately, policy
elites had no interest in second thoughts -- and certainly not in remorse or contrition.
In the 1990s, rampant victory disease fueled extraordinary hubris and a pattern of reckless
behavior informed by an assumption that the world would ultimately conform to the wishes of the
"indispensable nation." In the years to come, an endless sequence of costly mishaps would ensue
from Mogadishu to Mosul.
When, in due time, Donald Trump announced his intention to dismantle the establishment that
had presided over those failures, many Americans liked what he had to say, even if he spoke
from a position of total ignorance.
Those who hate Trump, will hate Trump. And very little of what they write will not be
colored by the hatred.
The analysis – although based on a sound historical premise – is off by miles.
It focuses on personalities and avoids mentioning the systemic failures by Western
institutions, from media to academia, from Hollywood to UN. Trump is not a revolutionary, and
he is not the devil. He simply represents an attempt late in a systemic downward cycle to
correct few excesses and buy some time.
The beneficiaries of the excess policies –
cheap labor businesses, ethnic castes, trans-gender professionals, open border fanatics,
military extremists – are fighting tooth and nail to keep any change from happening.
They are at this point beyond hysteria, they sense the goodies might be slipping from their
hands (it is mostly about their jobs and careers).
Two fundamental omissions from the analysis are: in domestic policies the devastating
impact of affirmative action on the next generation of young, white males. And in foreign
policy the equally devastating impact of Bill Clinton's attack on Serbia (to create a
'Muslim' Kosovo statelet in Europe) had on the international law and norms. Iraq inevitably
followed Serbia.
Why are these points left out? Because they would make the neo-liberal Democrats look bad?
Right, Gore as president, that would had fixed it all
Bacevich didn't write a word about the Open Borders fetish of both parties from which Trump
dissented, or seemed to. Not a word. And this played no small part in Trump winning the GOP
nomination and the election.
Fantastic article. A very plausible hypothesis. "The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement
was reached between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold
Russia's interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial
system. Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the
liberal economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let
the West write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia
live in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders."
Notable quotes:
"... And now, at last, as the feasts are over, the real trial begins. The US is preparing a new round of sanctions, including seizure of Russian oligarch assets. They are ripe for collection. The confiscation of Russian holdings in Cyprus banks in 2013 passed without a hitch and served as a trial balloon. Putin didn't object overmuch, for he is a sworn enemy of offshore accounts. None of the fleeced Russian businessmen succeeded in recovering their losses in court. Now is the time for the real thing, and much of the anti-Russian hysteria is aimed at preparing the ground for the seizure. In this way, they plan to get a cool trillion dollars into the US Treasury. Who will lose his assets and who will survive, this is the talk of the day in Moscow. ..."
"... Now we are coming to a difficult part. The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement was reached between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold Russia's interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial system. Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the liberal economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let the West write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia live in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders. ..."
"... Mr Putin inherited The Deal. Slowly, the Deal has been eroded from both sides. NATO troops moved eastward, no sizeable investment came in, the West supported Chechen rebels. Russia limited Western access to its military-industrial complex; took Crimea; regained some of its international independence. ..."
"... The powerful personalities of Yeltsin's era remained embedded in the upper echelons of Putin's state. Chubais and Kudrin were and are untouchable. They are connected with the FRS and the IMF, they go to Bilderberg and Davos, they are often described as 'the colonial administration'. ..."
"... They steal with both hands, and do it with impunity. Just last week it was revealed and published that Mr Chubais and Mr Kudrin appropriated a cool billion dollars of Russian state money while repaying the Soviet debt to the Czech Republic. ..."
"... Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses immense riches. And Putin does not dare to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism. This is the Deal. ..."
"... Putin has been unhappy with the Deal for a long time, vocally so since his Munich talk in 2007, but he stuck to the script. Even now, Russia's economy follows the liberal model; billions of dollars are being siphoned out of Russia monthly; billions of dollars' worth of Western manufactured consumer goods are imported and sold in Russia, though it would make perfect sense to organise local manufacture. Russia's Central Bank is directly connected to the Western finance system, and its emission is limited by the amount of hard currency in its coffers. The Rouble carry trade prospers, like the Yen carry trade did years ago. ..."
"... This presented the golden opportunity for the anti-Putin activists, the time they can collect the fruit of their hard work. A somewhat typical anti-Putin activist is an émigré, Mr Andrey Illarionov, a Yeltsin man, an ex-adviser to President Putin (until 2005), a US resident, a member of the loony Cato Institute and an adept of Ayn Rand. He is an anti-Russian fanatic; next to him Rachel Maddow is a Putin groupie and Tokyo Rose a symbol of patriotism. ..."
"... Speaking to the Congress Committee of Foreign Affairs in 2009, he famously claimed about the US administration policy towards Russia that "it is not even an appeasement policy so well known to us by another Munich decision in 1938, it is a surrender. A full, absolute, unconditional surrender to the regime of secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". Despite these fighting words, he is a frequent visitor to Moscow, and he never misses a demo where he can call out "Putin must leave" apparently unafraid of the "secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". This is all you should know about the totalitarian Russian regime! ..."
"... Now Mr Illarionov is lobbying the US Congress to remove its threats from the heads of those deserving oligarchs, who (in his words) amassed their fortune before advent of Mr Putin and "in order to survive, they had been forced to pay a large tribute to the Kremlin". His lobbying effort on behalf of the Old Money people has been shared and supported by two notorious Putin haters, a fellow émigré Piontkovsky and a Swedish Neo-Con Anders Aslund. ..."
"... This is not a coincidence; the Russian Old Money is solidly in bed with the Clinton camp. If Friedman succeeds in escaping the sanctions, it will be an additional proof that the Bankers still have the upper hand in the US Administration. ..."
"... Echo Moskwy ..."
"... But perhaps it is too late for him. An unverifiable odd rumour has risen in Moscow. They say that the Communist candidate Pavel Grudinin has strong backing among the "siloviki", that is Putin's appointees, often but not exclusively of security services background, for they are unhappy with Putin's adherence to the Deal. But that will be the subject of my next piece. ..."
"... That is my understanding also but I could be wrong. Excellent piece. But I have one small point–the crawling re-nationalization of many crucial industries did happen on Putin's watch. But in general, as I stated many times, he faces an inevitable meeting, if he were to survive as a politician, with the issue of 1990s robbery and with necessity to dismantle Yeltsin's "heritage'. ..."
"... I wonder how much of what Israel wrote might be real thing. If Putin really is going to do what you are writing he is going to be company of Russia history greatest. ..."
"... There is also indeed a question of all those offshore capitals which are stolen money. Considering state resources and capabilities there definitely might be an offer they cannot refuse to just give money back. ..."
"... Putin sure as hell has all necessary resources to make this offer. ..."
While you have probably already forgotten the feast, Russia is only now slowly coming back to life after its overlong Christmas
break completed on January 14 by the quaintly named Old New Year, or even perhaps by the Epiphany on January 19. Everybody went somewhere,
even candidates for the presidential race coming in on March 18: the Communist one went to ski in Austria, while the right-winger
went to Bali. On the eve of Epiphany, they dipped in the ice-cold waters: the ultimate trial of Russian fitness. Not only he-man
Putin, but even she-woman Sobchak did it!
And now, at last, as the feasts are over, the real trial begins. The US is preparing a new round of sanctions, including seizure
of Russian oligarch assets. They are ripe for collection. The confiscation of Russian holdings in Cyprus banks in 2013 passed without
a hitch and served as a trial balloon. Putin didn't object overmuch, for he is a sworn enemy of offshore accounts. None of the fleeced
Russian businessmen succeeded in recovering their losses in court. Now is the time for the real thing, and much of the anti-Russian
hysteria is aimed at preparing the ground for the seizure. In this way, they plan to get a cool trillion dollars into the US Treasury.
Who will lose his assets and who will survive, this is the talk of the day in Moscow.
The Russian assets in the west could be divided into New Money, assets of Putin's people, and the Old Money, assets of Yeltsin's
people. The sanctions are supposed to deal with Putin's people, but Russian experts think the Old Money is more vulnerable, for a
good reason. The New Money is under Putin's protection. If the US or any other western authority grabs it, the Russian government
may seize Western shares in Russian companies and properties.
But what about the Old Money? Its owners, elder oligarchs, are extremely worried about Putin's nonchalance. Putin takes it easy,
they say. Ma'alish , the Arab in Putin says. Que sera sera , says his inner Frenchman. And this nonchalant attitude
drives the oligarchs crazy. They want him to fight and save their money. They insisted on his meeting with President Trump in Vietnam;
some say the meeting took place in the depth of the night, far from prying eyes, and didn't bring results. Now Putin says to the
Old Money: if you want to save your money, repatriate it to Russia. We aren't that mad, they reply. You have to defend us anyway!
That was the Deal!
Now we are coming to a difficult part. The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement was reached
between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold Russia's
interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial system.
Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the liberal
economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let the West
write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia live
in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders.
Mr Putin inherited The Deal. Slowly, the Deal has been eroded from both sides. NATO troops moved eastward, no sizeable investment
came in, the West supported Chechen rebels. Russia limited Western access to its military-industrial complex; took Crimea; regained
some of its international independence.
Putin was elected, or you may say, he was appointed to stick to the Deal and to serve as the Supreme Arbiter among the oligarchs,
with very little of a power base of his own. Slowly, he created his own oligarchs (they are described as "siloviki", though not all
of them have some security forces background), and he had built up a limited power base; though many important positions, in particular
in the economic sphere, remained in the hands of the Old Guard, Yeltsin's men. This, too, was a part of the Deal.
The powerful personalities of Yeltsin's era remained embedded in the upper echelons of Putin's state. Chubais and Kudrin were
and are untouchable. They are connected with the FRS and the IMF, they go to Bilderberg and Davos, they are often described as 'the
colonial administration'.
They steal with both hands, and do it with impunity. Just last week it was
revealed and published that Mr Chubais and Mr Kudrin appropriated
a cool billion dollars of Russian state money while repaying the Soviet debt to the Czech Republic. The worst Putin can do about
them is to give them a fat chunk of the Russian economy to chew on, while limiting their access to the rest. So he gave Mr Chubais
the Rusnano company that made no profit but
embezzled
billions . This was the Deal.
Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses immense riches. And Putin does not dare
to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's
establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism.
This is the Deal.
The topmost schools of Russia, the most endowed, the most privileged schools for the children of the new nobility are the HSE,
(the Higher School of Economics, a clone of the LSE and the economic think-tank of the government), and MGIMO, (Moscow State Institute
of International Relations, the school for perspective diplomats). Their graduates were been trained to despise Russia and admire
the neo-liberal West (just like the Indian students trained by the Brits, had admired England and despised their country in the days
of the British Raj). Professor Medvedev of the HSE called upon Russian government to transfer the Russian Far North to the international
community, though this is the place of the greatest gas reserves (he kept his position). Professor Zubov of the MGIMO had compared
Putin to Hitler, and denounced Russian diplomats as liars (his contract hasn't been prolonged). All that is a part of the Deal.
Putin has been unhappy with the Deal for a long time, vocally so since his Munich talk in 2007, but he stuck to the script.
Even now, Russia's economy follows the liberal model; billions of dollars are being siphoned out of Russia monthly; billions of dollars'
worth of Western manufactured consumer goods are imported and sold in Russia, though it would make perfect sense to organise local
manufacture. Russia's Central Bank is directly connected to the Western finance system, and its emission is limited by the amount
of hard currency in its coffers. The Rouble carry trade prospers, like the Yen carry trade did years ago.
Meanwhile, the Deal has been undone from the West, as a result of the epic struggle between Bankers and Producers, otherwise described
as Liberals vs. Conservatives, or Globalists vs. Regionalists, personalised as Clinton vs. Trump. Yeltsin's people are historically
aligned with the Clinton camp. Now, their assets in the West, previously protected by the Deal, have lost their protection and come
up for grabs.
The Old Money people are putting their effort into persuading the West, namely the US, to let them live in peace and instead confiscate
the pro-Putin New Money.
This presented the golden opportunity for the anti-Putin activists, the time they can collect the fruit of their hard work.
A somewhat typical anti-Putin activist is an émigré, Mr Andrey Illarionov, a Yeltsin man, an ex-adviser to President Putin (until
2005), a US resident, a member of the loony Cato Institute and an adept of Ayn Rand. He is an anti-Russian fanatic; next to him Rachel
Maddow is a Putin groupie and Tokyo Rose a symbol of patriotism.
Speaking to the Congress Committee of Foreign Affairs in 2009, he famously
claimed
about the US administration policy towards Russia that "it is not even an appeasement policy so well known to us by another Munich
decision in 1938, it is a surrender. A full, absolute, unconditional surrender to the regime of secret police officers, chekists
and Mafiosi". Despite these fighting words, he is a frequent visitor to Moscow, and he never misses a demo where he can call out
"Putin must leave" apparently unafraid of the "secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". This is all you should know about the
totalitarian Russian regime!
(Émigrés are frequently like that, and the US, a country of immigrants, had been vulnerable to the attack by Illarionov Syndrome,
by listening to Masha Gessen, or to Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi émigré who claimed Iraq has had WMD, to Alexander Solzhenitsyn with
his horror stories about GULAG, etc. I made it a rule to moderate my critique of Israel while abroad, in fear of failing the Illarionov
Sanity Test.)
Now Mr Illarionov is lobbying the US Congress to remove its threats from the heads of those deserving oligarchs, who (in his
words) amassed their fortune before advent of Mr Putin and "in order to survive, they had been forced to pay a large tribute to the
Kremlin". His lobbying effort on behalf of the Old Money people has been shared and supported by two notorious Putin haters, a fellow
émigré Piontkovsky and a Swedish Neo-Con Anders Aslund.
Direct and generous beneficiaries of their lobbying are the Three Alpha Jews, Peter Aven, Michael Friedman and Herman Khan. They
are owners of the Alpha Bank, a very big Russian bank , and they are Old Money oligarchs from Yeltsin's days when their kin ruled
the land.
Michael Friedman, the fat guy with a jolly piglet face, rose to his eminence from being a ticket tout selling illegally obtained
opera tickets to Western tourists near Bolshoi Theatre; afterwards he became The Mind behind all ticket mafias in Moscow, and then
proceeded to banking and so many other things.
Like many Old Money guys, Friedman earns money in Russia, but siphons it off for Jewish causes. He is a co-founder of a "Jewish
Nobel Prize", also called Genesis Prize, a cool million dollars being given annually to a deserving Jew, the most recent one being
the notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg who
called Donald
Trump, "the faker". This is not a coincidence; the Russian Old Money is solidly in bed with the Clinton camp. If Friedman succeeds
in escaping the sanctions, it will be an additional proof that the Bankers still have the upper hand in the US Administration.
Alternatively, it could mean they are just smart and able to play the both houses. The Three Alpha Jews had been mentioned in
the Steele Dossier as the conduit of Putin influence for Trump and against Clinton in the recent US Presidential elections. (They
are
suing Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed for spreading the accusation).
According to an even better conspiracy theory spread on the social networks, both Mr Illarionov and the smart Alpha Jews are a
sleeper cell organised by cunning Mr Putin to ensure his survival in the most adverse conditions. All of them were very friendly
with Putin; perhaps they just pretended to become his enemies, the conspiratorially minded journalist from the anti-Putin Echo
Moskwy has implied.
Leaving the conspiracy theories aside for a while, we can reach a conclusion. The forthcoming attack of the US establishment on
Russian assets is likely to undermine the Old Money of the Yeltsin Oligarchs, and not only them. This confiscation will spell the
death knell to the notorious Deal, and then we shall see Putin Unbound.
But perhaps it is too late for him. An unverifiable odd rumour has risen in Moscow. They say that the Communist candidate
Pavel Grudinin has strong backing among the "siloviki", that is Putin's appointees, often but not exclusively of security services
background, for they are unhappy with Putin's adherence to the Deal. But that will be the subject of my next piece.
The forthcoming attack of the US establishment on Russian assets is likely to undermine the Old Money of the Yeltsin Oligarchs,
and not only them. This confiscation will spell the death knell to the notorious Deal, and then we shall see Putin Unbound.
That is my understanding also but I could be wrong. Excellent piece. But I have one small point–the crawling re-nationalization
of many crucial industries did happen on Putin's watch. But in general, as I stated many times, he faces an inevitable meeting,
if he were to survive as a politician, with the issue of 1990s robbery and with necessity to dismantle Yeltsin's "heritage'.
"Que sera sera". One of my favorite songs. Sung by Doris Day and was a hit in the 1950′s. Italian in origin and translates
to "whatever will be, will be".
Agree. I wonder how much of what Israel wrote might be real thing. If Putin really is going to do what you are writing
he is going to be company of Russia history greatest.
There is also indeed a question of all those offshore capitals which are stolen money. Considering state resources and
capabilities there definitely might be an offer they cannot refuse to just give money back.
New evidence that Washington broke its promise not to expand NATO "one inch eastward" -- a fateful decision with ongoing ramifications
-- has not been reported by The New York Times or other agenda-setting media outlets
John Batchelor Jan 11,
2018 | 2,513
70
John Batchelor has a very popular political talk show on America's largest radio network, WABC.
He has Stephen Cohen on live in the studio almost every week for a full 45 minute segment, the only guest he gives that much time
to.
Why? Because Cohen's appearances are killing the ratings. America seems to be thirsting for an alternative and critical view of
Obama's Russia policy.
Cohen returns to a subject he has treated repeatedly since the 1990s, mainstream media malpractice in covering Russia, but with
a new and highly indicative example that is both historical and profoundly contemporary.
There have been three relevant major episodes of such malpractice. The first was when American newspapers, particularly The
New York Times , misled readers into thinking the Communists could not possibly win the Russian Civil War of 1918–20, as detailed
in a study by Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz, published as a supplement to The New Republic , August 4, 1920. (Once canonical,
the study was for years assigned reading at journalism schools, but no longer it seems to be.)
The third and current episode grew out of the second but spread quickly through the media in the early 2000s with the demonization
of Vladimir Putin, Yeltsin's successor, and now is amply evidenced by mainstream coverage of the new Cold War, Russiagate's allegation
that "Russia attacked American democracy" in 2016, and much else related to Russia. This rendition may be the worst, certainly it
is the most dangerous.
Media malpractice has various elements -- among them, selective use of facts, some unverified, highly questionable narratives
or reporting based on those "facts," mingled with editorial commentary passed off as "analysis," buttressed by carefully selected
"expert sources," often anonymous, and amplified by carefully chosen opinion page contributors. Throughout is the systematic practice
of excluding developments (and opinion) that do not conform to the Times ' venerable motto, "All the News That's Fit to
Print." When it comes to Russia, the Times often decides politically what is fit and what is not. And thus the most recent
but exceedingly important example.
In 1990, Soviet Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev agreed not only to the reunification of Germany, whose division was the epicenter
of that Cold War, but also, at the urging of the Western powers, particularly the United States, that the new Germany would be a
member of NATO. (Already embattled at home, Gorbachev was further weakened by his decision, which probably contributed to the attempted
coup against him in August 1991.)
Gorbachev made the decision based on assurances by his then–Western "partners" that in return NATO would never be expanded "one
inch eastward" toward Russia. (Today, having nearly doubled its member countries, the world's most powerful military alliance sits
on Russia's western borders.) At the time, it was known that President George H.W. Bush had especially persuaded Gorbachev through
Secretary of State James Baker's "not one inch" and other equally emphatic guarantees.
Now, however, the invaluable National Security Archive at George Washington University has established the historical truth by
publishing, on December 12 of last year, not only a detailed account of what Gorbachev was promised in 1990–91
but the relevant documents themselves . The truth, and the promises broken, are much more expansive than previously known: All
of the Western powers involved -- the US, the UK, France, Germany itself -- made the same promise to Gorbachev on multiple occasions
and in various emphatic ways. If we ask when the West, particularly Washington, lost Moscow as a potential strategic partner after
the end of the Soviet Union, this is where an explanation begins.
And yet, nearly a month after the publication of the National Security Archive documents, neither the Times nor The
Washington Post , which profess to be the nation's most important, reliable, and indispensable political newspapers, has published
one word about this revelation. (Certainly the two papers are pervasively important to other media, not only due to their daily national
syndicates but because today's broadcast media, especially CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and PBS, take most of their own Russia-related "reporting"
cues from the Times and the Post .)
How to explain the failure of the Times and Post to report or otherwise comment on the National Security Archive's
publication? It can hardly be their lack of space or their disinterest in Russia, which they featured regularly in one kind of unflattering
story or another -- and almost daily in the form of "Russiagate." Given their immense daily news-gathering capabilities, could both
papers have missed the story? Impossible, even more so considering that three lesser publications -- The National Interest
, on December 12; Bloomberg , on December 13; and The American Conservative , on December 22 -- reported and
commented on its significance at length.
Or perhaps the Times and Post consider the history and process of NATO expansion to be no longer newsworthy,
even though it has been the driving, escalatory factor behind the new US-Russian Cold War; already contributed to two US-Russian
proxy hot wars (in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine since 2014) as well as to NATO's ongoing buildup on Russia's borders in the Baltic
region, which is fraught with the possibility of an actual war between the nuclear superpowers; provoked Russia into reactions now
cited as "grave threats"; nearly vaporized politically both the once robust pro-American lobby in Moscow politics and the previously
widespread pro-American sentiments among Russian citizens; and implanted in at least one generation of the Russian policy elite the
conviction that the broken promise to Gorbachev represented characteristic American "betrayal and deceit."
Soviet Fates and Lost
Alternatives .) Russians can cite other instances of "deceit," including President George W. Bush's 2002 unilateral abrogation
of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and Obama's broken promise that he would not use a 2011 UN Security Council resolution to depose
Libyan leader Gaddafi. But it is the broken promise to Gorbachev that lingers as America's original sin, partly because it was the
first of many such perceived duplicities, but mainly because it has resulted in a Russia semi-encircled by US-led Western military
power, an encroachment that continues today.
Given all this, we must ask again: Why did neither the Times nor the Post report the archive revelations? Most
likely because the evidence fundamentally undermines their essential overarching narrative that Putin's Russia is solely responsible
for the new Cold War and all of its attendant conflicts and dangers, and therefore that no rethinking of US policy toward post-Soviet
Russia since 1991 is advisable or, it seems, permissible, certainly not by President Donald Trump. Therein lie the national-security
dangers of media malpractice, and this example, while of special importance, is far from the only one in recent years. In this regard,
the Times and Post seem contemptuous not only of their own professed journalistic standards but of their purportedly
cherished adage that democracy requires fully informed citizens.
If Americans cannot rely on the Times and Post , at least in regard to US-Russian relations, where can they
seek the information and analysis they need? There are many valuable alternative media outlets, but few hard-working citizens have
time to locate and consult them. Cohen recommends that they turn to two websites that almost daily aggregate reporting, analysis,
and opinion not to be found in the Times , Post , or most other mainstream publications. One is
Johnson's Russia List . The other is the website
of the American Committee for East-West Accord , of which Cohen is a board
member. Upon request, both will come to your computer. The former requests a nominal donation but does not insist on it. The latter
is free. For readers who worry about international affairs, the new US-Russian Cold War, and America itself, the information and
perspectives they will gain from these sites are invaluable.
It is something of a mystery that this should have escaped Gorbachev, although Cohen does say that Conservatives warned him
against going with the flow on this one. He ignored them.
There's an old saying about leopards and never changing their spots. I guess he was as fooled, as many are, that the appalling
history of the US was in each case a separate incident, involving and caused by different people, and therefor "it will be different
this time." Gorbachev was willing to overlook the horrific evidence of an Anglo West planning to destroy the Russia who had saved
their bacon by winning WWII for them; and to destroy her utterly and horrifically. That he could overlook that beggars belief.
It's so essential to get the bigger picture, to read the History of the Nations you are dealing with extensively, to determine
how to connect the dots to find the pattern, and to realise that ultimately nations are an aggregate of systems - and a system
is far more powerful than most individuals [until you find a rare person who knows how to break the system].
Sadly, it seems that they had fallen for the idea too, that, as V. P. said when Russia abandoned communism, their opponent would
"to them hand the sword". i.e. would become partners and equals. That was never going to happen. It also shows us, once again,
that all too often political leaders are not well enough educated, not well enough informed and not bright enough, to undertake
the job of national leader which they do.
And we are not interested nor thoughtful enough to demand better.
...And we may not be educated suficient to look through the matter.
Before 1968 in Nordic countries with Sweden had hollistic education systems, making academics able to see the whole picture.
After 1968-70 they changed the education system so the working class could get academic degrees, but separated the disciplines
so you only were able to see your part and not the whole picture and leaving out history and roots.
Newspeak was introduced and started.
Its about classes, deliberately leaving the knowledge and whole picture to the elite.
Any hollistic educated who analyse US history should be able to see that you deal with a hypocrite and liar country throughout
from start up til today.
When Russia with its excellent education system missed the point in 1990´es I think it maybe more due to their previous suffering
and emotional culture, than to actual foolishness as we can see the Russians quickly raised their heads again from the ashes.
Same happened here in Australia Tommy, they lowered the education standard so that anyone can obtain a University Degree under
the belief that everyone is entitled to one and not only those best suited. Now one has idiots running corporations and in politics.
Getting them out is the problem. I have always expressed concern that those who wish to go into politics and government should
present to the Public a full resume as anyone would who is seeking a senior position in a corporation.
Very true John.
If you look at the entire system, we see that immense power over the lives of millions of people is given to those who don't have
to show any form of qualification for the job; any training; or prior experience, assessment by qualified experience assessors.
In fact, all they have to be able do is to generate money for themselves by making promises to others using taxpayer money;
present themselves in a slick, eye catching fashion like an aspiring film actor auditioning for a role; lie; as Vladimir Putin
said "make promises better than those of your competitor"; and sell meaningless words better than a used car salesman.
In other words, present themselves to voters as an ignorant, inexperienced psychopathic, criminally fraudulent, snake oil salesman.
And then we wonder why that's exactly what we get as our "leaders". !!
Thank you John - yes I do feel deeply that as civilisations, we have strayed from so much that is balanced, natural, and optimal
for human growth and happiness. We have so much in our cultures that beggars belief in it's stupidity- and as always, the very
stupid are too stupid to know that they are very stupid. I see us preening ourselves as the epitome of civilisation, when research
into the distant past shows we have had about 3.5 thousand years of slow, non-stop collapse including an arrogant ignorance.
Yet the answers are so close to hand. It's only an understanding of where we have all gone wrong, and a willingness to do what
needs to be done to correct it which will stop us falling into the night, I suspect.
Then again, I remember that everything happens in circles, and follows Universal Laws. Maybe we have no course but to follow the
natural pattern we have put ourselves on try to learn from it.
Thanks for your kind words John.
Yes, all this was about the time they introduced the "expert". Prior to that idea, a well educated, intelligent person was
held to have a wide ranging education, and to be familiar with many different disciplines. They they got the "expert" idea - a
mechanic in my - then - University Department informed me that "expert means, here is x which marks the spot of a drip under pressure"
!! :-)
Now we have people who know more and more about less and less until they reach the pinnacle where they know absolutely everything
about nothing.
Yes, I think the Russian education got infected by America, and in the struggle to break free of all the other disasters that
caused - just to survive as a country and as a people - this is an issue that has had to be put on a back burner. But they are
doing fine in spite of it, and I'm sure will find their way back to the best of the Soviet times education.
I still (and know not alone) feel Gorbachev is a Traitor that "sold" the USSR, the People of the USSR for Personal ("friends")
gain .... so he knew what would happen !
Remember the people of the USSR wanted to work through the "problems / issues" leaving the USSR intact but Gorbachev decided
to GO AGAINST the Wishes of the People / Wishes of the country and allowed the regions to "break free" including denying the right
for Crimea to Return to RF (loaned to Ukraine while USSR existed) .... why would you Do that except for your own agenda !
And Where does Gorbachev live .... but in U$ america ... and every time he visits RF he comes with masses of Body Guards
That last part is very interesting Vtran - I didn't know he lived in America.
I hadn't caught up with any documentation about his "friends", although there is the comment - with the long/lat given of the
area on the documentary "The Unknown Putin" - that Gorbachev sold to US what wasn't his to sell - a huge chunk of sea off the
coast of Russia, containing massive amounts of oil deposits!! He did it to get the money to try and defeat Yeltsin!! So, he has
a track record, and as the saying goes "he who lies once, lies ten times". The principle holds for everything, as well as lying.
I also didn't know that there were grass roots movements of people trying to stop the collapse of the USSR.
Can you recommend any good modern history resource which covers these events please?
I got a lot from that excellent documentary, but as is so often one is left wanting more.
I know Vladimir Putin doesn't like him - not one bit. I could "read" it from the Stone Interviews :-)
I certainly agree with you - that if he did all that, selling out the people of Russia - no way does he deserve to be grouped
with them, they aren't "his" people, in that case - then yes, he was a sellout traitor. Should count himself lucky to be alive!!
Isabella,, I will look for a document regarding Gorbachev selling out the people of the USSR .... However my comment is personnel
... all Russians I know, all people of the ex USSR (except those of fanatical Ukraine) speak as One ...The did not at the USSR
to break ... their views were "over ridden" !
-
Interesting comment of "selling off which does not belong" reminiscent of Alaska where the Gold supposedly exchange disappeared
after the western inspired revolution of 1918 !
Quote: Over 500 treaties were made with American Indian tribes, primarily for land cessations, but 500 treaties were also broken,
changed or nullified when it served the government's interests.
Because U$ Americans citizens thought the had "Given away STOLEN Worthless Land" .... and then found that "Worthless Land"
contained "Yellow Gold" ...... later more so called "Worthless Land" contained Black Gold and so it went on
Yupp...
Like the mineral & natural wealth of Russia, doesn't belong to Russia, but belong to the WORLD (a.k.a. City of London/Wall St)
??
Mad Madeleine Notsobright.
Who was Christopher Columbus? Any can check it out. My guess as another Vtran.
- What do you see?
- No gold yet?
- Of course there is gold there
It was the same as Europa. War in Indians replaced war on Muslim.
This a a very unhelpful spin by Cohen. Dugin, addressing the end of the cold war, reports that Brzezinski once told him, "we
tricked you." That's what happened. This is what Russians need to think about when speaking with their common law partners.
I have wondered many times how the S Union, a nation with so many brilliant people, could chose someone like Gorbatchev to
lead the country.
Reagan and Thatcher did whatever they wanted with him. They achieved all their objectives in dealing with Gorbachev because he
was receptive, soft and a puppet. Worst of all, he was a mix of an idiot and naif by believing them.
It was hard to build the S Union, very hard, and Gorbatchev wanted to make a transition from socialism to capitalism in one year.
Only an idiot could think like that.
He is the main responsible not only of the demise of the S Union but of the shameful accumulation of wealth in the hands of a
bunch of soulless oligarchs whose wealth, to date, remain untouched.
As a communist, I ask myself how could a guy like him lead the S Union. Yeltsin was another calamity but the main responsible
of the debacle is Gorbachev.
As a result of his stupidity, not only millions of Soviets encountered poverty and criminality, but he opened the way to the unipolar
world. Many invasions took place because the US. did not face any opposition.
North Korea had to rearm itself to protect. Cuba underwent a terrible period.
Gorbachev will go down in the history of Russia and communist from across the world as an idiot, as an irresponsible leader and
as a traitor.
This is very true. Millions died as a result of this colossal stupidity. Tens of millions more suffered appalling misery and
destitution. Several countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, have been completely destroyed. These are crimes on a gargantuan
scale. And there has been zero accountability.
Right, zero accountability because the S Union was influential on world institutions. Because of "imported liberalism in 365
days" many factories closed (because they were not "modern"), many good engineers became poor, families destroyed, all sorts of
gangs emerged, collective property and natural resources went to oligarchs without scruples for a cheap price. And there was no
bread in stores.
All thanks to Gorbachev who was in power almost 17 years, a long period in which he succumbed to the sweet-talk of Reagan and
Thatcher.
Having lived through the incredible 90s and the end of the Soviet Union, I believe that it was not wrong for Gorbachev to seek
partnership with the West. That move brought all of mankind back from the precipice of total extinction.
It was the LYING and deceitful actions of the "superior and civilized" West that betrayed the world and their own interests, just
to expand their territory and control, like some mindless plague that knows no morality.
There must be balance in world affairs.
Power corrupts and absolute power has corrupted the US/EU/NATO gang absolutely.
The West's loss is the worlds gain.
Russia will lead the free nations away from the rotten and putrid fate offered by the death merchants of the West.
Russia cannot seem to be able to lead itself from the cluches of the ooligarks who out send capital Russia desparately needs.
If and when Russia cleans up the mess that Gorby, Gelsman, and others made, there will not be any free nations or any hope for
peace and freedom in this late stage of mankind's probationary time.
No wonder we are in deep trouble! How shall I say? Well Stephen Cohen is too pedestrian, to put it mildly. There is nothing
I have ever heard him say that I did not know years ago. Wow the NYT and WaPo both publish fake news and omit what isn't convenient
ideologically. Go suck eggs granny. Even if large numbers of people in the US now listen to him (which I very much doubt), he's
too late by decades and will probably never catch up with the fact that 9/11 was an inside job/CIA/Mossad operation. As for Gorbachev,
Yeltsin, US deception, etc., he could have asked me a thing or six back in the 80s when Gorbachev was best buddies with Reagan
and Thatcher, it was bleedin' obvious that he was a dupe, though at first I was hopeful for glasnost and perestroika.
Not that I didn't have hopes for the Soviet Union anyway, nor that I didn't understand hanging on to Eastern Europe for too
long, because of US betrayal after WW2 ... heck Prof Cohen, since when hasn't Russia been betrayed?. Too late for all those who
either couldn't or wouldn't be informed decades ago. Too late for there to be any chance of averting escalation to WW3, unless
by more or less luck, such as the US internally imploding like the Soviet Union did but, unlike the Soviet Union's collapse by
US design, collapse of its own hubris and Empire over-reach, perhaps. Academics generally do not impress me.
.
Sorry if I have condensed too much, but I daresay some will know what I'm getting at.
As a "well informed American", a retired Marine, and having spent some two decades in research of our "national history", as
it relates to the status of the world today, I have to say, I've not deliberately read either paper since I was in third or fourth
grade, and then only because we lived in Massachusetts for a couple years.
I spent nine years in Chicago, before entering the Marines, and as a "paper boy", laughed at headlines every day, knowing the
lies for what they were, and having "truth" solely because my parents subscribed me to Popular Mechanics and Popular Science,
because I'm dyslexic, had problems in school, but am endowed with talent in mechanics and the hard sciences.
Those two magazines spent their pages defining the world of mechanics, moving forward, and the world of science, advancing, and
while most facts regarding "our state of our Nation" were indirect, just part of background, when a boy reads such cover to cover,
every month dozens of times, for a decade and more, the bits and pieces add up and paint a picture behind the "mechanical issue
or science issue", that is easily seen, looking past, and is intrinsically absolutely true, because no part was put up for the
purpose of "the big picture", but the big picture naturally emerges, when sufficient bits and pieces of data accumulate, and we
add them to what has long been accepted as true, tested and tried.
Having come to understandings by multiple articles on definitive science and engineering, with background bits and pieces coalescing,
simply reading headlines were nothing but amusing, and the greatest factor was wondering how adults could believe this trash.
I began with the intent to debunk all the conspiracy theories regarding McCarthy and government, and ended up with the certainty
McCarthy was right, he simply named them wrong, they were "Bolsheviks", using socialism and communism for cover, with the full
intent of overthrowing our government, and they have continued to this day.
We have become "an empire whose people follow the Emperor, even when he dances around with no clothes, never believing that boy
who actually sees.
Semper Fidelis,
John McClain
Vanceboro, NC, USA
Well said. It is quite refreshing, as I have been upsetting a few of your neighbours over on Info Wars. The activists, who
are desperate for a war with Iran, managed to leave Breit Bart for the day and flock to one of the articles. Together with those
that have no idea that the US is in a bad way, economically. As I find myself being labelled a Soros paid troll. The standard
of debate is quite soul destroying, until you can get somebody, who does not need personal insult to enhance their argument. Which
is so liberating.
For those who know what Russians are this is no surprise. A classless herd of sheep lead by a maniacal leader. If you think
ISIS or Hitler were bad you should read about Russian history and the atrocities they have perpetrated and continue today.
Off topic, but, related. A few interesting articles that all merge together.
Putin: Turkey not responsible for drone attack; Russia knows who was
Russian President calls drone attack "provocation" aimed at causing rift between Russia and Turkey...
http://theduran.com/putin-t...
How does Ukraine, fit into it, bearing in mind that Ukraine is planning similar in Crimea. The same Ukraine that does so well
from having the US Bio-weapons factories up and running. Not forgetting that NATO is also setting up a base in Khakov, non-NATO
territory and close to the bio-weapons factories. Then you have the mother craft, found hovering around the Russian bases in Syria
and her sister working so hard around Crimea.
Remember the Pentagon begging for Russian DNA? Now what was that all about?
Kharkov Is Forcibly Prepared For The Status of a NATO Base (remember Ukraine is a non-NATO nation)...http://
www.stalkerzone.org/kharkov ...
US Military Bio-labs in Ukraine, Production of Bio-weapons and "Disease Causing Agents"
In 2015, American alternative media outlet InfoWars accused the Pentagon of developing new types of biological weapons in secret
military laboratories in Ukraine. The facilities were constructed under the terms of the bilateral agreement signed between the
Ministry of Health of Ukraine and the Department of Defense in 2012.
Today thirteen American military bio-labs operate in Ukraine, The International Mass Media Agency reports. They employ only American
specialists being entirely funded from the budget of the Department of Defense. Local authorities have pledged not to interfere
in their work. These military labs are reported to be mainly involved in the study and production of disease-causing agents of
smallpox, anthrax and botulism. The facilities are located in the following Ukrainian cities: Odessa, Vinnytsia, Uzhgorod, Lviv
(three), Kharkiv, Kyiv (four), Kherson, Ternopil.
Slightly off topic, but, another story of the West trying to upset Russia. Followed by what came next, which made me seriously
laugh. The first article is well worth reading, just for the awe aspect and mega congratulations to the team. The 2nd article,
just made me laugh. You gotta love those sanctions. Where there is a will there is a way.
President Gorbachev has made clear several times that the agreement reached with the former Soviet Union regarding NATO and
the reunification of Germany was specific to the East/West line through Germany. To date Germany and NATO have kept that promise.
What are Russia's rights? Well, Moscow simply has no right to expect that her neighbors do not enjoy the sovereign right to
join any alliances each may wish.
James Baker (and others) told Gorbachev that NATO will not expand to the East so western powers are a bunch liars, that's for
sure.
As for sovereign rights, that also depends if the organisation is willing to accept a certain country, not only if the country
wants to join it. Germany and France for example blocked Ukraine and Georgia from joining NATO in 2008. Countries are also allowed
to join NATO in order to contribute to its security and i'm not sure about the "gain" of taking small countries on the border
of the biggest nuclear power. That increases the possibility for arms race and for war between the major powers, that's for sure.
Also it is unclear how "sovereign" these decisions are, since lots of western money was invested in media, NGOs and political
leaders and parties in Eastern Europe in order to promote pro-NATO views. US government officials bragged about "investing" 5
billion dollars in Ukraine for that purpose.
So those countries and their politicians were basically bribed, while their population propagandised via foreign sponsored
media. This has nothing to do with sovereignity, rather its about interfering in other countries affairs.
Moreover, the US uses loopholes in international law in order to support rebels in various countries, to stage coups and to
interefere in democracy and elections, with the aim of changing the politics of the target country, and even balkanising/disintegrating
the target country.
Well, if the US can do that, others can too, hence the rebels in Ukraine, who are now preventing the country from joining NATO.
It could be much more simple. An agreement for buffer zone between NATO and Russia, so that peace and stability are secured.
Or it could be "my way or the high way" mentality, which of course leads to wars and destabilisation. Which will not be a good
thing in the nuclear proliferation era.
Russia wants peace and stability. The US does not. Its entire geopolitical strategy is based on destabilising the rest of the
world, so that it remains divided and mired in internal squabbles, and no strong power could arise there. In addition to fueling
conflict and selling weapons to both sides while staying out of it. Divide and rule.
The Russian (and Chinese - OBOR) strategy will be to stabilise, unite and interconnect the rest of the world, particularly
Eurasia, in order to overthrow the US - the great disruptor. And as of now, they are winning.
Personally speaking, I have little choice but to go with what Presidents Gorbachev and Reagan, along with FM Shevardnadze and
Secretary Baker, have said on the subject. Not moving NATO troops or equipment one step east of the East/West German line of the
time was promised. This happens to fall precisely in line with what German Chancellor Schroeder has said and written as well.
The context of the discussions were in the context of Germany, not the whole of Europe.
According to President Gorbachev the collapse of the Soviet Union was not conceivable at that time. Thus, according to Mr.
Gorbachev, he never participated in any discussion of Soviet States joining (or not joining) NATO.
Lastly, I reject the popular notion in some circles that all who align themselves with Russia do so out of free will but those
who align themselves with the U.S. and the West must be corrupt or coorced. I believe such ideas ring of arrogance and dismissiveness.
This is not what recent US media says on ths topic.
"the collection shows that top officials from the U.S., Germany and the U.K. all
offered assurances to Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze
that NATO would not expand toward the Russian borders. The documents
make clear that the Western politicians meant no expansion to Eastern
European countries, not just the East German territory."
The context here is about NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, to the east of Germany, whether the new (former soviet) states
existed or not.
Large parts of EE were never part of the USSR.
"Lastly, I reject the popular notion in some circles that all who align
themselves with Russia do so out of free will but those who align
themselves with the U.S. and the West must be corrupt or coorced. I
believe such ideas ring of arrogance and dismissiveness."
Thanks for the straw man, but i did not say that.
About this, i will say several things. First, there are no bigger and more sophisticated liars than western elites. They are
specialists in hiding and masking their interests behind "freedom", "democracy" and "human rights". The russians are more direct
and directly talk about russian interests, economic gains, "the fate of our people in this or that country", etc.
Second, if you look at russian foreign policy docs and statements you will notice that russians embrace multipolarity and significantly
lower level of interference in other peoples affairs. Specifically, the russians do not try to impose their "system", or developmental
model, or culturo-religious model on other countries. After the fall of communism, Russia no longer believes that it should impose
its "model" or "system" on other countries, and it does not believe that such an attempt could work either. So Russia accepts
the cultural and developmental differences and diversity in the different countries of the world, and does not try to remake it
in its own image, or push for "one size fits all" models. For example Russia does not believe that its own "state capitalism"
should be imposed everywhere, the way the US believes that its own neo-liberal capitalism should be imposed everywhere.
In comparison, the West and especially the US is messianic and self-obsessed, with strong belief in its own superiority and
maniacal desire to impose its own cultural and economic models on everyone else, whether they like it, or not. It thus believes
that it "knows better" than anyone else, and therefore should rule the world "for its own good".
In other words the US interferes everywhere and sees the whole world as its playground and even property, something that it
can change or remake the way it sees fit. Its like someone who wants to make decisions instead of you "for your own good", which
implies that everyone else is mentally inferior to the US, that the whole world is in custody of the US "parent", who knows "better"
than anyone else. It becomes crazed and obsessed if its model and culture are rejected by someone, as if that fatally weakens
its confidence in itself.
In comparison, the russians are much more direct that things are about pure interests, and are also not interested in interfering
at the level or scope the US does. They do not want to remake Poland, Britain, Korea or Iraq in their own image and are ok with
whatever culture or economic model these people have. Russia has several military bases abroad in comparison to 700 bases for
the US, and that tells you what is going on. Russia can also interfere sometimes, but for far more practical (and real) reasons,
mostly in their neighbours, with the aim of ensuring its own security (anti-terrorism), or for making sure that NATO military
can not be deployed en masse near its borders. There can be also some economic interference (gas disputes) or attempts to protect
russian minorities abroad. But russian interference does not come close to the level of the US one, or the scope of the US one,
and certainly does not include messianic dreams about remaking the whole world in its own image, and Russia definitely does not
see the world as its playground. The russian embrace of multipolarity means that Russia accepts that there will be countries with
vastly different cultures, economic and developmental models, even very different than the russian one, that there will be many
powers, and that Russia can not impose its views on the rest of the planet.
The attack on Russian airbase in Syria is a sign that the Central Intelligence Agency is sleepwalking into 3rd world war
For the CIA's information at the start of WW3, the CIA will be nuked since everyone knows it is the brain and actor for the
entire Western group of criminals.
CIA you will be nuked. Those CIA agents who survived will be hunted down in different countries like the dogs they are. Many
CIA superior officers will sell out their boses and subordinates to survive at the end there would be no more CIA. Just like the
NAZIs.
Look up DUMBs and YouTube a guy called Phil Schneider. The elites (including the CIA) will be as safe and secure as possible
in the event of a nuclear war.
Russia was not betrayed by USA. Russia was letting themselves willingly being betrayed, this is a big difference. The Russians
were shining all over their faces, dreaming, hoping to become Europeans, and getting coca-cola, friendships, scolarships and dollars
from the Americans...............LOL.
The Russians loved to be betrayed man, you loved it man................LOL.
If you really believe your words then they just reveal that you have an underdeveloped character and lack of empathy towards
your own self ... and towards others ... and an even larger deficit in history ... the uprising in Russia 1991 and tanks shooting
holes in the White House in Moscow were absolutely not about becoming Europeans or the want of Coca Cola and Big Macs that were
then introduced and made available thanks to Yeltsin ... a US puppet ... you love nothing Tommy ... and you are LOLing yourself
in an illusion if you try making others believe anybody would love to be betrayed ...
I have got a project for you, if interested. Andrew came up with a wonderful idea for one of your images. A pyramid, of 'yes'
men/women, with their noses firmly embedded in the butts of those above them. If you fancy some artwork, public friendly and nothing
that would frighten us, or get you banned, I will leave it to you.
You can even use these characters and their friends that arrived in 2017.
[Choose a single Handle and stick to it, or else use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your
comments may be trashed.]
For such an uncritical defender of everything Russian, Mr. Saker would be well advised to
undertake an objective analysis of the Russian policies and actions from the time of
Gorbachev to the current time in order to look for the true causes of the dismal
geo-strategic position of Russia today, instead of blaming it all on western "partners" only.
I'm sure he would be able to find a plenty of strategic mistakes done by the Russian
leadership including Putin, during more than 3 decades, some of them result of naked
ignorance and others result of pure stupidity.
He would also have to touch on the issue of the "despotic" nature of the Russian state
whereby one man, whether able or not, decides about everything while everyone else
applauds.
Some suggested points for the analysis: betrayal and hand-over of East Germany against its
will, dissolution of Warsaw Pact without any paperwork (parallel dissolution of NATO was very
much discussed at the time but Russians didn't even ask for it), dissolution of the USSR
absolutely contrary to the interests of Russian people, destruction of "Mir" station,
betrayal of Serbia, Cuba, siding with "partners" on Iran, Libya, North Korea etc., giving up
on Vietnam and many Soviet friends and allies all over the world, half-hearted "intervention"
in Georgia, loss of Ukraine due to negligence, occasional mistreatment of Belarus for its
refusal to sell out to Russian oligarchs, total lack of care for the Russians stranded all
over former Soviet space etc. etc.
All theses things add up leading to where we are today. (I'm not even touching upon the
state of affairs inside Russia regarding corruption, salaries, oligarchs, social justice and
many others).
Woah slow down there. It was a piece of aging junk, had already had fire aboard, had
nonfunctional solar panels, the computers were fritzing out, mold was growing in the
isolation. The ISS, formerly Space Station Freedom, formerly Space Station Alpha, was taking
shape. Time to dump that assemblage of canisters.
Far more important is to have a heavy launcher like the Energia so you can launch it again and service
it. Well, that doesn't exist either now. SAD!
Until now, apologists for the U.S.-Government side have been able to get away with various lies about these lies, such as that
there weren't any, and that Gorbachev didn't really think that the NATO issue was terribly important for Russia's future national
security anyway, and that the only limitation upon NATO's future expansion that was discussed during the negotiations to end the
Cold War concerned NATO not expanding itself eastward (i.e., closer to Russia) within Germany, not going beyond the then-existing
dividing-line between West and East Germany -- that no restriction against other east-bloc (Soviet-allied) nations ever being
admitted into NATO was discussed, at all. The now-standard U.S. excuse that the deal concerned only Germany and not all of Europe
is now conclusively disproven by the biggest single data-dump ever released about those negotiations.
This release on December 10th, by the National Security Archives, of a treasure-trove of all the existing documentation -- 33 key
documents -- that's been made available to them from numerous archives around the world, and brought together finally for the very
first time complete and in chronological order, makes crystal clear that the American apologists' lies about the lies WERE lies,
not accurate accounts of the history, at all.
The assemblers at the National Security Archives assume that the numerous and repeated false promises that were made by Bush's
team were mistakes, instead of as what they so clearly were (but you'll judge it here for yourself): strategic lies that were
essential to Bush's goal of America ultimately conquering a future isolated Russia that would then have little-to-no foreign
allies, and all of whose then-existing-as-Soviet allied nations within the Soviet Union itself, and beyond, including all of its
former Warsaw Pact allies, would have become ultimately swallowed up by the U.S.-NATO bloc, which then would be able to dictate,
to a finally alone nation of Russia, terms of Russia's ultimate surrender to the U.S. That view (which the National Security
Archives documents to be clearly true, even as it denies it and says that only Bill Clinton and subsequent Presidents were to
blame) is now exposed irrefutably to have been the U.S. plan ever since GHW Bush's Presidency.
In other words: This release of documents about the turning-point, provides capstone evidence that the U.S. never really had been
in the Cold War against communism; the U.S. was instead aiming ultimately to be the imperial nation, controlling the entire
planet. For America's Deep State, or what President Eisenhower famously warned about as the "military-industrial complex," the
Cold War was actually about empire, and about conquest, not really about ideology at all. This also had been shown, for example,
by America's having assisted so many 'former' Nazis to escape and come to America and to be paid now by the U.S. Government.
After World War II, the top level of the U.S. power-structure became increasingly taken over by the military-industrial complex,
America's Deep State, so that increasingly the U.S. Government is in a condition of "perpetual war for perpetual peace" -- a
warfare state and economy: fascism.
Here, then, are highlights from this historic data-dump, presented in chronological order, just as in the release itself, and
with a minimum of added commentary from myself [placed in brackets], but all stripping away here the dross of accompanying
inconsequentials, and leaving only the golden steady core of stunningly successful American deceit of Russia. These are those
highlights, from the December 10th data-dump, which the National Security Archives headlined "
NATO
Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard
" and sub-headed "Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to
Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner," so that the swindlers
(or as the National Security Archive view them as having instead been blunderers) can become immediately recognized and known.
All of these documents pertain to negotiations that occurred throughout the month of February 1990, and a few relate also to the
immediate aftermath. That's the crucial period, when the geostrategic reality of today (which all the world now know to be a
continuation of the Cold War, but this time against only Russia, and not against the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact) was
actually created.
At the negotiations' start, West Germany's Chancellor Helmut Kohl's agent, Germany's Foreign Minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher,
stated publicly to the whole world, West Germany's initial offer to the Soviet Union's President Mikhail Gorbachev, and this
offer did not include a simultaneous termination of both military alliances -- the Soviets' Warsaw Pact and America's NATO -- but
instead only a promise that NATO would never absorb any additional territory, especially to the east of West Germany (and this
publicly made promise was never kept). So: right from the get-go, there was no actual termination of the Cold War that was being
proposed by the U.S. group, but only an arrangement that wouldn't threaten Russia more than the then-existing split Germany did
(and yet even that promise turned out to have been a lie):
Document 01
U.S. Embassy Bonn Confidential Cable to Secretary of State on the speech of the German Foreign Minister: Genscher Outlines His
Vision of a New European Architecture.
1990-02-01
Source: U.S. Department of State. FOIA Reading Room. Case F-2015 10829
"This U.S. Embassy Bonn cable reporting back to Washington details both of Hans-Dietrich Genscher's proposals – that NATO would
not expand to the east, and that the former territory of the GDR in a unified Germany would be treated differently from other
NATO territory."
Document 02
Mr. Hurd to Sir C. Mallaby (Bonn). Telegraphic N. 85: Secretary of State's Call on Herr Genscher: German Unification.
1990-02-06
Source: Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990.
"The U.S. State Department's subsequent view of the German unification negotiations, expressed in a 1996 cable sent to all posts,
mistakenly asserts that the entire negotiation over the future of Germany limited its discussion of the future of NATO to the
specific arrangements over the territory of the former GDR." [The National Security Archives' calling that Bill-Clinton-era State
Department cable 'mistaken' is unsupported by, and even contradicted by, the evidence they actually present from the February
1990 negotiations.]
Document 03
Memorandum from Paul H. Nitze to George H.W. Bush about "Forum for Germany" meeting in Berlin.
1990-02-06
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library
"This concise note to President Bush from one of the Cold War's architects, Paul Nitze (based at his namesake Johns Hopkins
University School of International Studies), captures the debate over the future of NATO in early 1990. Nitze relates that
Central and Eastern European leaders attending the 'Forum for Germany' conference in Berlin were advocating the dissolution of
both the superpower blocs, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, until he (and a few western Europeans) turned around that view and instead
emphasized the importance of NATO as the basis of stability and U.S. presence in Europe."
Document 04
Memorandum of Conversation between James Baker and Eduard Shevardnadze in Moscow.
1990-02-09
Source: U.S. Department of State, FOIA 199504567 (National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38)
"Baker tells the Soviet foreign minister, 'A neutral Germany would undoubtedly acquire its own independent nuclear capability.
However, a Germany that is firmly anchored in a changed NATO, by that I mean a NATO that is far less of [a] military
organization, much more of a political one, would have no need for independent capability. There would, of course, have to be
iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward.'"
Document 05
Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow.
1990-02-09
Source: U.S. Department of State, FOIA 199504567 (National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38)
"Even with (unjustified) redactions by U.S. classification officers, this American transcript of perhaps the most famous U.S.
assurance to the Soviets on NATO expansion confirms the Soviet transcript of the same conversation. Repeating what Bush said at
the Malta summit in December 1989, Baker tells Gorbachev: 'The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral
advantage in this process' of inevitable German unification. Baker goes on to say, 'We understand the need for assurances to the
countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's
jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.'"
Document 06
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. (Excerpts)
1990-02-09
Source: Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Fond 1, Opis 1.
"The key exchange takes place when Baker asks whether Gorbachev would prefer 'a united Germany outside of NATO, absolutely
independent and without American troops; or a united Germany keeping its connections with NATO, but with the guarantee that
NATO's jurisdiction or troops will not spread east of the present boundary.' Turning to German unification, Baker assures
Gorbachev that 'neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking
place,' and that the Americans understand the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that 'not an inch of NATO's
present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.'"
Document 07
Memorandum of conversation between Robert Gates and Vladimir Kryuchkov in Moscow.
1990-02-09
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91128, Folder "Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive."
"This conversation is especially important because subsequent researchers have speculated that Secretary Baker may have been
speaking beyond his brief in his 'not one inch eastward' conversation with Gorbachev. Robert Gates, the former top CIA
intelligence analyst and a specialist on the USSR, here tells his kind-of-counterpart, the head of the KGB, in his office at the
Lubyanka KGB headquarters, exactly what Baker told Gorbachev that day at the Kremlin: not one inch eastward. At that point, Gates
was the top deputy to the president's national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, so this document speaks to a coordinated
approach by the U.S. government to Gorbachev."
Document 08
Letter from James Baker to Helmut Kohl
1990-02-10
Source: Deutsche Enheit Sonderedition und den Akten des Budeskanzleramtes 1989/90
"Baker especially remarks on Gorbachev's noncommittal response to the question about a neutral Germany versus a NATO Germany with
pledges against eastward expansion."
Document 09
Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl
1990-02-10
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006)
"Prepared by Baker's letter and his own foreign minister's Tutzing formula, Kohl early in the conversation assures Gorbachev, 'We
believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand
the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to
clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people.' Later the two leaders tussle about NATO and the Warsaw Pact, with
Gorbachev commenting, 'They say what is NATO without the FRG. But we could also ask: What is the WTO without the GDR?' When Kohl
disagrees, Gorbachev calls merely for 'reasonable solutions that do not poison the atmosphere in our relations' and says this
part of the conversation should not be made public."
Document 10-1
Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze notes from Conference on Open Skies, Ottawa, Canada.
1990-02-12
Source: Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.
"Notes from the first days of the conference are very brief, but they contain one important line that shows that Baker offered
the same assurance formula in Ottawa as he did in Moscow: 'And if U[nited] G[ermany] stays in NATO, we should take care about
nonexpansion of its jurisdiction to the East.'"
"This diary entry is evidence, from a critical perspective, that the United States and West Germany did give Moscow concrete
assurances about keeping NATO to its current size and scope. In fact, the diary further indicates that at least in Shevardnadze's
view those assurances amounted to a deal – which Gorbachev accepted."
"Stepanov-Mamaladze describes difficult negotiations about the exact wording on the joint statement. 'During the day, active
games were taking place between all of them. E.A. [Shevardnadze] met with Baker five times, twice with Genscher, talked with
Fischer [GDR foreign minister], Dumas [French foreign minister], and the ministers of the ATS countries,' and finally, the text
of the settlement was settled."
Document 11
U.S. State Department, "Two Plus Four: Advantages, Possible Concerns and Rebuttal Points."
1990-02-21
Source: State Department FOIA release, National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38.
"The American fear was that the West Germans would make their own deal with Moscow for rapid unification, giving up some of the
bottom lines for the U.S., mainly membership in NATO."
Document 12-1
Memorandum of conversation between Vaclav Havel and George Bush in Washington.
1990-02-20
Source:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (
https://bush41library.tamu.edu/
)
"Bush took the opportunity to lecture the Czech leader about the value of NATO and its essential role as the basis for the U.S.
presence in Europe."
Document 12-2
Memorandum of conversation between Vaclav Havel and George Bush in Washington.
1990-02-21
Source:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (
https://bush41library.tamu.edu/
)
"Bush's request to Havel to pass the message to Gorbachev that the Americans support him personally, and that 'We will not
conduct ourselves in the wrong way by saying "we win, you lose." Emphasizing the point, Bush says, 'tell Gorbachev that I asked
you to tell Gorbachev that we will not conduct ourselves regarding Czechoslovakia or any other country in a way that would
complicate the problems he has so frankly discussed with me.' The Czechoslovak leader adds his own caution to the Americans about
how to proceed with the unification of Germany and address Soviet insecurities. Havel remarks to Bush, 'It is a question of
prestige.'"
[I think that Havel was deceived to believe that "prestige" was the issue here. This is what the U.S. team wanted the Soviet team
to think was the U.S. team's chief motivation for wanting NATO to continue. But subsequent historical events, especially the U.S.
team's proceeding under President Bill Clinton and up through Donald Trump to expand NATO to include, by now, virtually all of
the Warsaw Pact and of the Soviet Union itself except for Russia, in NATO, proves that U.S. aggression against Russia has been
the U.S. aim from the start, and the U.S. Government has been working assiduously at this plan for ultimate conquest. I think
that Havel's use there of the word "prestige" was very revealing of the total snookering of Gorbachev that Bush achieved.
Gorbachev and his team trusted the U.S. side. Russia has paid dearly for that. If the U.S. side continues and NATO isn't
voluntarily terminated by the U.S. Government, then WW III will be the inevitable result. NATO will end either after the
'conquest' of Russia or before that WW-III 'conquest' (likelier to be actually destruction of the entire world) even happens. The
world, today, will decide which. NATO should have ended in 1991, when the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact did.]
Document 13
Memorandum of Conversation between Helmut Kohl and George Bush at Camp David.
1990-02-24
Source:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (
https://bush41library.tamu.edu
/)
"The Bush administration's main worry about German unification as the process accelerated in February 1990 was that the West
Germans might make their own deal bilaterally with the Soviets (see Document 11) and might be willing to bargain away NATO
membership. The German chancellor arrives at Camp David without [West German Foreign Minister] Genscher because the latter does
not entirely share the Bush-Kohl position on full German membership in NATO, and he recently angered both leaders by speaking
publicly about the CSCE as the future European security mechanism.[11] Bush's priority is to keep the U.S. presence, especially
the nuclear umbrella, in Europe: 'if U.S. nuclear forces are withdrawn from Germany, I don't see how we can persuade any other
ally on the continent to retain these weapons.' [Bush wanted Lockheed and other U.S. weapons-makers to continue booming after
the Cold War 'ended' -- not for the nuclear-weapons market to end. Bush continued:] 'We have weird thinking in our Congress today,
ideas like this peace dividend. We can't do that in these uncertain times.' [For the U.S. team, 'perpetual war for perpetual
peace' would be the way forward; a 'peace dividend' was the last thing they wanted -- ever.] At one point in the conversation,
Bush seems to view his Soviet counterpart not as a partner but as a defeated enemy. Referring to talk in some Soviet quarters
against Germany staying in NATO, he says: 'To hell with that. We prevailed and they didn't. We cannot let the Soviets clutch
victory from the jaws of defeat.'" [I earlier had placed that crucial secret statement from Bush into historical perspective,
under the headline, "
How
America Double-Crossed Russia and Shamed the West
".]
Document 14
Memorandum of conversation between George Bush and Eduard Shevardnadze in Washington.
1990-04-06
Source:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (
https://bush41library.tamu.edu/
)
"Shevardnadze mentions the upcoming CSCE summit and the Soviet expectation that it will discuss the new European security
structures. Bush does not contradict this but ties it to the issues of the U.S. presence in Europe and German unification in
NATO. He declares that he wants to 'contribute to stability and to the creation of a Europe whole and free, or as you call it, a
common European home. A[n] idea that is very close to our own.' The Soviets -- wrongly -- interpret this as a declaration that the
U.S. administration shares Gorbachev's idea."
Document 15
Sir R. Braithwaite (Moscow). Telegraphic N. 667: "Secretary of State's Meeting with President Gorbachev."
1990-04-11
Source: Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth
Office.
"Ambassador Braithwaite's telegram summarizes the meeting between Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Douglas
Hurd and President Gorbachev, noting Gorbachev's 'expansive mood.' Gorbachev asks the secretary to pass his appreciation for
Margaret Thatcher's letter to him after her summit with Kohl, at which, according to Gorbachev, she followed the lines of policy
Gorbachev and Thatcher discussed in their recent phone call, on the basis of which the Soviet leader concluded that 'the British
and Soviet positions were very close indeed.'"
Document 16
Valentin Falin Memorandum to Mikhail Gorbachev (Excerpts)
1990-04-18
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006)
"This memorandum from the Central Committee's most senior expert on Germany sounds like a wake-up call for Gorbachev. Falin puts
it in blunt terms: while Soviet European policy has fallen into inactivity and even 'depression after the March 18 elections in
East Germany, and Gorbachev himself has let Kohl speed up the process of unification, his compromises on Germany in NATO can only
lead to the slipping away of his main goal for Europe – the common European home. 'Summing up the past six months, one has to
conclude that the "common European home," which used to be a concrete task the countries of the continent were starting to
implement, is now turning into a mirage.' While the West is sweet-talking Gorbachev into accepting German unification in NATO,
Falin notes (correctly) that 'the Western states are already violating the consensus principle by making preliminary agreements
among themselves' regarding German unification and the future of Europe that do not include a 'long phase of constructive
development.' He notes the West's 'intensive cultivation of not only NATO but also our Warsaw Pact allies' with the goal to
isolate the USSR. He also suggests using arms control negotiations in Vienna and Geneva as leverage if the West keeps taking
advantage of Soviet flexibility. The main idea of the memo is to warn Gorbachev not to be naive about the intentions of his
American partners: 'The West is outplaying us, promising to respect the interests of the USSR, but in practice, step by step,
separating us from "traditional Europe".'"
Document 17
James A. Baker III, Memorandum for the President, "My meeting with Shevardnadze."
1990-05-04
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91126, Folder "Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive 1989 –
June 1990 [3]"
"Baker reports, 'I also used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to
develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new
legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive.'"
Document 18
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow.
1990-05-18
Source: Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Fond 1
"When Gorbachev mentions the need to build new security structures to replace the blocs, Baker lets slip a personal reaction that
reveals much about the real U.S. position on the subject: 'It's nice to talk about pan-European security structures, the role of
the CSCE. It is a wonderful dream, but just a dream. In the meantime, NATO exists. ' Gorbachev suggests that if the U.S. side
insists on Germany in NATO, then he would 'announce publicly that we want to join NATO too.' Shevardnadze goes further, offering
a prophetic observation: 'if united Germany becomes a member of NATO, it will blow up perestroika. Our people will not forgive
us. People will say that we ended up the losers, not the winners.'"
Document 19
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Francois Mitterrand (excerpts).
1990-05-25
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros
"[Miterrand] implies that NATO is not the key issue now and could be drowned out in further negotiations; rather, the important
thing is to ensure Soviet participation in new European security system. He repeats that he is 'personally in favor of gradually
dismantling the military blocs.' Gorbachev expresses his wariness and suspicion about U.S. effort to 'perpetuate NATO'." [This
was extraordinary documentation that the U.S. team had deceived Gorbachev to think that they were trying to suggest to him that
both military alliances -- NATO and Warsaw Pact -- would be ended, but that Gorbachev was "wary" and "suspicious" that maybe they
didn't really mean it. Stunning.]
Document 20
Letter from Francois Mitterrand to George Bush
1990-05-25
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files
True to his word, Mitterrand writes a letter to George Bush describing Gorbachev's predicament on the issue of German unification
in NATO, calling it genuine, not 'fake or tactical.' He warns the American president against doing it as a fait accompli without
Gorbachev's consent implying that Gorbachev might retaliate on arms control (exactly what Mitterrand himself – and Falin earlier
– suggested in his conversation). Mitterrand argues in favor of a formal 'peace settlement in International law,' and informs
Bush that in his conversation with Gorbachev he "'indicated that, on the Western side, we would certainly not refuse to detail
the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country's security.'"
Document 21
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush. White House, Washington D.C.
1990-05-31
Source: Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Moscow, Fond 1, opis 1.[12]
"Baker repeats the nine assurances made previously by the administration, including that the United States now agrees to support
the pan-European process and transformation of NATO in order to remove the Soviet perception of threat. Gorbachev's preferred
position is Germany with one foot in both NATO and the Warsaw Pact -- the 'two anchors' -- creating a kind of associated
membership. Baker intervenes, saying that 'the simultaneous obligations of one and the same country toward the WTO and NATO smack
of schizophrenia.' After the U.S. president frames the issue in the context of the Helsinki agreement, Gorbachev proposes that
the German people have the right to choose their alliance -- which he in essence already affirmed to Kohl during their meeting in
February 1990. Here, Gorbachev significantly exceeds his brief, and incurs the ire of other members of his delegation, especially
the official with the German portfolio, Valentin Falin, and Marshal Sergey Akhromeyev. Gorbachev issues a key warning about the
future: 'If the Soviet people get an impression that we are disregarded in the German question, then all the positive processes
in Europe, including the negotiations in Vienna [over conventional forces], would be in serious danger. This is not just
bluffing. It is simply that the people will force us to stop and to look around.' It is a remarkable admission about domestic
political pressures from the last Soviet leader."
Document 22
Letter from Mr. Powell (N. 10) to Mr. Wall: Thatcher-Gorbachev memorandum of conversation.
1990-06-08
Source: Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth
Office
"Gorbachev says he wants to 'be completely frank with the Prime Minister' that if the processes were to become one-sided, 'there
could be a very difficult situation [and the] Soviet Union would feel its security in jeopardy.' Thatcher responds firmly that it
was in nobody's interest to put Soviet security in jeopardy: 'we must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its
security would be assured.'"
Document 23
Record of Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl, Moscow (Excerpts).
1990-07-15
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros
"This key conversation between Chancellor Kohl and President Gorbachev sets the final parameters for German unification. Kohl
talks repeatedly about the new era of relations between a united Germany and the Soviet Union, and how this relationship would
contribute to European stability and security. Gorbachev demands assurances on non-expansion of NATO: 'We must talk about the
nonproliferation of NATO military structures to the territory of the GDR, and maintaining Soviet troops there for a certain
transition period.' The Soviet leader notes earlier in the conversation that NATO has already begun transforming itself. For him,
the pledge of NATO non-expansion to the territory of the GDR in spirit means that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet
willingness to compromise on Germany."
[Of course, Gorbachev never knew that Bush had instructed his agents, on the night of 24 February 1990, "To hell with that. We
prevailed and they didn't. We cannot let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat," indicating that for the U.S.
aristocracy, conquest of an isolated Russia was the actual ultimate aim -- there would be no actual end of the Cold War until the
U.S. would conquer Russia itself -- grab the whole thing. Gorbachev was, it is now absolutely undeniable, conned.]
Document 24
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush
1990-07-17
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons ((
https://bush41library.tamu.edu/
)
"In this phone call, Bush expands on Kohl's security assurances and reinforces the message from the London Declaration: 'So what
we tried to do was to take account of your concerns expressed to me and others, and we did it in the following ways: by our joint
declaration on non-aggression; in our invitation to you to come to NATO; in our agreement to open NATO to regular diplomatic
contact with your government and those of the Eastern European countries; and our offer on assurances on the future size of the
armed forces of a united Germany – an issue I know you discussed with Helmut Kohl. We also fundamentally changed our military
approach on conventional and nuclear forces. We conveyed the idea of an expanded, stronger CSCE with new institutions in which
the USSR can share and be part of the new Europe.'"
Document 25
September 12 Two-Plus-Four Ministerial in Moscow: Detailed account [includes text of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with
Respect to Germany and Agreed Minute to the Treaty on the special military status of the GDR after unification]
1990-11-02
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Condoleezza Rice Files
"the agreed text of the final treaty on German unification. The treaty codified what Bush had earlier offered to Gorbachev –
'special military status' for the former GDR territory. At the last minute, British and American concerns that the language would
restrict emergency NATO troop movements there forced the inclusion of a 'minute' that left it up to the newly unified and
sovereign Germany what the meaning of the word 'deployed' should be. Kohl had committed to Gorbachev that only German NATO troops
would be allowed on that territory after the Soviets left, and Germany stuck to that commitment, even though the 'minute' was
meant to allow other NATO troops to traverse or exercise there at least temporarily. Subsequently, Gorbachev aides such as Pavel
Palazhshenko would point to the treaty language to argue that NATO expansion violated the 'spirit' of this Final Settlement
treaty."
[Obviously, now, it was no "Final Settlement" at all.]
Document 26
U.S. Department of State, European Bureau: Revised NATO Strategy Paper for Discussion at Sub-Ungroup Meeting
1990-10-22
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Heather Wilson Files,
"Joint Chiefs and other agencies, posits that '[a] potential Soviet threat remains and constitutes one basic justification for
the continuance of NATO.' At the same time, in the discussion of potential East European membership in NATO, the review suggests
that 'In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or of the U.S. that these states be granted full NATO
membership and its security guarantees.' The United States does not 'wish to organize an anti-Soviet coalition whose frontier is
the Soviet border' – not least because of the negative impact this might have on reforms in the USSR. NATO liaison offices would
do for the present time, the group concluded, but the relationship will develop in the future. In the absence of the Cold War
confrontation, NATO 'out of area' functions will have to be redefined." [Clearly, they wanted the revolving door to land them in
high-paid positions supported by U.S. weapons-making corporations, not just in retirements with only military pensions. Or else,
they just loved war and, like Bush, didn't want there to be any "peace dividend."]
Document 27
James F. Dobbins, State Department European Bureau, Memorandum to National Security Council: NATO Strategy Review Paper for
October 29 Discussion.
1990-10-25
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library: NSC Philip Zelikow Files
"This concise memorandum comes from the State Department's European Bureau as a cover note for briefing papers for a scheduled
October 29, 1990 meeting on the issues of NATO expansion and European defense cooperation with NATO. Most important is the
document's summary of the internal debate within the Bush administration, primarily between the Defense Department (specifically
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney) and the State Department. On the issue of NATO expansion, OSD 'wishes to
leave the door ajar' while State 'prefers simply to note that discussion of expanding membership is not on the agenda .' The Bush
administration effectively adopts State's view in its public statements, yet the Defense view would prevail in the next
administration."
[This allegation, by the National Security Archives, fundamentally misrepresents, by its underlying assumption that the Bush
Administration's statements such as that NATO would move "not one inch to the east" weren't lies but instead reflected Bush's
actual intention. They ignore altogether Bush's having secretly told his vassals on the crucial night of 24 February 1990, "To
hell with that. We prevailed and they didn't. We cannot let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat." Gorbachev
believed that this was to be a win-win game; but, the U.S. side were now under secret instructions that it's to be purely more of
the win-lose game, and that now a lone Russia would end up being its ultimate loser. The despicable statement by the National
Security Archives, "yet the Defense view would prevail in the next administration," presumes that it didn't actually already
'prevail' in the Bush Administration itself. It prevailed actually in George Herbert Walker Bush himself, and not only in his
Defense Department. Bush brilliantly took advantage of Gorbachev's decency and expectation that Bush, like himself, was decent.
Bush lied -- and his team and their successors ever since have been carrying out his vicious plan. The National Security Archives
downplays to insignificance Bush's crucial instruction to his people, "To hell with that. We prevailed and they didn't. We cannot
let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat." That statement, at that crucial moment, is what enables us to understand
what was actually going on throughout these negotiations. The Archives' blaming only Bill Clinton and the other Presidents after
Bush is a despicable lie. And it wasn't just "the Defense view" -- Cheney -- who prevailed within the Bush Administration there.
Cheney, like Baker, were doing what GHW Bush had hired them to do. Baker's job was to lie. If it weren't, then he'd have told
Gorbachev the next day not to trust what the Bush team were saying, but instead to demand everything to be put in writing in the
final document, and to assume the worst regarding anything that the Bush team were refusing to put in writing in the final
document. Baker was a lawyer, and a very skilled liar, who was just doing his job for Bush. For some inexplicable reason, the
National Security Archives simply assumes otherwise.]
Document 28
Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite diary, 05 March 1991
1991-03-05
Source: Rodric Braithwaite personal diary
"British Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite was present for a number of the assurances given to Soviet leaders in 1990 and 1991 about
NATO expansion. Here, Braithwaite in his diary describes a meeting between British Prime Minister John Major and Soviet military
officials, led by Minister of Defense Marshal Dmitry Yazov. The meeting took place during Major's visit to Moscow and right after
his one-on-one with President Gorbachev. During the meeting with Major, Gorbachev had raised his concerns about the new NATO
dynamics: 'Against the background of favorable processes in Europe, I suddenly start receiving information that certain circles
intend to go on further strengthening NATO as the main security instrument in Europe. Previously they talked about changing the
nature of NATO, about transformation of the existing military-political blocs into pan-European structures and security
mechanisms. And now suddenly again [they are talking about] a special peace-keeping role of NATO. They are talking again about
NATO as the cornerstone. This does not sound complementary to the common European home that we have started to build.' Major
responded: 'I believe that your thoughts about the role of NATO in the current situation are the result of misunderstanding. We
are not talking about strengthening of NATO.'"
Document 29
Paul Wolfowitz Memoranda of Conversation with Vaclav Havel and Lubos Dobrovsky in Prague.
1991-04-27
Source: U.S. Department of Defense, FOIA release 2016
"These memcons from April 1991 provide the bookends for the 'education of Vaclav Havel' on NATO (see Documents 12-1 and 12-2
above). U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz included these memcons in his report to the NSC and the State
Department about his attendance at a conference in Prague on 'The Future of European Security,' on April 24-27, 1991. During the
conference Wolfowitz had separate meetings with Havel and Minister of Defense Dobrovsky. In the conversation with Havel,
Wolfowitz thanks him for his statements about the importance of NATO and US troops in Europe. In conversation with Dobrovsky,
Wolfowitz remarks that 'the very existence of NATO was in doubt a year ago.'"
Document 30
Memorandum to Boris Yeltsin from Russian Supreme Soviet delegation to NATO HQs
1991-07-01
Source: State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), Fond 10026, Opis 1
"This document is important for describing the clear message in 1991 from the highest levels of NATO – Secretary General Manfred
Woerner – that NATO expansion was not happening
. The audience was a Russian Supreme Soviet delegation, which in this
memo was reporting back to Boris Yeltsin (who in June had been elected president of the Russian republic, largest in the Soviet
Union), but no doubt Gorbachev and his aides were hearing the same assurance at that time. The emerging Russian security
establishment was already worried about the possibility of NATO expansion, so in June 1991 this delegation visited Brussels to
meet NATO's leadership, hear their views about the future of NATO, and share Russian concerns.
Woerner had given a well-regarded speech in Brussels in May 1990 in which he argued: 'The principal task of the next decade will
be to build a new European security structure, to include the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. The Soviet Union will
have an important role to play in the construction of such a system. If you consider the current predicament of the Soviet Union,
which has practically no allies left, then you can understand its justified wish not to be forced out of Europe.' Now in
mid-1991, Woerner responds to the Russians by stating that he personally and the NATO Council are both against expansion -- '13
out of 16 NATO members share this point of view' -- and that he will speak against Poland's and Romania's membership in NATO to
those countries' leaders as he has already done with leaders of Hungary and Czechoslovakia."
"... The problems now of USA in global politics in general, and with Russia in particular, was not the NATO expansion but the corrupted neoliberal economic model that the USA and the West imposed on themselves and Russia. Russia after Yeltsin and during the time V. Putin is in power limited the scope and the damage the neoliberal system was doing to the country, but the USA and the West continue on the same corrupted neoliberal path up until today. Another cause of the geopolitical problems the USA have now were and are the wars in the Middle East. ..."
"... If the US wants to ring Russia with bases why should't US taxpayers pay for it? DOD's budget is partly for imperial policing and partly a regional and corporate gravy train. It has some true "defense" functions but those are very limited. Why would Germans or the French want to pay extra taxes to protect themselves from a "threat" that if it even exists is because of aggressive American foreign policy? ..."
"... Bacevich nails it again. As a Cold War veteran I couldn't agree more. The United States didn't "win" the Cold War -- the USSR "lost" it, instead. Therein lays a huge difference. You don't kick a dog when he is down. The mindless expansion of NATO eastward following the demise of the USSR in 1991 was stupid–anyone who knows Russian history and geography is keenly aware of this fact. Putin, just like Trump, is trying to make his country great again. Surprise!!! ..."
"... Given Russia's history of being invaded from the West, with Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union being the bloodiest conflict in human history, it is remarkable to me that our government cannot understand why expanding NATO eastward would be viewed as very alarming to the Russians. ..."
"... American elites spend American treasure for their imperium, so that American elite interests take precedence, as per Nuland's "F -- the E.U." Confoundedly, Andy omits the Ukraine putsch she midwived. He who pays the piper calls the tune – and if a Europe still occupied by American forces as the continuation of WWII were to pay its own money, that military occupation would shortly end, just as the withdrawal of Soviet support ended their European satrapies' support of the Warsaw Pact. ..."
"... I was thinking the same thing as Sal. Almost the entire Elite Nomenklatura in Washington and Wall Street can be considered a collective "nasty piece of work" given all of the social and economic wreckage that they have produced both at home and abroad. Putin/Russia's excesses don't hold a candle to the catastrophes ginned up by that crew of arrogant militarists and corrupted parasites. ..."
"... Colonel Gaddafi believed the United States and refused to develop nuclear weapons. But leader of North Korea does not want to believe the USA. What do you think, why is this? ..."
"... These satrapies are offering the US forward deployment for military assets, possibly including first strike and decapitation weapons again – as Germany did before the reunification – as well as basing for missile defense systems that will eventually -- if they ever work -- complement these destabilizing weapon systems. They also provide bases without which US operations in the Middle East and the Mediterranean would be much more costly, if not difficult. These "privileges" come at substantial cost, as South Korea is in the process of recognizing. ..."
"... It should also be noted that US activities in Georgia and Ukraine preceded Putin's "act of transgression". It should further be noted that the Georgia conflict is very much an example of the erosion of international norms that Clinton and Kohl initiated in the Balkan conflict – which Russia explicitly warned the US about. ..."
"... It is completely unbelievable that the Soviets (after two invasions by Germany that killed about 27 million Soviets) would have just shrugged at the idea of NATO expanding to Poland let alone the Ukraine. The real question is why didn't Gorbachev insist on a written treaty. There was nothing in US history that should have made him expect honesty so why nothing in writing? I have no doubt he was lied to or manipulated but was he really that naive or incompetent to trust the US? ..."
"... Right after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I told my wife that, while the Soviets came in 'last' in the Cold War, the US came in second-to-last. I told her that Japan won the Cold War. The Soviets made tanks, the US made tanks and Japan made Nissans. My 1985 Nissan pickup truck still runs great and where are all the tanks today? Mind you, this was before the collapse of the Japanese stock market. ..."
"... Russia bought that land from Sweden, the same as the US bought Alaska. They gave them their independence after the revolution. All of these countries were dictatorships before the WWII and all of them voted and asked to join the USSR. ..."
"... On that note, I really think that my interview with Professor Richard Sakwa (Chatham House) titled "Between the Cold War and the Cold Peace: How the West betrayed Russia" may also be of your interest. ..."
"... Deep State's durable foreign policy, which is always the de facto policy, is remarkably resilient no matter which political party is elected to fill the chairs. Elections and the will of the voters have virtually no influence on it, except in the tenor of the propaganda. ..."
"... I am amazed at all of the commenters who think expanding NATO up to the borders of Russia is a great idea. How would you like for Russia to form a military alliance with Mexico and for the Russian military to be conducting exercises along our southern border with Mexico? ..."
President George H. W. Bush and President Mikhail Gorbachev sign United States/Soviet Union agreements to end
chemical weapon production and begin destroying their respective stocks in the East Room of the White House,
Washington, DC in June 1990. (White House photo)
Statecraft is a complicated business, but the criteria by which we judge statesmen turn
out to be less so. The central question reduces to whether those charged with formulating policy succeed in enhancing
the power and security of the nation they lead.
Yet near-term advantage does not necessarily translate into long-term benefit. With
the passage of time, a seemingly clever gambit can yield poisonous fruit. So it is with the way the George Herbert
Walker Bush administration managed the end of the Cold War.
From a geopolitical perspective, the Cold War from the very outset had centered on the
German question. Concluding that conflict necessarily required resolving Germany's anomalous division into two halves,
with West Germany a key member of NATO and East Germany occupying a similar status in the opposing Warsaw Pact. Of
course, no such resolution could be possible unless the victors of World War II, primarily the United States and the
Soviet Union, but also Great Britain and France, all concurred.
Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev provided the necessary catalyst to make agreement
possible. Gorbachev's bold effort to reform and thereby save the USSR, launched in the mid-1980s, converted the belt of
Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe from a source of strategic depth to a collection of liabilities. When Gorbachev
signaled that unlike his predecessors he had no intention of using force to maintain the Soviet Empire, it almost
immediately disintegrated. With that, momentum for German reunification became all but irresistible.
By the end of 1989, the issue facing policymakers on both sides of the rapidly
vanishing Iron Curtain was not whether reunification should occur, but where a reunited Germany would fit in a radically
transformed political landscape. Already possessing the biggest economy in all of Europe, Germany seemed certain to
become even more of a powerhouse once it had absorbed its formerly communist eastern precincts. No one -- including German
Chancellor Helmut Kohl -- thought it a good idea to allow this new Germany to become a free-floater, situated in the center
of Europe but untethered from the sort of restraints that the Cold War had imposed.
For Washington, London, and Paris, the solution was obvious: keep the Germans in a
warm but firm embrace. Ensuring that a united Germany remained part of NATO would reduce the likelihood of it choosing
at some future date to strike an independent course.
The challenge facing the Western allies was to persuade Gorbachev to see the wisdom of
this proposition. After all, twice within memory, Germany had invaded Russia, inflicting almost unimaginable damage and
suffering. That the Soviets might view with trepidation the prospect of a resurgent Germany remaining part of an
explicitly anti-Soviet military alliance was not paranoia. It was prudence.
To make that prospect palatable, the Bush administration assured the Soviets that they
had nothing to fear from a Western alliance that included a united Germany. NATO no longer viewed the USSR as an
adversary. Apart from incorporating the territory of the former East Germany, the alliance was going to stay put.
Washington was sensitive to and would respect Russia's own security interests. So at least U.S. officials claimed.
Thanks to
newly declassified documents
published by the National Security Archive, we now have a clearer appreciation of just
how explicit those assurances were. Among the documents is the transcript of an especially revealing conversation
between Gorbachev and Secretary of State James Baker in Moscow on February 9, 1990.
The discussion touched on several topics, but centered on the German question. As
Baker framed the issue, history was now handing the victorious allies an opportunity to correct the mistakes they had
made in the wake of World War II. "We fought alongside with you; together we brought peace to Europe," Baker told
Gorbachev. "Regrettably, we then managed this peace poorly, which led to the Cold War," he continued.
"We could not cooperate then," he said. "Now, as rapid and fundamental changes are
taking place in Europe, we have a propitious opportunity to cooperate in the interests of preserving the peace. I very
much want you to know: neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that
are taking place."
Washington's intentions were friendly. Gorbachev could absolutely count on the Bush
administration to support his
perestroika
and
glasnost
initiatives. "In a word, we want your efforts to be successful," Baker insisted. Indeed,
he continued, "if somewhere in the course of events you feel that the United States is doing something undesirable to
you, without hesitation call us and tell us about it."
By extension, there was no need for Gorbachev to trouble himself about NATO. The
alliance provided "the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe," which, Baker implied, was good for everyone.
Keeping G.I.s in Europe would prevent Germany from once more becoming a troublemaker, benefiting all parties to include
the USSR.
"We understand," Baker continued, "that not only for the Soviet Union but for other
European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany
within the framework of NATO,
not an inch of NATO's present military
jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction
[emphasis added]." Indeed,
the proposed U.S. approach to negotiating terms for ending Germany's division would "guarantee that Germany's
unification will not lead to NATO's military organization spreading to the east."
The secretary of state then posed a hypothetical. "Supposing unification takes place,"
he asked Gorbachev, "what would you prefer: a united Germany outside of NATO, absolutely independent and without
American troops; or a united Germany keeping its connections with NATO, but with the guarantee that NATO's jurisprudence
[jurisdiction?] or troops will not spread east of the present boundary?"
The issue was one he wished to discuss with his colleagues, Gorbachev replied,
remarking only that "it goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable."
To which Baker responded: "We agree with that."
Later that very year German reunification became an accomplished fact. By the end of
the following year, Gorbachev was out of a job and the Soviet Union had become defunct. Before another 12 months had
passed, Baker's boss lost his bid for a second term as Americans elected their first post-Cold War president. By this
time, countries of the former Warsaw Pact were already clamoring to join NATO. The administration of Bill Clinton proved
more than receptive to such appeals. As a consequence, the assurances given to Gorbachev were rendered inoperative.
NATO's eastward march commenced, with the alliance eventually incorporating not only
former Soviet satellites but even former Soviet republics. In effect, U.S. policymakers responded favorably to the
aspirations of Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians while disregarding Russian security interests, apparently assuming
that Kremlin leaders had no recourse but to concede.
As long as Russia remained weak, that may well have been the case. As if to press home
the point, Clinton's successors even toyed with the idea of inviting Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO -- more or less the
equivalent of incorporating Cuba and Mexico into the Warsaw Pact back in the bad old days.
At that point, a Kremlin leader less trusting of the West than Gorbachev had been
decided that enough was enough. Vladimir Putin, a very nasty piece of work but also arguably a Russian patriot, made it
clear that NATO's eastward expansion had ended. Putin's 2008 armed intervention in Georgia, annexation of the Crimea in
2014, and multiple incursions into Ukraine beginning that same year elicited howls of protest from the Washington
commentariat. Putin, they charged, was trampling on the "norms" of international conduct that were supposed to govern
behavior in the post-Cold War world.
But Putin was not wrong to observe that the United States routinely exempted itself
from any such norms when it perceived its own vital interests to be at stake. For roughly a quarter century, the United
States had paid no price for picking Gorbachev's pocket back in 1990. Indeed, nations once unhappily lodged within the
Soviet sphere had thereby benefited greatly. NATO became a club open to everyone but Russia. In Washington's favored
formulation, Europe thereby became "whole and free." Now, however, the bills incurred by this feckless policy are coming
due and Europeans are looking to the United States to pay them.
Today's NATO consists of 29 nations, nearly double what its membership was when
Secretary Baker promised Gorbachev that the alliance would not advance a single inch eastward. When it comes to paying
for the collective defense, few of those nations contribute their required share. In effect, America's allies expect it
to do the heavy lifting. The United States has thereby incurred burdensome obligations without accruing any obvious
benefit. Once more, over 70 years after World War II, the United States is sending its troops to defend Europeans fully
capable of defending themselves. Donald Trump has charged, not without cause, that our allies are playing us for
suckers.
In today's Washington, where Russophobia runs rampant, it has become fashionable to
speak of a New Cold War, provoked by Putin's aggressive actions. Yet if we are indeed embarking upon a new age of
brinksmanship, we can trace its origins to 1990 when Putin was merely a disgruntled KGB colonel and we were playing the
Soviets for suckers.
In his meeting with Gorbachev, Baker expressed regret about the victorious allies
mismanaging the opportunity for peace created by the end of World War II. A similar judgment applies to the opportunity
for peace created by the end of the Cold War. Upon reflection, the United States might have been better served had it
honored its 1990 commitment to Gorbachev.
AB is partly correct in that both Baker and Genscher did make very bold proposals to Soviet leadership about
the future of NATO – – Baker's 'not one inch into East Germany' conception being less extensive than Genscher's
comprehensive non-expansion 'Tutzing formulation' – – but he should have put much greater emphasis on at least
two points: 1) that these proposals were merely suggestions, and were designed to 'feel out' Soviet leadership
on what it was willing to negotiate regarding German reunification; second, and arguably even more important,
both of these conceptions did not have the support of either the West German Chancellor or the U.S. President –
– points which also follow from the 'recently declassified diplomatic record' (so read the Bush-Kohl dialogue,
and see that they were completely unified on German reunification without any conditions or restrictions to be
placed on NATO) – – and thus both Foreign Minister Genscher and Secretary of State Baker were completely
hamstrung at the time when each made his conception known.
We could add a third key point, and that is that,
even if Gorbachev or Shevardnadze had decided to push for EITHER the Baker or Genscher Plan – – and we can
easily appreciate why no Soviet official would be either willing or able to think in terms of post-Warsaw Pact,
let alone post-Soviet, times and thus of their forthcoming Russian Federation's future relationship with NATO
– – then they would have publicly met with the same unified American-West German refusal to put conditions on
NATO that Bush & Kohl had previously agreed; so, in effect, with these two supporting an open-ended future of
NATO, any Soviet leader would have been told 'nyet' if he had sought to codify Baker's or Genscher's
conceptions into a formal agreement.
Last, on the subject of what NATO did finally agree with the Russian federation, review the text of the
NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997, and you'll find two very nice surprises from early post-Cold War history: 1)
that NATO was quite willing to codify its plans for membership expansion, principally to reassure Federation
leadership that its planned expansion had no hostile intent whatsoever toward the Fdereation; and 2) that
Yeltsin, as Federation President, did not feel threatened in the least by NATO expansion, and he said so
publicly he didn't like that expansion, and also said so publicly, but it's very telling that he never felt
threatened by it. Furthermore, NATO still avoided stationing its forces into the Eastern part of the reunified
German state until well after the Soviet collapse.
Given the article at hand, that's all that AB should need to know about the stark differences between
Yeltsin's Federation and Putin's, and the amazing continuity between NATO's late Cold War and its early
post-Cold War position regarding its expansion plans and how this continuity fits nicely with the context of
the only major treaty to be negotiated with the Federation.
This article links to the National Security Archive's recent collection of documents which clearly demonstrates
the assurances made to Gorbachev were sourced widely among NATO members, much more so than previously
understood. The opinions expressed in, for example, the 2014 Brookings article – shared by a commentator –
which downplays the matter, are now outdated.
Sphere of influence: the argument that Russia has no right to
have opinions on regional politics, or security concerns, usually ignores major contextual information; i.e the
NATO expansion has occurred during a transformation from defensive alliance to a more assertive posture, as
seen in Serbia and Libya. It has occurred while the US has assumed a military posture based on world hegemony
and clearly stated objectives of preventing other states from ever posing a challenge to this primacy. It
occurred while arms treaties (ABM) were broken and while missile systems were introduced to the region.
Important as well to acknowledge Russia as a major nuclear power, and this policy of poking the bear, so to
speak, seems needlessly aggressive and unintelligent.
Further, the situation in Ukraine appears to have been a deliberate provocation sought by the Anglo bloc of
the NATO alliance, in concert with the more paranoid political actors of the region. A negotiated political
settlement had been reached concerning the Maidan. The subsequent coup was an expressly deliberate reaction to
prevent this settlement from going into effect. The USA, UK, and Canada provocatively determined the coup as
"legitimate", and in doing so chose to assist in the destabilization of the country. This Anglo bloc has
promoted a false and incomplete narrative of events, and stepped up a dangerous militarization of the region
justified by this false account.
This betrayal may actually get rectified but much of it is outside the hands of the EU and in the hands of
Russia (my opinion).
Thanks to US support under Trump the VISEGRAD is front and center while western Europe
takes a backseat. The neocons may want to use the VISEGRAD as a launching point for Russia but I do not think
that is Trumps agenda. The fear in Poland, Hungary, Czech and Slovak Republics is not from the US or its
warmongering anti-Russian neocons. It comes from Russia's relationship with its former satellites since they
were freed and joined EU and NATO.
All VISEGRAD nations have said they will take no more muslim or African migrants even if it means fines,
loss of aid or an exit. The stance of the VISEGRAD is expanding to Lithuania, Austria, Romania, Bulgaria and
Slovenia. This would effectively fence off much, if not all, of the land route to Europe.
Russia doesn't want African and muslim migrants either.
If Russia can create a detent with the VISEGRAD and allay their fears then Russia could diffuse much of the
need for the NATO weaponry that Russia feels threatened. At the rate Europe and Russia are depopulating, even a
small war would be lunacy.
The other thing Russia craves are goods, services, technology, etc which the VISEGRAD would gladly offer in
exchange for Russian goods and services.
Further, we have seen common ground with VISEGRAD and Russia against migrants. The VISEGRAD is willing to
stand apart from the EU if necessary. Russia may not get the VISEGRAD to leave NATO but Russia might get the
VISEGRAD to operate more independently of the EU and NATO. The fundamental point here is a simple one. The
VISEGRAD has the potential to either be a barrier to Russia or a buffer zone from the EU and NATO to Russia.
Much of this is really up to Russia's ability to allay past fears and take a new approach.
Further I don't think Trump would object. My observation of Trump is that he has more contempt than respect
for Sweden, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, etc. NATO nations that cannot control their borders and do
not maintain their 2% commitment of GDP are parasites and freeloaders to Trump. However Trump shows great
respect to the VISEGRAD for protecting its borders and NATO commitments.
Historically, its worth noting about the VISEGRAD countries. They suffered more than the mass murders and
totalitarianism of being communist satellites of the Soviet Union. Prior to that these nations were destroyed
when Russia invaded to the west and when Europe invaded to the east. The VISEGRAD does not want to be the
battle field for a Russia defending itself against NATO or NATO defending itself against Russia. The VISEGRAD
knows that they suffer and lose under either scenario. The VISEGRAD wants security guarantees from Russia and
NATO. Knowing this, Russia could reframe the entire dynamic of the VISEGRAD. It wouldn't be a full win for
Russia but if played well, then it might be just be enough for the US, VISEGRAD and Russia.
Poor Russia, a country that occupied, then annexed the Baltic States against their will.
Poor Russia, a country that banned Ukrainian language and culture, starved to depopulate it, then tried to
replace its people with Russians.
Poor Russia, the country that occupied Eastern Europe and had no compunction about rolling tanks down the
streets of Prauge when they had the audacity to want to determine their own destiny.
Poor Russia, a country that took "active measures" and annexed Crimea from Ukraine and set it's troops and
media to foment rebellion in the Donbass.
There is a good reason all these countries sought protection from repeated, constant acts of Russian
aggression against their sovereignty.
The US leads a coalition of free nations that don't want to be treated upon by the boot off Russian
oppression. After the end of the Cold War the Russians were under no threat from NATO whatsoever. Their actions
are the actions of a bully and it is a poor strategy to hide in a corner and cower. The Russians are free to
take their place as one of the most powerful members of the coalition of free nations. Instead they have
decided to embark on their current pathetic path.
In light of this, what is China to make of its concerns for spread of US forces to its Yalu border, very close
to Beijing? Assurances? Bah. They'd have to be nuts, and they are not that.
Mr Bacevich seems to think that a backroom conversation between one cabinet member of the U.S. and the leader
of the USSR constitutes some sort of binding treaty on the U.S. and NATO. This will be news to all the other
NATO countries and to Congress who admitted the Baltic States and Poland some 15 years after this friendly
chat. Indeed, news to Russia too who weren't overjoyed by NATO's expansion but recognized it as a legitimate
decision that a sovereign country can make, as Russia's defense minister in 2002, Sergei Ivanov, stated in
2002. No mention of Baker's 'promise'. Indeed, Russia had, and has, little choice to respect these choices
because they were at the time claiming the Baltic States freely joined the USSR in 41.
More broadly, this article and similar ones never explain precisely how NATO expansion has harmed or threatens
Russia or precipitated any of the difficult events of the past decade. Does anyone really suppose that if NATO
were not in Estonia the events in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea would have unfolded differently? Can Mr Bacevich
explain what might have been different if NATO hadn't expanded? In all likelihood, if NATO hadn't expanded,
we'd all be significantly more nervous about unimpeded Russia activity in Eastern Europe post-Crimea. The EU,
already under strain from the Euro crisis, might not have survived. It's impossible to say, but it's equally
true that none of the "NATO's eastern mistake" team can ever put their finger on the harm posed by NATO's
expansion. It's always something vague, like 'Russia's legitimate zone of interest' or 'putting Russia in a
corner'. But anyone can readily see that none of these countries pose the slightest threat to Russia. Latvia is
not gearing up for an invasion of Russia despite its annexation of Abrene by the Soviets that the Russia's have
held onto. Nor is Russia in a corner; it's the largest country on Earth with enormous potential as the only
bona fide Eurasian country, with land borders on two of the largest economic zones -- the EU and China -- in the
world. Its problems are almost entirely its own doing.
Lastly, this article makes some of the historic elisions common to its genre: Russia was not invaded in WW1
unless you call Poland, Belarus and the Baltic States "Russia". This will be news to the locals. Nor did anyone
pick Gorbachev's "pocket", unless you suppose all those Eastern European peoples are nothing more than Russia's
possessions. But, to slightly expand a quote of Latvia's former President, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, "The Lord did
not put [Eastern Europeans] on Earth simply to please the Russians."
The logic of the article by A. J. Bacewich does not make any sense. What J.A.Bacewich is saying in this article
is that United States of America in 1990 effectively committed Yalta 2 through president G. H. W. Bush and the
secretary of state J. Baker. From what AJB writes in his piece it looks like the only purpose for the USA and
NATO to fight the 'cold war' was to unite Germany. Where is the logic in that kind of thinking? If uniting
Germany was the only purpose? What was the point in keeping the Germans in the framework of NATO, and NATO
itself with the USA military presence probably at the same level as during the 'cold war' apparently, according
to the logic of JAB, in perpetuity just to keep the Germans subdued and out of "troubles". The costs of that
would be probably higher for the USA that they are now. Does JAB thinks that the USSR (Russia) and obviously
Germany would stay at the same military and economic level as in 1980-90? Only very naive person could think
like that. It does not matter how you call it, USSR or Russia, sooner or later that country would bounce back
as she did with V. Putin.
It does not matter if NATO expanded or not, at this time (2017), USSR or Russia
would be back with the vengeance as she is now. The problems now of USA in global politics in general, and with
Russia in particular, was not the NATO expansion but the corrupted neoliberal economic model that the USA and
the West imposed on themselves and Russia. Russia after Yeltsin and during the time V. Putin is in power
limited the scope and the damage the neoliberal system was doing to the country, but the USA and the West
continue on the same corrupted neoliberal path up until today. Another cause of the geopolitical problems the
USA have now were and are the wars in the Middle East.
Does JAB thinks that if NATO would not expand and with Russia was left as she was in 1990 today the military
expenses for the USA would be less than they are today? I do not think so. I think probably by now you would
not have USA and NATO in Europe especially in Western Europe. What NATO expansion accomplished was prevention
of war in Europe. The problem was not the expansion of NATO, but irresponsible and shortsighted imposition of
the corrupted neoliberal economic order on the US, the West and on the Russia plus the wars in the Middle East.
To blame the current USA political problems on the expansion of NATO is not based on reality and on what
happened after 1990s, it is simply trying to stick head in the sand by those responsible for the current global
problems. After all what was the point of fighting the cold war? Would it not be cheeper, and more acceptable
for people like JAB, for the USA to cede the Europe to the USSR right after WW2 ?
Why in the world must you repeat the "nasty piece of work" mantra? Do you really believe it or is it to gain
acceptance? Or do you preface every mention of US presidents, justifiably, with the same "nasty piece of work"?
"Donald Trump has charged, not without cause, that our allies are playing us for suckers."
If the US wants to
ring Russia with bases why should't US taxpayers pay for it? DOD's budget is partly for imperial policing and
partly a regional and corporate gravy train. It has some true "defense" functions but those are very limited.
Why would Germans or the French want to pay extra taxes to protect themselves from a "threat" that if it even
exists is because of aggressive American foreign policy?
US taxpayers are being played for suckers but by their own defense department not Europeans.
Negotiating any agreement is a lengthy process, and parties cannot be bound by all offers and counter-offers
floated during discussions. What is in the actual treaty counts. If there had been a mutual agreement that NATO
would not expand, then it would have been put on paper. It was not.
Gorbachev asked for -- and got -- substantial financial help in repatriating his troops from East Germany, and
did not demand checks to NATO expansion.
Bacevich nails it again. As a Cold War veteran I couldn't agree more. The United States didn't "win" the Cold
War -- the USSR "lost" it, instead. Therein lays a huge difference. You don't kick a dog when he is down. The
mindless expansion of NATO eastward following the demise of the USSR in 1991 was stupid–anyone who knows
Russian history and geography is keenly aware of this fact. Putin, just like Trump, is trying to make his
country great again. Surprise!!!
Having the Europeans pay for their own security would end up destroying the American empire. They will want to
purchase weapons manufactured in Europe, not America, to give their own people jobs. They will need to develop
weapons that are on par with American weapons and so will commit to the necessary R&D. Their own MIC will
develop, and they will need to find reasons to use these weapons, which will require constant replacement and
upgrades.
And pretty soon Europe will return to its imperialist ways of old, with no need for America.
Given Russia's history of being invaded from the West, with Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union being the
bloodiest conflict in human history, it is remarkable to me that our government cannot understand why expanding
NATO eastward would be viewed as very alarming to the Russians.
In my opinion the best and most realistic
movie about Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union is the German made movie "Stalingrad" made in 1992 by the
production team that made "Das Boot" to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the bloodiest battle in human
history. I think that watching this movie is helpful in understanding the Russian psyche and why the Russians
view the West moving its military forces eastward as particularly alarming.
20 years, Americans and Europeans lied that promises not. Putin said that we were deceived, but the Europeans
smiled and continued to lie. So why now are you surprised of the rigidity of Russia's position? We tricked the
Americans and the Europeans we'll be remembered for a thousand years and give to his descendants so they always
kept the powder dry. NATO is a punitive organization and someday we will have to face. The fate you have
created.
As usual, the U.S. won the war but lost the peace. One question, though: Why are the Russians so angry about NATO expansion? Yes, it's a broken promise on our
part. Yet, that aspect of it aside, why the anger? Why are they so opposed to the expansion of a defensive
alliance -- one which they could someday join? How, exactly, does the expansion of a defensive alliance threaten
their security interests?
The classic blinkered cold war distortion. Washington never assured "Russia" of anything in 1990. The country
we now call "Russia", the Russian Federation, has existed as a sovereign state only since 26 December 1991.
Thus, by very definition, the US could not have "assured" Russia of anything before that date.
The picture
quite correctly identifies Gorbachev as the president of the Soviet Union. He was never at any time president
of Russia, which has had only two presidents since it became independent: Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin. It
is American cold war dinosaurs, who simply can't get their heads around the idea that the Soviet Union and
communism are gone forever, who are the cause of the "new cold war".
If they would stop treating the Russian
Federation as the if it were the Soviet Union and start treating as what it actually is, one of 15 successor
states to the Soviet Union, on the same basis as Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova etc., NATO
expansion would be no problem. Indeed, if US cold warriors hadn't obstructed it, Russia, Ukraine and Georgia
would have become members of the alliance at the same time. The fact that Putin is every bit as much a cold war
dinosaur as his American counterparts doesn't change that. And none of that gives the Russian Federation the
right to deny the sovereignty of any of the other successor states and, even less, to invade and annex their
territory. American cold warriors caused the problem with Putin. It is up to them to clean up the mess their
blinkered and outdated world view caused. Capitulating to Putin and arrogantly asserting the right to give away
other people's countries does not achieve that purpose.
American elites spend American treasure for their imperium, so that American elite interests take precedence,
as per Nuland's "F -- the E.U." Confoundedly, Andy omits the Ukraine putsch she midwived. He who pays the piper
calls the tune – and if a Europe still occupied by American forces as the continuation of WWII were to pay its
own money, that military occupation would shortly end, just as the withdrawal of Soviet support ended their
European satrapies' support of the Warsaw Pact.
Guys, you first confess that you have deceived us for 20 years, and then wonder why we are against NATO
enlargement? Guys, you're ohueli. Why should we trust you at all? Why should we believe that NATO is a
defensive alliance?
Re: Sal, "Why in the world must you repeat the "nasty piece of work" mantra? Do you really believe it or is it
to gain acceptance? Or do you preface every mention of US presidents, justifiably, with the same "nasty piece
of work"?
I was thinking the same thing as Sal. Almost the entire Elite Nomenklatura in Washington and Wall
Street can be considered a collective "nasty piece of work" given all of the social and economic wreckage that
they have produced both at home and abroad. Putin/Russia's excesses don't hold a candle to the catastrophes
ginned up by that crew of arrogant militarists and corrupted parasites.
Dr. Bacevich should either tone down his histrionic shibboleth's against Vladimir Putin or else expand his
target set to include the larger universe of native political-crony trash.
I'm another Cold War veteran who agrees with Mr. Pando about the article. The same people who are clamoring
about Russia denying the sovereignty of independent nations were very likely cheerleaders each time the US
tried to remove Castro, when we invaded Panama, Iraq, and bombed the Serbs in the Balkans. As for Ukraine, the
Crimea has always been mostly Russian until Khrushchev gave it away in the mid 50's to achieve some internal
political aims.
Despite the explosive growth of NATO, the Baltic nations are really not "free" because of the guarantees of
the alliance. If Putin wanted to invade them he could have them easily; stashing one brigade of US troops over
there would have only the effect of daring an American president to risk a nuclear exchange with a country able
to defend itself. If anyone thinks any of these C-in-C's would do any nuclear sabre-rattling because Russian
tanks are rolling into Talinn, I have a deed to a wonderful NY bridge for you.
Colonel Gaddafi believed the United States and refused to develop nuclear weapons. But leader of North Korea
does not want to believe the USA. What do you think, why is this?
DanJ, you don't honor even signed agreements, so who cares?
In the end it was very dumb move that completely cured most of the Russian population from giving any trust to
the West sirens. Good for the US (presumably) in the short run, very bad in the long
This links to a useful reference, but the article has its omissions and misrepresentations.
"The United
States has thereby incurred burdensome obligations without accruing any obvious benefit."
This is unadulterated BS. These satrapies are offering the US forward deployment for military assets,
possibly including first strike and decapitation weapons again – as Germany did before the reunification – as
well as basing for missile defense systems that will eventually -- if they ever work -- complement these destabilizing weapon systems. They also provide bases without which US
operations in the Middle East and the Mediterranean would be much more costly, if not difficult. These "privileges" come at substantial cost, as South Korea is in the process of recognizing.
It might be customary for the hegemony to extract a tax from its satraps, but the incessant whining is
beginning to wear.
It should also be noted that US activities in Georgia and Ukraine preceded Putin's "act of transgression".
It should further be noted that the Georgia conflict is very much an example of the erosion of international
norms that Clinton and Kohl initiated in the Balkan conflict – which Russia explicitly warned the US about.
The expansion of NATO, more often than not, did not exactly solicit full-throated endorsement from legacy
members either.
But the really important omissions here concern the main actors – Gorbachev, Baker, Bush et.al. Is it really
convincing to assume that Gorbachev was not aware of the US propensity to scrap treaties and agreements as soon
as administrations change? Maybe my perspective is distorted by the Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump "experience" of
the modern US, and actors like Reagan – whose violations of international law and norms are well known – and
Bush Sr. – who made his career by such acts – actually had a record of behaving honorably, and Gorbachev had
reason to trust their word, instead of insisting on a ratified treaty.
How likely is it that Gorbachev knew very well that Germany might be re-unified with a claim to become
"neutral" – as Stalin had once proposed – only to re-join NATO under some pretext within the decade? How
exactly was any of these "commitments" to be guaranteed between nations that did not exactly have a record of
upholding the international order and the peace at all cost?
More importantly, is there any reason to assume that Baker actually believed a single word of what he said,
or that he expected Gorbachev to believe any of it? We have to remember that this is the man who "managed"
Ronald Reagan's attempt to discuss abolition of nuclear weapons with Gorbachev. Whatever Gorbachev might have
believed, might have had to believe, or might have had to pretend to believe, it does not appear reasonable to
trust Baker's words then or later with respect to these gentlemen and their "agreements".
There is every reason to believe that Clinton did to the international order as he did to international
banking and financial industries, and that his legacy is exceeded in impact and damage only by Bush and Obama
in sins of commission (the former) and omission (the latter). There is every reason to believe that US – and
especially Democratic Party – insistence on breaking and ultimately breaking apart Russia as a project of
"national interest" is shortsighted and idiotic, and that within a context of power as described by Bismarck
and Machiavelli, it was very much in European and US interest to offer Russia a place in balance to China,
India and other emerging powers.
But this recognition does not really need an proof, claimed or real, that the US misled Gorbachev and
Russia. This may well have been a criminally fraudulent move, but more importantly, it was a criminally stupid
one, motivated by those two primal drivers of the American Prosperity gospel – shortsighted greed and willful
ignorance.
"Washington never assured 'Russia' of anything in 1990. The country we now call 'Russia', the Russian
Federation, has existed as a sovereign state only since 26 December 1991."
As an added benefit, not resorting
to the exegesis of the historical record of the various gambits performed by the great gamblers of their day
would also spare us this level of armchair litigation.
It is completely unbelievable that the Soviets (after two invasions by Germany that killed about 27 million
Soviets) would have just shrugged at the idea of NATO expanding to Poland let alone the Ukraine. The real
question is why didn't Gorbachev insist on a written treaty. There was nothing in US history that should have
made him expect honesty so why nothing in writing? I have no doubt he was lied to or manipulated but was he
really that naive or incompetent to trust the US?
Right after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I told my wife that, while the Soviets came in 'last' in the Cold
War, the US came in second-to-last. I told her that Japan won the Cold War. The Soviets made tanks, the US made
tanks and Japan made Nissans. My 1985 Nissan pickup truck still runs great and where are all the tanks today?
Mind you, this was before the collapse of the Japanese stock market.
"Poor Russia, a country that occupied, then annexed the Baltic States against their will."
Russia bought that
land from Sweden, the same as the US bought Alaska. They gave them their independence after the revolution.
All of these countries were dictatorships before the WWII and all of them voted and asked to join the USSR.
"Poor Russia, a country that banned Ukrainian language and culture, starved to depopulate it, then tried to
replace its people with Russians.
Poor Russia, the country that occupied Eastern Europe and had no compunction about rolling tanks down the
streets of Prauge when they had the audacity to want to determine their own destiny.
Poor Russia, a country that took "active measures" and annexed Crimea from Ukraine and set it's troops and
media to foment rebellion in the Donbass."
Actually, the Soviets made Ukraine, there was no any Ukraine or 'Ukrainians' before the 20th century. Also
they imposed official Ukrainization through their political and educational system. The people were losing
their jobs if they weren't using Ukrainian, there was a precise article in a criminal code.
The Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia after a violent armed coup in Kiev. That was a third referendum held in
Crimea after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
NATO troops in Baltic states, AMB system in Poland (western border of Ukraine) must not be Russia security
concern, but Russia's troops on eastern border pf Ukraine & Kaliningrad anclave-certainly is NATO concern.
Taking Kosovo from Serbia? annexation of east Jerusalem & Gollan Heights is right, returning Crimea by Russia
is wrong, USA invasion in Iraq, US arming & financing anti-Asad rebels(some are real terrorists) in Syria is
good, Russia support for separatists in East Ukraine is bad. Not keeping promoces about NATO non-expansion is
right, not keeping promice of Budapest memorandum by Russia is wrong.
In other words:"US & NATO masturbation is so good for population, and only Russia masturbation is very bad for
population".
I saw the translation of this article on a Russian site, and it's amazing. Does the United States have people
who understand that other countries also have their own national interests? Adopting this fact will eliminate
many of the problems of misunderstanding Russian politics.
The commentator above said:
"Washington never assured" Russia "of anything in 1990. The country we now call" Russia ", the Russian
Federation, has existed as a sovereign state only since December 26, 1991."
So, the Russians do not know at all that Russia is then "did not exist." START 1 was also signed by
Gorbachev, and he respected the Russian Federation.
NATO should have been disbanded along with the Warsaw Pact after 1990. What was supposed to be a defensive pact
against the USSR became an offensive war-mongering machine in control of neo-cons making war on Serbia in the
late 90s and manufacturing false-WMD claims against Iraq in the 2000s. Anyone and everyone involved in
high-command positions at NATO, including Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, should be indicted for war crimes.
James Baker could give assurances about how the president was thinking. He could not make a formal commitment.
Gorbachev knew that (or do you think he was an incompetent negotiator?). Nevertheless, the formal agreement
contained no restrictions on NATO. There was no commitment.
Mr Bacevich is better on the topic nevertheless, because he recognizes that the driver in NATO expansion was
not Bill Clinton or the Pentagon or NATO generals but Visegrad and the Baltic countries. About Visegrad, read
Joanna Gorska's _Dealing with a Juggernaut_. The Baltic states were in fact already threatened by post-Soviet
early on. TAC and the Progressives are apparently regretful that the West has been unwilling to throw these
countries to the crocodile. I prefer the attitude expressed by Strobe Talbot, in _The Russia Hand_, for
example.
NATO did not rush in admitting countries that were more than an inch east of Berlin. It practiced due
diligence. It did some unfortunate things indirectly affecting Russia and the new NATO members, first by not
limiting itself to stopping Serbian excesses in Bosnia-Hercegovina but attacking Serbia directly and sponsoring
the transfer in Kossovo to an Albanian mafia. And it abandoned restraint and good sense in speaking of
membership for Ukraine and Georgia. Russia's response was of the sort likely to make Ukrainians and Georgians
want to join NATO, but for the time being at least the issue is not alive.
The responsibility borne by the West in these matters consists mostly of its embrace of neoliberalism and
the neolib world order. "Shock therapy" gave Russia a miserable decade (the 1990s) and a distaste for Western
democracy. It also made EU membership unattractive to Ukraine. But when Yanukovych moved to join Putin's
Eurasian Union instead, the Ukrainians saw their country on the path to becoming a Russian satellite state. The
future they wanted was exemplified by Poland, which had weathered the Great Recession better than most and was
a free country in most respects. The future they saw looming was exemplified by Bielarus, ruled for a
generation by a bloody-handed thug and economically almost where it had been in the Soviet period. Victoria
Nuland and the CIA could not possibly have brought the numbers to the Maidan that actually appeared there. She
should certainly have kept a lower profile, but Yanukovych was overthrown by the Ukrainians, not by outside
agitators.
Oh, and then there is Harry Colin's assertion that "the Crimea has always been mostly Russian until
Khrushchev gave it away in the mid 50's . . . ." Well, the population there has not been mostly Ukrainian ever,
true. But always–apparently "always" now begins with the reign of Catharine II. Previously it was Greek,
Armenian, Tatar, and so on, but not Russian. Catharine sent in Russian settlers just so Mr Colin could make his
remark. What do the Tatars think of it?
On that note, I really think that my interview with Professor Richard Sakwa (Chatham House) titled "Between
the Cold War and the Cold Peace: How the West betrayed Russia" may also be of your interest.
Three current world Powers. The US, Russia, and China. Both armed to the gills as they say. Each with a
distinct model , which included starting wars if it serves their individual interest. The worrisome fact is
both Russia and China have chosen the leaders and support their intentions. We change foreign policy as often
as I change my underwear.
Not expanding NATO upon the demise of the USSR, would have been synonymous with the USA agreeing that Russia
has a right to a permanent "sphere of influence". Also, it would have revived the discredited "Enlightenment"
division of real Europe into "Europe" and "East of Europe";
At any rate, perhaps Mr. Bacevich can make his
case in Warsaw, Vilnius, Riga, Tallinn, Prague, Bratislava, Bucharest, Sofia, and also Minsk, Tbilisi, Yerevan,
and first and foremost, Kiev;
If the truth is on his side, then these peoples should see it as well, and accept their "permanent station
in life". But seriously, here is a worthwhile history lesson:
"Putin was not wrong to observe that the United States routinely exempted itself from any such [supposed post
Cold War international] norms when it perceived its own vital interests to be at stake," states Dr. Bacevich,
which suggests that there have been American foreign interventions since the end of the Cold War which have
been in American vital interests. I don't know which interventions these might have been, but Putin has
probably also observed that the U.S. feels free to intervene internationally even when its vital interests are
not at stake.
I am in favor of American Empire, as it is probably the best thing going, compared to all other possible
alternatives. However, in order to assert and enforce empire, Americans need to do the hard work of colonizing,
of actually going there to instill their way of life, their values, their language, their know-how, their
vision, their interests and control. The problem I see is that Americans are too unsure of themselves (too
lazy, too decadent, too exhausted, too weak, and too unprepared) to make the sacrifices necessary to be really
good colonizers, to be real leaders, and without this there can be no real Empire.
"Donald Trump has charged, not without cause, that our allies are playing us for suckers."
Appears we've all
but begged them to do so. Even if those allies commence paying "their fair share,"it's not clear how the US of
A benefits. We'll still do their fighting & jack up the defense funding accordingly.
& If the Trump biz career is any example, he'll happily shell out $5 of tax money for every $1 we get in
return. The NATO comic opera will not end its run even if those allies ceased playing us for suckers seconds
after this post.
"Americans need to do the hard work of colonizing, of actually going there to instill their way of life"
A
new Hard Core SJW Peace Corps! That's the ticket. Unpaid interns for corporate consumerist capitalism! It's gonna be a hard sell, so hardball will be required. The full faith and credit of the United States
Armed Forces, or less overt, the CIA and regime change?
"The worrisome fact is both Russia and China have chosen the leaders and support their intentions. We change
foreign policy as often as I change my underwear."
Deep State's durable foreign policy, which is always the
de facto policy, is remarkably resilient no matter which political party is elected to fill the chairs.
Elections and the will of the voters have virtually no influence on it, except in the tenor of the propaganda.
The designated enemies remain designated, no matter what any politician promises to get votes.
"I am in favor of American Empire, as it is probably the best thing going"
This sentiment is only vicarious,
unless you are of the tiny minority of Americans who benefit from the conflicts and deaths necessary to try to
establish rule of one country's economic elites by subjugating every other nation's people.
Even so, only those bribed in dollars in foreign satrapies to be puppet leaders, would agree that it is the
best of all possible worlds to be dominated by a foreign nation.
I tend to agree with the critics of this article. Firstly was a promise allegedly made to Gorbachev by the
Administration of Bush Senior(Republican) somehow binding on that of Bill Clinton(Democrat) and their
successors (Bush Junior, Obama and Trump)? I think NOT!
Secondly the issue should be WHAT DO the former Soviet Republics and peoples of Eastern Europe want? If they
wish to join NATO, then surely that is their right as free and independent sovereign states. Whether the
Kremlin likes or lumps it is neither here or there. Contrary to what the likes of Nigel Farage (in my own
country) may think, Eastern Europe is NOT some kind of dependency of Muscovy's in perpetuity!
This article is fully consistent with what my family in Germany holds. NATO is needed to control a revival of
dangerous German nationalism and relationships with Russia must be peaceful.
Bacevich seems to have missed Gorbachev's denial that there were any promises made on NATO expansion, and
second, such commitments would have been to a country that ceased to exist prior to NATO expansion. Or does he
think Europe still has commitments to the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
I am amazed at all of the commenters who think expanding NATO up to the borders of Russia is a great idea. How
would you like for Russia to form a military alliance with Mexico and for the Russian military to be conducting
exercises along our southern border with Mexico?
If Russia attacks a member of NATO along its border that
means that the US is at war with Russia which means a draft. Would any of the people who think NATO expansion
is a great idea be willing to fight the Russians over Eastern Europe or have a member of their family go and
fight?
Fighting the Russians on their own turf didn't work out to well for Napoleon and Hitler and I don't think it
would work out for us too well either. We haven't been in a major war since World War 2 and I don't think our
general population is ready for a big war with Russia.
The "safe space" generation is going to have a hard time fighting in the Russian winter. To think otherwise
is foolhardy.
It is clear that Bacevich started with a political conclusion -- that Russia's sphere of influence encompasses
all of Eastern Europe -- and then tried to muster historical/legal arguments to support that conclusion.
In the process, he has distorted history and left out anything that damages his conclusion.
Among them:
The Russo-Ukraine border treaty of November 1990, signed by Yeltsin, guaranteed the existing borders between
Russia and Ukraine;
The Minsk Agreement. December 8, 1991,obligated "The high contracting parties (Russia/Ukraine/Belarus) [to]
recognize and respect one another's territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders within the
Commonwealth."
The Russian – Ukrainian Friendship Treaty, Ratified in 1998 by Ukraine and 1999 by
Russia, fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders,
respect for territorial integrity.
Putin later affirmed that "Every nation has an inalienable, sovereign right to its own path of development
Russia always has and always will respect that. This applies fully to Ukraine, the brotherly Ukrainian nation."
There were also obligations under the COE, the OSCE and the UN Charter. Russia ignored all of those in
forcibly annexing Crimea.
Lavrov later lied about the Budapest Memorandum, claiming it contained only one obligation, not to use
nuclear weapons.
Fair points, ScottA, but let's clarify your position:
(a) Should NATO defend Western Europe, if it is ever
attacked by Russia? Alternately, are the people of Eastern Europe intrinsically different from Western
Europeans? Retreating to the position that such an attack is unlikely is an evasion – so, da or nyet?
(b) It is true that Russia was attacked by Napoleon, and the USSR, while an ally of Nazi Germany, was then
betrayed and attacked by Hitler. Does this give Russia today a right to a permanent sphere of influence in
Eastern Europe? Da or nyet?
(c) If da, how would a Westerner make that case to Eastern Europeans? Please give it a try;
In my opinion, both NATO in the west and China's New Silk Roads (One Belt and One Road Initiative) in the
east and south, exert a calming influence on any imperial stirrings of the Rulers of Muscovy. I also believe
that the majority of the Russian people would prefer a peaceful and prosperous Russia, over momentary euphorias
over this or that conquest;
What I admire about Russia is her spiritual and cultural powerhouse: Orthodox Liturgy and architecture,
icons, chants, Sugar Plum Fairies, Brothers Karamazov, fairy tales – to mention just a random fraction of the
Russian treasure. Imperialism, nyet.
"... You see? Lally's gloating, smug colonialist triumphalism was the norm in expat circles. That was what we were fighting. And sometimes the outrage got out of control. But it's beyond grotesque that our outrage should be picked over for language crimes by a sloppy, inept, conscience-free writer like Lally. When the crimes of Western journalists during the Yeltsin era are chronicled, I kinda think it'll be the callous triumphalism with which she and her Clintonite buddies watched millions of Russians die that are condemned–not the tonal lapses of a low-budget dissident rag like eXile, shaking its puny fist at this corruption. ..."
"... "Each month thousands of Russians were dying prematurely. Such a drop in life expectancy, labeled 'excess deaths,' has always been a standard algorithm in demographers' calculations of the death toll of the great disasters -- whether Stalin's collectivization in the 1930s, Pol Pot's rule in Cambodia in the 1970s, or the famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s. American demographer Nicholas Eberstadt estimated that the number of 'excess deaths' in Russia between 1992 and 1998 was as high as 3 million. By contrast, Eberstadt observed, Russia's losses in World War 1 were 1.7 million deaths." ..."
I lived in Moscow in the Nineties as well. I hugely enjoyed the Exile and read it whenever I had a chance to pick it up in
some restaurant or night club.
Let us put is like that: in 1992 CNN was so scared that they actually paid an East German female friend of mine with tolerable
Russian and less English to travel the subway!!!! Maybe in the US the subway tends to get even more dangerous when it is getting
dangerous above ground. Well possible. In Moscow though the metro was always the safest place you could be. That is because the
subway in Moscow is not just an ordinary means of getting from place to place. It is the marvel of the city, the pride of every
citizen (rightly so) and the very last thing that would turn chaotic.
CNN insanely decided to not let their US employees check out the metro. And their employees didn´t object !!! Not surprisingly
US journalism was bullshit. They had no idea of how ordinary people lived.
The Exile was the exact opposite. They lived like ordinary Muscovites and they knew what was really going on.
Mark Ames was referring to the default of 1998. I was earning money then a travelling engineer for a German tool machine factory.
. How anybody in his right mind could believe that the then merry go round of paying for maturing bonds by issuing ever higher
interest bonds (insanely high interest) could go on forever is beyond me. Everybody and his granny knew that this baby would go
bust. In the German paper of record – the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung – their Moscow economic correspondent openly wrote about
the coming default.
Why didn´t their US colleagues? The exception being the exile? Because they believed their own propaganda. And the reason they
could believe it is because they lived in a secure, insulated bubble and as a rule had no or atrocious Russian.
Same like today. Nothing has changed. If you want to know what goes on in Russia don´t read the US press.
Great piece, Mark! I wrote a comment on the Washington Post piece I suspect nobody read. Even from Lally's hit job, and a little
background research, I picked up that Lally was working to call out the censors. You shouldn't be so modest about your prior paper:
the eXile did great work now and, I'm told by friends in the Moscow expat community, you remain the talk of the town, even if
the town has settled down a lot lately. The WaPo should feel ashamed running that piece but, after deciding to, they should have
approached you and Matt for a fact-check if not a rebuttal. That seems to be the way with a lot of older media though; the quality
control hasn't just gone in the tank – it's been long since flushed – and they don't admit they're wrong even when the mistakes
are blatant. It's why I'm pleased to write for and read NC (and thank you, Yves, for publishing this).
On the "sexism" related to her original allegations she's ignoring the context of Russia, especially back then. Even today
Russia is not a quiet, politically correct kind of place. The choices available to American expat reporters during the Yeltsin
and early Putin era was either try to sterilize, treat it like a zoo with the Russians starring as the animals, or contextualize
and explain. Choosing that last option produced the most accurate reporting while infuriating the highfalutin our-shit-don't-stink
"professional" American press corps. The gall of you and Matt to suggest the Russians aren't any worse obviously still stings,
a decade after you last drank vodka while watching the river in Moscow.
Lally complains about Taibbi being mean to her after she wrote a report in 1999 unironically starting a paragraph with "The
latest affirmation of the anarchy that lies deep in the Russian soul " This just after shock therapy has killed millions of Russians.
In this new screed she has the audacity to
link to it.
You see? Lally's gloating, smug colonialist triumphalism was the norm in expat circles. That was what we were fighting.
And sometimes the outrage got out of control. But it's beyond grotesque that our outrage should be picked over for language
crimes by a sloppy, inept, conscience-free writer like Lally. When the crimes of Western journalists during the Yeltsin era
are chronicled, I kinda think it'll be the callous triumphalism with which she and her Clintonite buddies watched millions
of Russians die that are condemned–not the tonal lapses of a low-budget dissident rag like eXile, shaking its puny fist at
this corruption.
I'm a bit underwhelmed by the explanation that many of the outrageous antics of eXile's authors could be classified as "fighting
smug colonialist triumphalism" or "shaking its puny fist", but I can agree with the fundamental point that it is absolutely shocking
that someone who lived through this:
"Each month thousands of Russians were dying prematurely. Such a drop in life expectancy, labeled 'excess deaths,' has always
been a standard algorithm in demographers' calculations of the death toll of the great disasters -- whether Stalin's collectivization
in the 1930s, Pol Pot's rule in Cambodia in the 1970s, or the famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s. American demographer Nicholas
Eberstadt estimated that the number of 'excess deaths' in Russia between 1992 and 1998 was as high as 3 million. By contrast,
Eberstadt observed, Russia's losses in World War 1 were 1.7 million deaths."
could walk away thinking that THEY were unfairly victimized. Ames and Brecher/Dolan are providing an extremely important service
in highlighting similarly terrifying and shocking dynamics at work today with hacks like Michael Weiss broadcasting toxic garbage
with a big megaphone that helps provide an intellectual veneer for the mass starvation of Yemeni children or sectarian death squads
in Syria or a possible catastrophic war with Iran, so I hope people will continue to listen to them. The same goes for Taibbi
in highlighting systematic racism and abuse of power by banks and lobbyists.
Was it intelligence operation run by US and GB agencies with Harward economists as
puppets?
Notable quotes:
"... Just look at what the West did to Iraq. Like Stiglitz I think it is more incompetence and ideology than a sinister plan to destroy Iraq and Russia. And we are reaping the results of that incompetence. ..."
PGL puts the blame on Yeltsin and this is what Stiglitz writes:
"I believe what we are confronting is partly the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus
that shaped Russia's transition. This framework's influences was reflected in the tremendous
emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it was done, with speed taking
precedence over everything else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed
to make a market economy work."
Larry Summers and Jeffrey Sachs were involved in this. It would be nice if they wrote mea
culpas.
"Many in Russia believe that the US Treasury pushed Washington Consensus policies to
weaken their country. The deep corruption of the Harvard University team chosen to "help"
Russia in its transition, described in a detailed account published in 2006 by Institutional
Investor, reinforced these beliefs.
I believe the explanation was less sinister: flawed ideas, even with the best of
intentions, can have serious consequences. And the opportunities for self-interested greed
offered by Russia were simply too great for some to resist. Clearly, democratization in
Russia required efforts aimed at ensuring shared prosperity, not policies that led to the
creation of an oligarchy."
Just look at what the West did to Iraq. Like Stiglitz I think it is more incompetence
and ideology than a sinister plan to destroy Iraq and Russia. And we are reaping the results
of that incompetence.
2008 was also incompetence, greed and ideology not some plot to push through "shock
doctrines."
If the one percent were smart they would slowly cook the frog in the pot, where the frog
doesn't notice, instead of having these crises which backfire.
"... I believe what we are confronting is partly the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's transition. ..."
"... This framework's influences was reflected in the tremendous emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it was done, with speed taking precedence over everything else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed to make a market economy work.... ..."
"... Once one of the world's two superpowers, Russia's GDP is now about 40% of Germany's and just over 50% of France's. Life expectancy at birth ranks 153rd in the world, just behind Honduras and Kazakhstan. ..."
"... My impression is that Andrei Shleifer was a marionette, a low level pawn in a big game. The fact that he was a greedy academic scum, who tried to amass a fortune in Russia probably under influence of his wife (his wife, a hedge fund manager, was GS alumnae and was introduced to him by Summers) is peripheral to the actual role he played. ..."
"... Jeffey Sacks also played highly negative role being the architect of "shock therapy": the sudden release of price and currency controls, withdrawal of state subsidies, and immediate trade liberalization within a country, usually also including large-scale privatization of previously public-owned assets. ..."
"... In other words "shock therapy" = "economic rape" ..."
"... "Many in Russia believe that the US Treasury pushed Washington Consensus policies to weaken their country. The deep corruption of the Harvard University team chosen to "help" Russia in its transition, described in a detailed account published in 2006 by Institutional Investor, reinforced these beliefs." ..."
"... This was not a corruption. This was the intent on Clinton administration. I would think about it as a planned operation. ..."
"... The key was that the gangster capitalism model was enforced by the Western "Washington consensus" (of which IMF was an integral part) -- really predatory set of behaviors designed to colonize Russia and make is US satellite much like Germany became after WWII but without the benefit of Marshall plan. ..."
"... My impression is that Clinton was and is a criminal. And he really proved to be a very capable mass murderer. And his entourage had found willing sociopaths within Russian society (as well as in other xUUSR republics; Ukraine actually fared worse then Russia as for the level of plunder) who implemented neoliberal policies. Yegor Gaidar was instrumental in enforcing Harvard-designed "shock therapy" on Russian people. He also create the main neoliberal party in Russia -- the Democratic Choice of Russia - United Democrats. Later in 1990s, it became the Union of Right Forces. ..."
"... Questionable figures from the West flowed into Russia and tried to exploit still weak law system by raiding the companies. Some of them were successful and amassed huge fortunes. Some ended being shot. Soros tried, but was threatened to be shot by Berezovsky and choose to leave for the good. ..."
"... It may eventually prove to be generous to describe Russia's misfortune as "the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's transition" according to Stiglitz. It may prove rather to be "the legacy of *intentionally* flawed consensus". ..."
"... It was done according to the "expert" advice of deregulatin' Larry's gang from Harvard. ..."
"... Does deregulatin' Larry still have a job? Why? ..."
"... Yes PGL blames Yeltsin but it was the Western advisers who forced disastrous shock therapy on Russia. See the IMF, Europe and Greece for another example. No doubt PGL blames the Greeks. He always blames the victims. ..."
"... Suppose though the matter with privatization is not so much speed but not understanding what should not be subject to privatizing, such as soft and hard infrastructure. ..."
"... The persuasiveness of the Washington Consensus approach to development strikes me as especially well illustrated by the repeated, decades-long insistence by Western economists that Chinese development is about to come to a crashing end. The insistence continues with an almost daily repetition in the likes of The Economist or Financial Times. ..."
I believe what we are confronting is partly the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's transition.
This framework's influences was reflected in the tremendous emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it was
done, with speed taking precedence over everything else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed to make a market
economy work....
... ... ...
Once one of the world's two superpowers, Russia's GDP is now about 40% of Germany's and just over 50% of France's. Life expectancy
at birth ranks 153rd in the world, just behind Honduras and Kazakhstan.
Stiglitz returns to the issue of why post Soviet Union Russia has done so poorly in terms of economics:
"In terms of per capita income, Russia now ranks 73rd (in terms of purchasing power parity) – well below the Soviet Union's
former satellites in Central and Eastern Europe. The country has deindustrialized: the vast majority of its exports now come from
natural resources. It has not evolved into a "normal" market economy, but rather into a peculiar form of crony-state capitalism
. Many had much higher hopes for Russia, and the former Soviet Union more broadly, when the Iron Curtain fell. After seven decades
of Communism, the transition to a democratic market economy would not be easy. But, given the obvious advantages of democratic
market capitalism to the system that had just fallen apart, it was assumed that the economy would flourish and citizens would
demand a greater voice. What went wrong? Who, if anyone, is to blame? Could Russia's post-communist transition have been managed
better? We can never answer such questions definitively: history cannot be re-run. But I believe what we are confronting is partly
the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's transition. This framework's influences was reflected in the
tremendous emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it was done, with speed taking precedence over everything
else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed to make a market economy work. Fifteen years ago, when I wrote
Globalization and its Discontents, I argued that this "shock therapy" approach to economic reform was a dismal failure. But defenders
of that doctrine cautioned patience: one could make such judgments only with a longer-run perspective. Today, more than a quarter-century
since the onset of transition, those earlier results have been confirmed, and those who argued that private property rights, once
created, would give rise to broader demands for the rule of law have been proven wrong. Russia and many of the other transition
countries are lagging further behind the advanced economies than ever. GDP in some transition countries is below its level at
the beginning of the transition."
Stiglitz is not saying markets cannot work if the rules are properly constructed. He is saying that the Yeltsin rules were
not as they were crony capitalism at their worse. And it seems the Putin rules are not much better. He mentions his 1997 book
which featured as chapter 5 "Who Lost Russia". It still represents an excellent read.
"Shleifer also met his mentor and professor, Lawrence Summers, during his undergraduate education at Harvard. The two went on
to be co-authors, joint grant recipients, and faculty colleagues.[5]
During the early 1990s, Andrei Shleifer headed a Harvard project under the auspices of the Harvard Institute for International
Development (HIID) that invested U.S. government funds in the development of Russia's economy.
Schleifer was also a direct advisor to Anatoly Chubais, then vice-premier of Russia, who managed the Rosimushchestvo (Committee
for the Management of State Property) portfolio and was a primary engineer of Russian privatization. Shleifer was also tasked
with establishing a stock market for Russia that would be a world-class capital market.[14]
In 1996 complaints about the Harvard project led Congress to launch a General Accounting Office investigation, which stated
that the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID) was given "substantial control of the U.S. assistance program."[15]
In 1997, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) canceled most of its funding for the Harvard project after investigations
showed that top HIID officials Andre Schleifer and Johnathan Hay had used their positions and insider information to profit from
investments in the Russian securities markets. Among other things, the Institute for a Law Based Economy (ILBE) was used to assist
Schleifer's wife, Nancy Zimmerman, who operated a hedge fund which speculated in Russian bonds.[14]
In August 2005, Harvard University, Shleifer and the Department of Justice reached an agreement under which the university
paid $26.5 million to settle the five-year-old lawsuit. Shleifer was also responsible for paying $2 million worth of damages,
though he did not admit any wrongdoing
"He has held a tenured position in the Department of Economics at Harvard University since 1991 and was, from 2001 through
2006, the Whipple V. N. Jones Professor of Economics."
My impression is that Andrei Shleifer was a marionette, a low level pawn in a big game. The fact that he was a greedy academic
scum, who tried to amass a fortune in Russia probably under influence of his wife (his wife, a hedge fund manager, was GS alumnae
and was introduced to him by Summers) is peripheral to the actual role he played.
Jeffey Sacks also played highly negative
role being the architect of "shock therapy": the sudden release of price and currency controls, withdrawal of state subsidies,
and immediate trade liberalization within a country, usually also including large-scale privatization of previously public-owned
assets.
In other words "shock therapy" = "economic rape"
As Anne Williamson said: "Instead, after robbing the Russian people of the only capital they had to participate in the
new market – the nation's household savings – by freeing prices in what was a monopolistic economy and which delivered a 2500%
inflation in 1992, America's "brave, young Russian reformers" ginned-up a development theory of "Big Capitalism" based on Karl
Marx's mistaken edict that capitalism requires the "primitive accumulation of capital". Big capitalists would appear instantly,
they said, and a broadly-based market economy shortly thereafter if only the pockets of pre-selected members of their own ex-Komsomol
circle were properly stuffed. Those who hankered for a public reputation were to secure the government perches from which they
would pass state assets to their brethren in the nascent business community, happy in the knowledge that they too would be kicked
back a significant cut of the swag. The US-led West accommodated the reformers' cockeyed theory by designing a rapid and easily
manipulated voucher privatization program that was really only a transfer of title and which was funded with $325 million US taxpayers'
dollars. "
"Many in Russia believe that the US Treasury pushed Washington Consensus policies to weaken their country. The deep
corruption of the Harvard University team chosen to "help" Russia in its transition, described in a detailed account published
in 2006 by Institutional Investor, reinforced these beliefs."
This was not a corruption. This was the intent on Clinton administration. I would think about it as a planned operation.
The key was that the gangster capitalism model was enforced by the Western "Washington consensus" (of which IMF was an
integral part) -- really predatory set of behaviors designed to colonize Russia and make is US satellite much like Germany became
after WWII but without the benefit of Marshall plan.
Clinton consciously chose this criminal policy among alternatives: kick the lying body. So after Russian people get rid of
corrupt and degraded Communist regime, they got under the iron hill of US gangsters from Clinton administration.
My impression is that Clinton was and is a criminal. And he really proved to be a very capable mass murderer. And his entourage
had found willing sociopaths within Russian society (as well as in other xUUSR republics; Ukraine actually fared worse then Russia
as for the level of plunder) who implemented neoliberal policies. Yegor Gaidar was instrumental in enforcing Harvard-designed
"shock therapy" on Russian people. He also create the main neoliberal party in Russia -- the Democratic Choice of Russia - United
Democrats. Later in 1990s, it became the Union of Right Forces.
Before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the United States House of Representatives
September 21, 1999
In the matter before us – the question of the many billions in capital that fled Russia to Western shores via the Bank of New
York and other Western banks – we have had a window thrown open on what the financial affairs of a country without property rights,
without banks, without the certainty of contract, without an accountable government or a leadership decent enough to be concerned
with the national interest or its own citizens' well-being looks like. It's not a pretty picture, is it? But let there be no mistake,
in Russia the West has truly been the author of its own misery. And there is no mistake as to who the victims are, i.e. Western,
principally U.S., taxpayers and Russian citizens' whose national legacy was stolen only to be squandered and/or invested in Western
real estate and equities markets
... ... ...
== end of quote ==
A lot of people, especially pensioners, died because of Clinton's gangster policies in xUUSR space.
I am wondering how Russian managed to survive as an independent country. The USA put tremendous efforts and resources in destruction
of Russian economy and colonizing its by creating "fifth column" on neoliberal globaliozation.
all those criminal oligarchs hold moved their capitals to the West as soon as they can because they were afraid of the future.
Nobody persecuted them and Western banks helped to extract money from Russia to the extent that some of their methods were clearly
criminals.
Economic devastation was comparable with caused by Nazi armies, although amount of dead was less, but also in millions.
Questionable figures from the West flowed into Russia and tried to exploit still weak law system by raiding the companies.
Some of them were successful and amassed huge fortunes. Some ended being shot. Soros tried, but was threatened to be shot by Berezovsky
and choose to leave for the good.
Especially hard hit was military industrial complex, which was oversized in any case, but which was an integral part of Soviet
economy and employed many highly qualified specialists. Many of whom later emigrated to the West. At some point it was difficult
to find physics department in the US university without at least a single person from xUSSR space (not necessary a Russian)
But I would conjecture the Deng path trumps the Yeltsin path
[ Really? Would the conjecture rest on growth of real Gross Domestic Product in China averaging 9.6% yearly while growth of
real per capita GDP averaged 8.6% yearly these last 40 years? ]
But I would conjecture the Deng Xiaoping path trumps the Boris Yeltsin path
[ What then is the point of such a conjecture when real per capita GDP in Russia grew a mere 15.8% from 1990 through 2015 while
in China real per capita grew by a remarkable 789.1%?
Total factor productivity in Russia decreased by 16.9% from 1990 through 2014, while in China total factor productivity increased
by 76.4%.
The inability to understand what China has accomplished is shocking to me. Possibly, rethinking fairly is in order. ]
It may eventually prove to be generous to describe Russia's misfortune as "the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that
shaped Russia's transition" according to Stiglitz. It may prove rather to be "the legacy of *intentionally* flawed consensus".
The term Washington Consensus was coined in 1989 by English economist John Williamson to refer to a set of 10 relatively specific
economic policy prescriptions that he considered constituted the "standard" reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing
countries by Washington, D.C.–based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the US Treasury
Department. The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect
to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.
Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
Redirection of public spending from subsidies toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary
education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
Competitive exchange rates;
Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing,
etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
Privatization of state enterprises;
Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety,
environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
"It was done according to the "expert" advice of deregulatin' Larry's gang from Harvard."
Yes PGL blames Yeltsin but it was the Western advisers who forced disastrous shock therapy on Russia. See the IMF, Europe
and Greece for another example. No doubt PGL blames the Greeks. He always blames the victims.
PGL blames Yeltsin but even Stiglitz writes that it was the Washington Consensus which was to blame for the poor transition and
disastrous collapse of Russia. Now we are reaping the consequences. Just like with Syria, ISIL and Iraq.
Suppose though the matter with privatization is not so much speed but not understanding what should not be subject to privatizing,
such as soft and hard infrastructure.
That a Washington Consensus approach to Russian development proved obviously faulty is important because I would argue the approach
has repeatedly proved faulty from Brazil to South Africa to the Philippines... When the consensus has been turned away from as
in Brazil for several years the development results have dramatically changed but turning from the approach which allows for severe
concentrations of wealth has proved politically difficult as we find now in Brazil.
The range in real per capita GDP growth from 1990 to 2015 extends from 15.8% to 19.8% to 41.1% to 223.1% to 789.1%. This range
needs to be thoroughly analyzed in terms of reflective policy.
The range in total factor productivity growth or decline from 1990 to 2014 extends from a decline of - 16.9% to - 12.2% to - 5.1%
to growth of 40.9% and 76.4%. Again, this range needs to be thoroughly analyzed in terms of reflective policy.
The persuasiveness of the Washington Consensus approach to development strikes me as especially well illustrated by the repeated,
decades-long insistence by Western economists that Chinese development is about to come to a crashing end. The insistence continues
with an almost daily repetition in the likes of The Economist or Financial Times.
I would suggest the success of China thoroughly studied provides us with remarkable policy prescriptions.
"... And even IF Gorbachev would have had it in writing, it would not have made a bit of difference. ..."
"... There is, actually, no excuse for Gorbachev's giving away the store without an iron-clad treaty, ratified in both the USSR and the USA. ..."
"... The US has threatened the USSR/Russia since 1918 when the UK, USA and their allies including Australia invaded from 7 different directions in a 3 year campaign. ..."
"... That combined with US subversion and no doubt bribes and false promises leads to only one conclusion. Russia has good reason to be afraid of America. ..."
"... Maybe capitalism is the foundation of the problem, but the framework is militarism, weapons production and sales, attacking people around the world, spying on everyone, and imprisoning the underclass to keep them from attacking the wealthy. Take away those structural elements and the US will collapse. ..."
"... Are we not aware that the US foreign policy is by and for the economic benefit of Wall Street? Lies are the norm to hide WS involvement. National security is a scam to hide lies. ..."
"... Handing the territories of the USSR over to the US on a handshake, that is what Gorbachev will be known for. It was no mistake. ..."
"... The present demonization of Putin has been mainly continuation of business as usual. But Putin has stood up to the interests behind the IMF, the FED, the BIS, etc., making him a hero to the entire educated world. Maybe one day soon America will join the educated world. One can only hope. ..."
"... How could any nation trust the USA who has broken every treaty they have agreed to! England all through history has coveted Russia for their vast natural resources. England has always been a wicked nation. ..."
At a time when
the United States is convulsed by anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Vladimir Putin, a
trove of recently declassified Cold War documents reveals the astounding extent of the lies,
duplicity and double-dealing engaged in by the western powers with the collapsing Soviet Union
in 1990. I was covering Moscow in those days and met some of the key players in this sordid
drama. Ever since, I've been writing that the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Foreign
Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, were shamelessly lied to and deceived by the United States,
Britain, and their appendage, NATO.
All the western powers promised Gorbachev and Shevardnadze
that NATO would not expand eastward by 'one inch' if Moscow would pull the Red Army out of East
Germany and allow it to peacefully reunify with West Germany. This was a titanic concession by
Gorbachev: it led to a failed coup against him in 1991 by Communist hardliners.
The documents
released by George Washington University in Washington DC, which I attended for a semester,
make sickening reading (see them online). All western powers and statesmen assured the Russians
that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat and that a new era of amity and
cooperation would dawn in post-Cold War Europe. US Secretary of State Jim Baker offered
'ironclad guarantees' there would be no NATO expansion. Lies, all lies. Gorbachev was a
humanist, a very decent, intelligent man who believed he could end the Cold War and nuclear
arms race. He ordered the Red Army back from Eastern Europe.
I was in Wunsdorf, East Germany,
HQ of the Group of Soviet Forces, Germany, and at Stasi secret police HQ in East Berlin right
after the pullout order was given. The Soviets withdrew their 338,000 troops and 4,200 tanks
and sent them home at lightening speed. Western promises made to Soviet leaders by President
George W. H. Bush and Jim Baker quickly proved to be empty. They were honorable men but their
successors were not. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush quickly began moving NATO into
Eastern Europe, violating all the pledges made to Moscow. The Poles, Hungarians and Czechs were
brought into NATO, then Romania and Bulgaria, the Baltic States, Albania, and Montenegro.
Washington tried to get the former Soviet Republics of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. The
Moscow-aligned government of Ukraine was overthrown in a US-engineered coup. The road to Moscow
was open.
All the bankrupt, confused Russians could do was denounce these eastward
moves by the US and NATO. The best response NATO and Washington could come up with was, 'well,
there was no official written promise.' This is worthy of a street peddler selling counterfeit
watches. The leaders of the US, Britain, France, Belgium and Italy all lied. Germany was caught
between its honor and imminent reunification. So even its Chancellor Helmut Kohl had to go
along with the West's prevarications.
At the time, I wrote that the best solution would be for
the demilitarization of formerly Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe. NATO had no need or business
to expand eastward. Doing so would be a constant provocation to Russia, which regarded Eastern
Europe as an essential defensive glacis against invasions from the West. Now, with NATO forces
on its western borders, Russia's deepest fears have been realized. Today, US military aircraft
based on the coasts of Romania and Bulgaria, former Warsaw Pact members, probe Russian airspace
over the Black Sea and the vital strategic port of Sevastopol. Washington talks about arming
chaotic Ukraine. US and NATO troops are in the Baltic, on Russia's northwestern borders. Polish
right-wingers are beating the war drums against Russia. In 1990, KGB and CIA agreed to the
principal of 'not one inch' eastward for NATO.
Former US ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock,
confirms the same agreement. Gorbachev, who is denounced as a foolish idealist by many
Russians, trusted the Western powers. He should have had a battalion of New York City garment
district shyster lawyers to document his agreements in 1990. He thought he was dealing with
honest, honorable men, like himself. Is it any wonder after this bait and switch diplomacy that
Russia has no trust in the Western powers? Moscow watches US-run NATO oozing ever eastwards.
Today, Russia's leaders firmly believe Washington's ultimate plan is to tear apart Russia and
reduce it to an impotent, pauper nation.
Two former Western leaders, Napoleon and Hitler, had
similar plans. Instead of carrying on about Hitler's duplicity after Munich, we should look at
our own shameless behavior after 1990. Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally
syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the International
Herald Tribune the Los Angeles Times, Times of London, the Gulf Times, the Khaleej Times,
Nation – Pakistan, Hurriyet, – Turkey, Sun Times Malaysia and other news sites in
Asia. https://ericmargolis.com
There are enough articles at this website in any one week or month for one to realize we do
not live in a free country being led by people who intend to keep their oath of office.
... ... ...
Socrates pointed out that only honorable men can ever find
true happiness. But that insight only points out what necessary for happiness to occur, but
not what is sufficient. Freedom is also necessary, for in the absence of freedom people are
prevented from living honorably.
Honor requires the courage to tell the truth and live in
alignment with the truth. And without that, dignity too is lost. And what about compassion.
And what about love. All of that will be lost to our posterity if we are unable to gain our
freedom. And we will not gain our freedom without striving for it with every ounce of courage
and intelligence we can find within us.
Very well said. I have been saying as much for some time. Only President Putin actually lives
by those aphorisms. I shall visit your website. Thank you
Exactly! And Gorbachev was clearly a fool to have taken up US/Nato on a gentleman's promise.
It is equally probable he was bought off or was an absolute dunce.
There is, actually, no excuse for Gorbachev's giving away the store without an iron-clad
treaty, ratified in both the USSR and the USA.
It took years to get a treaty between Hungary and romania.
It took years to get a treaty between Ukraine and Romania.
It took years for Romania and other Eastern Bloc countries to be accedted into NATO. There
were numerous contingencies to be satisfied.
And Gorbachev just says, "OK, Whatever you say, I believe you!
It does not wash.
Gorbachev was no fool. He knew the West's promises were nothing, but he also knew his country
was bankrupt. He gave Russia a breathing space, which after the pillage under Yeltsin, has
proved beneficial.
The US has threatened the USSR/Russia since 1918 when the UK, USA and their allies including
Australia invaded from 7 different directions in a 3 year campaign. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention...
Then there was the 1945 dropping of the atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima which were
more to threaten the Soviets than Japan.
Immediately following that was the occupation of South Korea and the stationing of more
atomic bombs there.
But the real clincher was the stationing of nuclear weapons in NATO countries right on the
border of the Soviet Union. The huge, highly realistic and nuclear armed Abel Archer war
games in 1983, not only nearly caused an actual nuclear war but also caused many in the
Soviet leadership to believe that resistance beyond its own borders against America was a
zero sum game.
That combined with US subversion and no doubt bribes and false promises leads to only one
conclusion. Russia has good reason to be afraid of America.
Yes, Russia has good reason to be afraid of the US on two fronts -- 1 - US terrorism and 2 -
imposition of depraved and destructive US political ideologies.
The enemy here is capitalism -- Russia (and China) pose threats to the dominance of U.S.
capital and therefore are demonized and lied to and for that matter treated in any manner
conducive to the continued dominance of U.S. capital. This is the nature of capitalist
relations between nations in its imperialist stage. It is a race to the death to crown the
chief exploiter and manipulator of collective human labor and the commodities it produces. In
this stage of capitalism if it isn't the U.S. who is scheming to rule it would be another.
The only solution is to put an end to the rule of capital.
Maybe capitalism is the foundation of the problem, but the framework is militarism, weapons
production and sales, attacking people around the world, spying on everyone, and imprisoning
the underclass to keep them from attacking the wealthy. Take away those structural elements
and the US will collapse.
Death and destruction are the only visible supports for the US as a
"country". Other countries are busily caring for refugees, addressing fossil fuel and methane
gas damage, providing health care, and advancing science and the arts. Not the US. The US
today is weapons + carnage +threatening other countries + internal political collapse.
Are we not aware that the US foreign policy is by and for the economic benefit of Wall
Street? Lies are the norm to hide WS involvement. National security is a scam to hide lies.
John Stinnett used the FOIA to obtain government documents that established FDR developed
a 17 month agenda with his Wall Street cronies to impose sanctions on Japan to force the
attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese codes were easily broken. WW One was also another false
flag operation to prevent default on huge loans WS had made to European nations.
You might also consult with John Perkin's CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN that details
his (concealed) employment by Wall Street to set up international loans with sovereign
nations designed to go into default using their control of the IMF and WB with enforcement by
the CIA and the US military. cf. Michel Chossudovsky's GLOBALIZATION OF POVERTY and his
GLOBALIZATION OF WAR.
For details on how one of the first arrangements with the CIA and Wall Street was arranged
by Allen Dulles, even before he was appointed Director of the CIA, you might read DEVILS
CHESSBOARD by Stephen Kinzer, THE BROTHERS by David Talbot, or CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME by
Douglass Valentine. Writings by Fletcher Prouty, Antony Sutton, Nomi Prins, and many more are
available. Let me know when you have finished these.
Even professor Michael Hudson has written that Wall Street's (Goldman Sachs) objective in
Greece is to destroy the nation. http://farmwars.info/?p=12078 NEW WORLD ORDER DEAD
AHEAD
Handing the territories of the USSR over to the US on a handshake, that is what Gorbachev
will be known for. It was no mistake. Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin are pieces of the same
$hit.
It's hard for me to consider that the Russians didn't assume the Americans were lying. By
withdrawing troops from a pointless deployment, they were saving resources. It was a spiritual
step up for the Russians. Since then, the Russian economy has improved substantially.
The
American government is, by my research, basically a puppet to the banking cabal that has been
profiting from wars since the 1700's.
They were behind and profited from the Russian revolution, the American Civil War, both world wars, the Cold War, the annexation of Palestine
for a Zionist state, and now present efforts to start a third world war, be it
Syria, Iraq, Libya, or wherever trouble can be stirred.
The present demonization of Putin has
been mainly continuation of business as usual. But Putin has stood up to the interests behind
the IMF, the FED, the BIS, etc., making him a hero to the entire educated world. Maybe one day
soon America will join the educated world. One can only hope.
The part of the story missing is what happened next? Hungary, Czech Republic and now Poland
are a bit miffed at the way things have gone. Other than turn their nations into a door mat
that NATO and Russia fight upon what did they get?
They got a missile launching pad that if
war breaks out will be targeted and most likely destroyed. They got an EU that if it
resembles anything, it most closely represents the old Supreme Soviet. Naw. This story has
just begun.
How could any nation trust the USA who has broken every treaty they have agreed to! England
all through history has coveted Russia for their vast natural resources.
England has always been a wicked nation.
Usually articles by Eric Margolis have more substance and are more objective. First, even
today the US cooperates with Russia on several fronts. Today Putin called Trump to thank him
for supplying to Russia by CIA of Info that led to the arrest of several Islamist terrorists
who wanted to explode a bomb in St. Petersburg. Clear example of cooperation.
As far as the promise to Gorbachev of not expanding NATO eastward, it was made to the
leader of the Soviet Union not the leader of Russia. When the Soviet Union collapsed, such
promise simply had no longer any effect since the country to which it was made no longer
existed.
Still the US and other western countries didn't want to expand NATO until Yeltsin
agreed to its expansion to Poland in August 1993 as reported for example in NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/26/world/yeltsin-u...
In that article, by the way, it is stated that even then there were big problems between
Russia and Ukraine. So to repeat all the time that the "government of Ukraine was overthrown
in a US-engineered coup" is something I didn't expect from Margolis.
I hardly think so Mr. Margolis. I would say that probably 98% of the population of Canada and
the USA are totally comatose and probably won't even hear the Last Trumpet
"... By George Washington. Originally published at Washington's Blog ..."
"... When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July 1991, Woerner told the Russians that "We should not allow [ ] the isolation of the USSR from the European community." According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, " Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view)." (See Document 30) ..."
"... Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO ..."
"... IIRC, the U.S. has, historically, not lived up to one treaty in its entire existence. Quite a remarkable accomplishment, no? Methinks the chickens are coming home to roost, yes? ..."
"... Trump's doubts about NATO, including his demands that European members pay more, are presented as evidence (it is hinted) of his collusion with the evil Putin. ..."
"... History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS (Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are, and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-( ..."
"... first draft of history ..."
"... Zero acknowledgement by any of the deep permastate types that the consent of the governed is even necessary. We the people are simply the bobbleheads to be manipulated by the lying sociopaths in power. ..."
"... Any thing like this pretty much ignores the fact that all of the Visegad four (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) were pushing VERY strongly to get included in NATO, as for them at the time it was the one clear signal that they are not in the USSRs zone of dominion any more. Anything else would just not do ..."
"... The EU has been willing to say "no" to the much more geographically important Turkey for decades. Why does Poland have more clout? ..."
"... the whole treatment of Russia as a beaten country (when they very clearly didn't feel like that) was beyong stupid, it was , and the West should have learned from history (how it ended with Germany post WW1). ..."
"... My point is that way too often I have seen this as "America does this, America does that" – without considering the wider picture. Yes, ultimately it was US decision (because they could have just keep saying no, although polish minority in the US is large – it's larger than Jewish, although I suspect there is an overlap. Also, Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and emigrated after the communist takeover, so there you go, she might have played a role in turning Clinton around) – but it wasn't that they were rushing to do it from day 0 and forcing the V4 to get into NATO just to do one over Russia. ..."
"... I suspect one of the reasons they actually agreed to it in the end was because they thought Russia was done for (who in the world cared for Russia in 1995-1998? Apart from looters, that is, both foreign and domestic), and NATO was just a fomality that would be gone in a decade. ..."
"... My point is that way too often I have seen this as "America does this, America does that" – without considering the wider picture Also, Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and emigrated after the communist takeover, so there you go, she might have played a role in turning Clinton around) – but it wasn't that they were rushing to do it from day 0 and forcing the V4 to get into NATO just to do one over Russia. ..."
"... who in the world cared for Russia in 1995-1998? Apart from looters, that is, both foreign and domestic ..."
"... "Russia is finished" ..."
"... WW2 was "won" by Russia defeating Germany, while losing 30 million people. The US "won" WW2 by bombing a quarter million citizens at Hiroshima/Nagasake, while losing maybe 250,000 soldiers in the total war effort.. ..."
"... Gentlemen prefer jackboots ? ..."
"... The U.S. and its allies made a set of commitments to Gorbachev, and then Bill Clinton broke those promises. Full stop. Bush then doubled down. Obama and Trump added Albania, Croatia and Montenegro because I guess it's now a required machismo ritual. (interestinng coincidence that accessions just happened to be scheduled for the first six months after open-seat Presidential elections, no?) The consequences of those decisions are the responsibility of the inhabitants of the White House, and no one else's. ..."
"... The recent history, with savage civil wars in Yugoslavia, Moldavia and Ukraine, shows that there are enough wacky people imbued with detestation for their neighbours to overwhelm the sane ones. Echoes of what some Ukrainian groups tell about e.g. Poles make me think we should be wary of those old grievances. ..."
"... A century ago, Russians had a positive image amongst Eastern Europeans (except Poles). The ones who were the target of contempt and detestation were the Austrians and the Turks. Perhaps the next generation will have entirely forgotten about the Russians of the Warsaw Pact, the COMECON and the "limited sovereignty". ..."
"... Lost in your one-sided account of the brave Hungarians is the fact that a non-trivial contingent of those invading the USSR during the Second World War were Hungarians. There were a lot of fascists in Hungary, and no joke about it, and they willingly participated in the invasion. ..."
"... Instead the western powers got greedy, expanded up the the Russian border, lined it with Special Forces formations and future nuclear first-strike-missiles and holds NATO tank parades literally blocks away from the Russian border. Epic fail that. ..."
"... Nice thought but the military industry can't have peace and harmony. NATO was very quick to start talking about Islam as the next threat after the fall of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The entrenched USG neocons will foster a demonization of Putin (and Russia) until they achieve WWIII; but an objective evaluation of Russian superiority in weapons suggests that theirs is a suicide mission. Peruse the saga of the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea, and the US military fear of Soviet defense missile systems, to understand. ..."
"... except that it wasn't as bad as its immediate successor. ..."
"... the reneging of Baker's promise + regime change in Iraq + regime change in Libya + near regime change in Syria demonstrate to everyone outside of Nato that the US/the West can't be trusted to honor international law -- regardless of the administration (Dem or Rep). And other countries will act accordingly ..."
"... In the book "Who Lost Russia", the author, Peter Conradi, mentions a political lobby group funded by the defense contractors to promote NATO expansion to the East in the 1990s. Does anyone have information concerning this group and its influence? ..."
"... By the late 90s, with Yeltsin in charge, Russian opposition was less of an issue. In the end, NATO stumbled into enlargement, telling itself that it would be confined to the V3/4 and that would be it. But as a number of us pointed out at the time, once you start, there's no logical point at which you stop. And so Ukraine. ..."
"... tell it to the American Natives (Indians). The US lies to eveyone to gain land and leverage. ..."
"... Another problem, and much more significant one, was that Russia adopted capitalist at the very unfortunate moment of the domination of neoliberalism which led to many catastrophic decisions. ..."
"... I find it hard to believe that Gorbachev, or indeed anyone in international politics, would trust the US government or US ruling class absent some sort of material verification, guarantees, even hostages. That requires some explanation. ..."
"... The Warsaw Pact was USSR military colonialism. NATO was US military colonialism. What does an imperial power do when its "enemy" vacates a space, asking for neutrality? It takes over, demanding tribute. The tribute in this case was neoliberalism, to the benefit of US business, especially the MIC. ..."
Posted on
December 15, 2017 by Yves Smith Yves here. This
is a more purely geopolitical piece than we normally run. The reason for featuring it is that this bit of history is vital to understanding
current US/Russian relations.
Even though experts have acknowledged that Secretary of State James Baker promised Mikhail Gorbachev that the Western powers would
not move NATO into former Warsaw Pact countries, they claimed that the Russians were naive to have taken this promise as meaningful.
The argument went that the US regarded only obligations committed to writing as binding, while the Soviets regarded firm, unambiguous
statement by parties authorized to negotiate as commitments.
As the post below describes in detail, the Russians have more basis for feeling abused by the US and its allies than the US defense
above indicates. Not only did Baker repeat his "not one inch eastward" declaration on three separate occasions, many national leaders
and top-level diplomats in NATO countries, such as Maggie Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, and Francois Mitterand, both affirmed that they
would respect the security interests of the former USSR and would also involve it in European "security structures."
And as we've said repeatedly, when the Clinton Administration broke these commitments by moving NATO eastward in 1997, cold warrior
George Kennan predicted that it would be the worst geopolitical mistake the US ever made.
The U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union at the time it broke up and many other experts have
said that the West promised Gorbachev that – if the USSR allowed German re-unification – NATO wouldn't move "one inch
closer" to Russia.
While Western leaders have long denied the promise, newly-declassified documents now prove this.
The National Security Archive at George Washington University
reported Tuesday:
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker's famous "not one inch eastward" assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet
leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders
to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified
U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University
( http://nsarchive.gwu.edu ).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in
NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were
not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being
misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates's criticism of "pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in
the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn't happen."
***
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich
Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn
(see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear "that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process
must not lead to an 'impairment of Soviet security interests.' Therefore, NATO should rule out an 'expansion of its territory
towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.'" The Bonn cable also noted Genscher's proposal to leave the East
German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO
This latter idea of special status for the GDR territory was codified in the final German unification treaty signed on September
12, 1990, by the Two-Plus-Four foreign ministers (see Document 25). The former idea about "closer to the Soviet borders" is written
down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors
(Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and
into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures . The two issues
were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve
all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did.
The "Tutzing formula" immediately became the center of a flurry of important diplomatic discussions over the next 10 days in
1990, leading to the crucial February 10, 1990, meeting in Moscow between Kohl and Gorbachev when the West German leader achieved
Soviet assent in principle to German unification in NATO, as long as NATO did not expand to the east
***
The conversations before Kohl's assurance involved explicit discussion of NATO expansion, the Central and East European countries,
and how to convince the Soviets to accept unification. For example, on February 6, 1990, when Genscher met with British Foreign
Minister Douglas Hurd, the British record showed Genscher saying, "The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example,
the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next ." (See Document 2)
Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his
meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face
with Gorbachev
Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the "not one inch eastward" formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting.
He agreed with Gorbachev's statement in response to the assurances that "NATO expansion is unacceptable." Baker assured Gorbachev
that "neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place," and that
the Americans understood that "not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have
guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO's present
military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction." (See Document 6).
Baker reported: "And then I put the following question to him [Gorbachev]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside
of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO's
jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real
thought to all such options [ .] He then added, 'Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.'" Baker added
in parentheses, for Kohl's benefit, "By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable." ( See Document 8)
Well-briefed by the American secretary of state, the West German chancellor understood a key Soviet bottom line, and assured
Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: "We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity." (See Document 9).
All the Western foreign ministers were on board with Genscher, Kohl, and Baker. Next came the British foreign minister, Douglas
Hurd, on April 11, 1990.
***
Hurd reinforced the Baker-Genscher-Kohl message in his meeting with Gorbachev in Moscow, April 11, 1990, saying that Britain
clearly "recognized the importance of doing nothing to prejudice Soviet interests and dignity." (See Document 15)
The Baker conversation with Shevardnadze on May 4, 1990, as Baker described it in his own report to President Bush, most eloquently
described what Western leaders were telling Gorbachev exactly at the moment: "I used your speech and our recognition of the need
to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners
and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive." (See
Document 17)
Baker said it again, directly to Gorbachev on May 18, 1990 in Moscow, giving Gorbachev his "nine points," which included the
transformation of NATO, strengthening European structures, keeping Germany non-nuclear, and taking Soviet security interests into
account. Baker started off his remarks, "Before saying a few words about the German issue, I wanted to emphasize that our policies
are not aimed at separating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. We had that policy before. But today we are interested in building
a stable Europe, and doing it together with you." (See Document 18)
The French leader Francois Mitterrand continued the cascade of assurances by saying the West must "create security conditions
for you, as well as European security as a whole." (See Document 19) Mitterrand immediately wrote Bush in a " cher George
" letter about his conversation with the Soviet leader, that "we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would
have a right to expect for his country's security." (See Document 20)
At the Washington summit on May 31, 1990, Bush went out of his way to assure Gorbachev that Germany in NATO would never be
directed at the USSR : "Believe me, we are not pushing Germany towards unification, and it is not us who determines the pace of
this process. And of course, we have no intention, even in our thoughts, to harm the Soviet Union in any fashion. That is why
we are speaking in favor of German unification in NATO without ignoring the wider context of the CSCE, taking the traditional
economic ties between the two German states into consideration. Such a model, in our view, corresponds to the Soviet interests
as well." (See Document 21)
The "Iron Lady" also pitched in, after the Washington summit, in her meeting with Gorbachev in London on June 8, 1990. Thatcher
anticipated the moves the Americans (with her support) would take in the early July NATO conference to support Gorbachev with
descriptions of the transformation of NATO towards a more political, less militarily threatening, alliance . She said to Gorbachev:
"We must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its security would be assured . CSCE could be an umbrella for all
this, as well as being the forum which brought the Soviet Union fully into discussion about the future of Europe." (See Document
22)
The NATO London Declaration on July 5, 1990 had quite a positive effect on deliberations in Moscow, according to most accounts,
giving Gorbachev significant ammunition to counter his hardliners at the Party Congress which was taking place at that moment.
***
As Kohl said to Gorbachev in Moscow on July 15, 1990, as they worked out the final deal on German unification: "We know what
awaits NATO in the future, and I think you are now in the know as well," referring to the NATO London Declaration. (See Document
23)
In his phone call to Gorbachev on July 17, Bush meant to reinforce the success of the Kohl-Gorbachev talks and the message
of the London Declaration. Bush explained: "So what we tried to do was to take account of your concerns expressed to me and others,
and we did it in the following ways: by our joint declaration on non-aggression; in our invitation to you to come to NATO ; in
our agreement to open NATO to regular diplomatic contact with your government and those of the Eastern European countries; and
our offer on assurances on the future size of the armed forces of a united Germany – an issue I know you discussed with Helmut
Kohl. We also fundamentally changed our military approach on conventional and nuclear forces. We conveyed the idea of an expanded,
stronger CSCE with new institutions in which the USSR can share and be part of the new Europe." (See Document 24)
The documents show that Gorbachev agreed to German unification in NATO as the result of this cascade of assurances , and on
the basis of his own analysis that the future of the Soviet Union depended on its integration into Europe, for which Germany would
be the decisive actor. He and most of his allies believed that some version of the common European home was still possible and
would develop alongside the transformation of NATO to lead to a more inclusive and integrated European space, that the post-Cold
War settlement would take account of the Soviet security interests. The alliance with Germany would not only overcome the Cold
War but also turn on its head the legacy of the Great Patriotic War.
But inside the U.S. government, a different discussion continued , a debate about relations between NATO and Eastern
Europe. Opinions differed, but the suggestion from the Defense Department as of October 25, 1990 was to leave "the door ajar"
for East European membership in NATO . (See Document 27)
***
As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally
assured Gorbachev, "We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO ." Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri
Yazov asked Major about East European leaders' interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, " Nothing of the sort
will happen ." (See Document 28)
When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July
1991, Woerner told the Russians that "We should not allow [ ] the isolation of the USSR from the European community." According
to the Russian memorandum of conversation, " Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13
of 16 NATO members support this point of view)." (See Document 30)
Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding
NATO
IIRC, the U.S. has, historically, not lived up to one treaty in its entire existence.
Quite a remarkable accomplishment, no?
Methinks the chickens are coming home to roost, yes?
Nice timing for the release of these archives on Dec 12th. Yesterday the WaPo posted an article "based on interviews
with more than 50 current and former U.S. officials" titled "Doubting the Intelligence: Trump Pursues Putin and Leaves a Russian
Threat Unchecked":
Axiomatic to the WaPohacks authors is that NATO ranks right up there with the 1776 Declaration and
the Constitution as a bedrock US principle. Trump's doubts about NATO, including his demands that European members pay more, are
presented as evidence (it is hinted) of his collusion with the evil Putin.
Naturally the new archives released by GWU play no part in the WaPo story two days later, since they aren't "fitted
to the narrative."
History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS (Putin Derangement System) journos insist
that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are, and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which
contrast so painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-(
Any time you hear or read a Russian conspiracy theory in the MSM or elsewhere, substitute the words "Jews" for "Russians" and
the words "International Jewry" for "Russia". Then re-read the sentence.
See how ugly that sentence now looks?
So why should we rightfully decry such racism against Jews or others, but applaud the same sort of racism when it is directed
against Russians?
Interesting to see these first draft of history discussions come out. At roughly the same time, Jeanne Kirkpatrick
wrote an article directed more to a public discussion that the end of the 40-year Cold War could lead to America once again becoming
a normal country in normal times . With its implication that NATO's very existence might not even be necessary anymore.
Gotta say the thing that most disappoints me is that none of these conversations ever actually occurred in any public – anywhere.
There was absolutely zero public discussion about what a post-Cold War world and its mutual obligations might look like.
Zero
acknowledgement by any of the deep permastate types that the consent of the governed is even necessary. We the people
are simply the bobbleheads to be manipulated by the lying sociopaths in power.
You cannot read this alone – I said so before, and will again.
Any thing like this pretty much ignores the fact that all of the Visegad four (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary)
were pushing VERY strongly to get included in NATO, as for them at the time it was the one clear signal that they are not in the
USSRs zone of dominion any more. Anything else would just not do.
It was a symbol, more than anything else. You need to remember that all of those countries had Soviet troops (and nuclear weapons),
some since WW2, and ALL of them had their citizens killed by Soviet troops (Czechoslovakia 1968, Hungary 1956, Poland pre-and
post WW2) within living memory.
Clinton resisted this (for a time, and I believe on advice of his security advisors), but in the end was won over. I have actually
talked to a few people from V4 who were involved in this at a quite high level, so feel like I can comment.
Ignoring the above is to me just a sort of different American bubble that says "everything (for one group good, for another
bad) that happens in the world is because America wishes so". It entirely ignores the history and the political situation in the
area at the time.
That's not to say US couldn't have played it better – but it was not "America wake up and said "let's extend NATO for the kicks
of it"" either.
Maybe Poland has more clout because the rest of Europe and the US see Poland as part of their world. Not so much Turkey, which
didn't get into any European 'game' plan until the end of the Ottoman empire, especially beginning with Ataturk. Before that,
it was more an enemy if anything. And Russia then? Well Russia has always been seen as the big, bad freak who refuses to comply
and conform, submit, to the West's deepest wishes.
I'm reading a book about the Crimean War and even in the middle of the 19th cent. there was widespread sentiment in England
that the Russians were Slavic barbarians threatening the rest of Europe with their size, expansionist ambitions and different
version of Christianity. So perhaps the current Russophobia has deeper roots than we realize and may center on Old Blightey with
the cousins along for the ride. In this scenario Poland became the buffer zone against the Russians and was much quarreled over
by the great powers.
I can't answer that – but the reality is, that US was giving V4 "No" answer when they were lobbying for it, and it took them
years to get there.
If US was so keen to do it, it would have been done by Bush, not Clinton towards the end of hist first term. Clinton told Havel
(and I have it from a person who was in the room at the time) that his military/security advisors were telling him "No".
What difference would it make to the Russians if Clinton was told not to do it and then did it anyway? You are arguing in effect
that the US had good intentions and didn't want to break its word, but that is a secondary issue. The issue here is that not only
did the US break its word, but we have been misled about it.
I was thinking about this in connection with a story about Yemen in the Intercept a couple of days ago. It seems that our ambassador
to Yemen was more hawkish than some others in the Obama Administration. I think we should know as much as possible about how such
decisions ar made and I thought the story was useful, but I can imagine how it would be spun if the mainstream press were ever
pressured into covering our horrific role in Yemen with as much energy as they pour into Russiagate. They would look for a scapegoat
like the ambassador and do everything they could to show that overall the US had good intentions.
My point is not the Russian grievance – that stands. I'd even agree with that it was a dumb move – but the whole treatment
of Russia as a beaten country (when they very clearly didn't feel like that) was beyong stupid, it was , and the West should have
learned from history (how it ended with Germany post WW1).
My point is that way too often I have seen this as "America does this, America does that" – without considering the wider picture.
Yes, ultimately it was US decision (because they could have just keep saying no, although polish minority in the US is large –
it's larger than Jewish, although I suspect there is an overlap. Also, Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and emigrated after
the communist takeover, so there you go, she might have played a role in turning Clinton around) – but it wasn't that they were
rushing to do it from day 0 and forcing the V4 to get into NATO just to do one over Russia.
I suspect one of the reasons they actually agreed to it in the end was because they thought Russia was done for (who in the
world cared for Russia in 1995-1998? Apart from looters, that is, both foreign and domestic), and NATO was just a fomality that
would be gone in a decade.
TBH, I also suspect that the first expansion Russia could have lived with – but the second expansion, especially taking in
Baltics, and any suggestion of having NATO expand more towards Russia's borders was, is and will be seen as a provocation and
a direct threat by Russia. Russia feels safe only when it has a nice plump buffer, preferrably of aligned states.
The "wider picture" is that the US was the preeminent military power at that time. That is a reality that could have been leveraged
into a transition in the terms of competition between Russia and the West. Your suggestion that four small countries should bear
any responsibility for US' failure to follow through on its assurances and to use this opening to put an end to militarized competition
and brinksmanship is impossible to take seriously. It ignores major players, e.g. the good old military-industrial complex (which
here needs to be thought of in international terms), that were seriously threatened by the possibility of a wind-down in tensions.
My point is that way too often I have seen this as "America does this, America does that" – without considering the wider
picture Also, Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and emigrated after the communist takeover, so there you go, she might have
played a role in turning Clinton around) – but it wasn't that they were rushing to do it from day 0 and forcing the V4 to get
into NATO just to do one over Russia.
Trump came into office promising better relations w/Russia and look how that turned out. It "wasn't that Trump was rushing
into" worse relations w/Russia, but it still happened and in a very big hurry or "rush.".
I'd say the "Deep State" agenda was very much in a rush to start aggression against Russia.
Was Trump? Bill Clinton? Bush? Certainly Hillary was. But maybe they were/are just puppets of the Deep State.
who in the world cared for Russia in 1995-1998? Apart from looters, that is, both foreign and domestic
The general view of Russia as a goner was actually a post-1998 phenomenon because of the financial crash, bank failures, currency
depreciation, state bankruptcy -- and the realization of how corrupt, destitute and rotten the "new democratic Russia" was. The
(in)famous article "Russia is finished" by Jeffrey Tayler was published in 2001 -- at a time when Putin had just started
taking control of things.
My parents knew the Korbels in Denver in the 50's, as an interesting aside to the conversation.
I'm on the phone with my mom right now, and she relates that the idea that Madeleine didn't know she was Jewish until 1997
is a bit preposterous as her mother looked very much the part, but it was a different era way back when, and anti-semitism was
such that you might have been turned away on a hotel room when they asked your surname, in some quarters.
"The EU has been willing to say "no" to the much more geographically important Turkey for decades. Why does Poland have more
clout?"
In my opinion, there is some sort of European nationalism, by which I mean the idea that Europe should be a single big nation
state, in most of Europe. This view is not as strong and obvious as single nation state nationalism, but it exists: for example
Giuseppe Mazzini, one of the "founding fathers" of Italy, created two secret societies: the "giovine Italia" [young Italy] for
the unification of Italy, and the "giovine Europa" [young Europe] for the unification of Europe, already in the 19th century before
Italian unification.
The whole idea of a "united Europe" is part of the reason of the EU, so it's natural that Poland, which was already perceived
as an European country, was welcome in the EU; Turkey on the other hand is not generally perceived as European so it's less welcome
(you can see this as racism, or as sense of identity, the difference is quite blurry IMHO).
Russia too would have been welcome into the EU (in my opinion), but I don't think the Russians would have accepted the loss
of sovereignity that this entail.
I think that this has to do with the fact that many (most) European countries were beaten quite hard in WW2, and even the two
european "winners" of WW2 won only in the sense that the USA and the USSR won and they happened to be on the right side of the
war at that time.
So nationalistic identity and pride in most of Europe is, IMHO, a more complex thing than it is in the USA, and Europeans mostly
welcomed the idea of a United Europe.
Perhaps not coincidentally, the ones who appear to be the less attached to the idea of a "United Europe" are the British, who
are the one who still may think they won WW2.
WW2 was "won" by Russia defeating Germany, while losing 30 million people. The US "won" WW2 by bombing a quarter million citizens
at Hiroshima/Nagasake, while losing maybe 250,000 soldiers in the total war effort..
In 1990s, Soviets were the leaving occupants, who were there for 20+ years. They were thorougly despised – that's a fact. Soviets
in 1950s were still often seen as liberators by a majority of the population, but managed to squander that away with bloody suppression
of Hungarians in 50s, and less bloody, but not less jackbooted supression of Prague Spring in 68 (in a way more, since Hungarians
actually fought, while in Prague Spring the killed were unarmed civilians)
Yes, the Soviets were hated occupiers, but so what? The stakes on this are and were enormous, both in traditional Great Power
terms, and with the added dimension of nuclear confrontation.
There were many steps that the US, UK, Germany and France could have taken to provide reassurances and security to the Eastern
European states during the ensuing 20 years short of expanding NATO membership, beginning, of course, with economic integration.
EU membership doesn't necessarily require NATO membership.
Yes, there were domestic "Captive Nations" political pressures in the U.S., but they could have been finessed with smart policy
short of NATO expansion, and in fact, they were. I know it was a terrible strain, but US politicians heroically resisted that
pressure for a full decade -- the first expansion didn't happen until 1999, more than half-way through Clinton's second term.
The U.S. and its allies made a set of commitments to Gorbachev, and then Bill Clinton broke those promises. Full stop. Bush
then doubled down. Obama and Trump added Albania, Croatia and Montenegro because I guess it's now a required machismo ritual.
(interestinng coincidence that accessions just happened to be scheduled for the first six months after open-seat Presidential
elections, no?) The consequences of those decisions are the responsibility of the inhabitants of the White House, and no one else's.
Interestingly, Eastern Europeans detest each other as well: Romanians vs. Hungarians, Poles vs. Ukrainians, Bulgarians vs.
Serbs, etc. Their execration of the historically dominating and boorish Russians is what brings them together -- as well as their
wariness of the overbearing and historically dominating Germany.
Detest is a very strong word and not accurate in this case. There are historical grievances (such as Hungarians wanting to scrap
the Trianon treaty), but most sane people have moved on Same goes for "boorish" Russians – have you ever met a Russian or read
a bit of history about Eastern Europe? And yes, the struggle against German domination dates back to 800-900AD.
The recent history, with savage civil wars in Yugoslavia, Moldavia and Ukraine, shows that there are enough wacky people imbued
with detestation for their neighbours to overwhelm the sane ones. Echoes of what some Ukrainian groups tell about e.g. Poles make
me think we should be wary of those old grievances.
Yes, I did meet Russians. Actually, I worked with them. In fact, I hired some. Very nice guys and fun lads, very intelligent,
conscientious and imaginative (my branch is IT -- I view Russians as the elite there). Not boorish at all (but a bit cynical).
On the other hand, the anecdotes they kept telling about how things were going with police, "businessmen" and politicians back
home made it very clear that those are extremely boorish -- and they were mostly the ones Eastern Europeans had to deal
with. Those stories also explain why my Russian colleagues were so reserved initially, and opened up when they realized how different
the interactions were in Western Europe.
I also had Hungarians and Romanians working with me and the Russians -- and there was
absolutely no problem. All young generation though, they were schoolboys when the Eastern bloc collapsed. Time frame: early 2000s.
A century ago, Russians had a positive image amongst Eastern Europeans (except Poles). The ones who were the target of contempt
and detestation were the Austrians and the Turks. Perhaps the next generation will have entirely forgotten about the Russians
of the Warsaw Pact, the COMECON and the "limited sovereignty".
Want to induce a spitting mad Donald Duck meltdown in a Polish person?
Simply remind them that the only reason that there are Polish people alive in Poland today is because of the Red Army. Anyone
who thinks that the Germans were going to stop at Jews is not familiar with Mein Kampf or Generalplan Ost.
This is not to excuse anything else that the Soviets did in Eastern Europe, but at the same time, it is the only reason those
Polish people are alive to nurse their russophobia.
Lost in your one-sided account of the brave Hungarians is the fact that a non-trivial contingent of those invading the USSR
during the Second World War were Hungarians. There were a lot of fascists in Hungary, and no joke about it, and they willingly
participated in the invasion. If you think that the losses in life and property caused directly by the invading Hungarian fascists
to the Russian and Soviet peoples, both military and civilian, and the war crimes with which they were likely liberally festooned
were not remembered, well, think again. And when the uprising began, those memories probably informed the severity of the Soviet
response.
The Hungarians took up arms and participated in a brutal and genocidal attack against the USSR during the Third Reich's invasion.
This was only slightly more than 10 years before the Hungarian uprising. Realistically, what did you expect the Soviets' reaction
to be to the uprising? Soviet intelligence was surely aware of the Gladio program, and this would only be seen as part and parcel
of this western-guided and sponsored program.
Were the deaths and repression that followed regrettable? Of course they were; I am not maintaining otherwise. But times were
what they were largely due to what had gone before, and to elide that from the account is unbalanced.
I am wondering what would have happened if NATO had not only expanded east but had also let the Russian Federation itself become
part of NATO. Of course countries like Estonia and Lithuania would have squawked about that but they could have been simply told
to have a large cup of shut the **** up. Either that or they would have been neutral countries with NATO to the west as well as
the east (Russia). Can you imagine?
Instead of NATO merely being the military wing of the western powers it would be one that stretched from Vladivostok right through
to the Atlantic. Such an entity would have made it its job to stabilize all the Stans to the south of it as well as Afghanistan
itself. There would never be the scenario, as is the case now, where China and Russia have been forced into a defensive alliance.
Perhaps Russia would have become part of the EU. Imagine the trade possibilities.
Instead the western powers got greedy, expanded up the the Russian border, lined it with Special Forces formations and future
nuclear first-strike-missiles and holds NATO tank parades literally blocks away from the Russian border. Epic fail that.
Nice thought but the military industry can't have peace and harmony. NATO was very quick to start talking about
Islam as the
next threat after the fall of the Soviet Union.
UK even insisted that they needed their nuclear submarines to fight islam.
The entrenched USG neocons will foster a demonization of Putin (and Russia) until they achieve WWIII; but an objective evaluation
of Russian superiority in weapons suggests that theirs is a suicide mission. Peruse the saga of the USS Donald Cook in the Black
Sea, and the US military fear of Soviet defense missile systems, to understand.
except that it wasn't as bad as its immediate successor.
In so far as the major consequences of the policies and decisions taken by Clinton actually occurred during GWB's presidency,
there is little to choose between them.
Extraordinary renditions? Clinton. Military interventions without UNO resolutions? Clinton. Complete dismantling of the financial
sector leading to untrammeled speculation? Clinton. Bombing of foreign countries as a standard policy? Clinton (though with old-fashioned
aeroplanes and long-range missiles, not drones, so there was innovation with Bush).
At the time(clinton era), I was leery of Billary, but I couldn't put my finger on it I was too busy being young and wild and
crazy, as well as keeping body and soul together.
and it was preinternet.
so one had to find alternative narratives regarding the shape of the world where one could people on street corners in the Montrose(Houston)
handing out Lyndon Larouche newsletters, later street people on the Drag in Austin handing out Zines from Zendik Farms, still
wet with ink, or the odd John Bircher at the aa meeting, the closet Klansman at the beer joint as well as more respectable outlets(William
Greider comes to mind).
More to the point of this story, growing up listening to my Half Cherokee Grandad talk about perfidy on the part of the US, I
guess I have always been immune to the usual flagwaving superpatriotism the US gov is not to be trusted. Ever.
It's only since I finally got on the Web, circa 1999, that I've been able to sift through all the chaff, and look at things like
the foreign press and FOIA Docs, that that Feeling has hardened into Certainty.
The more I learn, the more I find that I loathe my country.(see: history of the CIA, for just one egregious crime spree in our
name)
That sucks especially since expressing such dislike is the quickest way to getting lynched in the places I've spent my life(Texas
and the South).
There has been a steady stream of articles and government disclosures that have shown the Clinton years were less than the
rosy picture commonly painted.
This just adds to that narrative. Nothing is being said that we should have had more Bush the elder. But perhaps Clinton wasn't
the answer either.
the reneging of Baker's promise + regime change in Iraq + regime change in Libya + near regime change in Syria demonstrate
to everyone outside of Nato that the US/the West can't be trusted to honor international law -- regardless of the administration
(Dem or Rep). And other countries will act accordingly
In the book "Who Lost Russia", the author, Peter Conradi, mentions a political lobby group funded by the defense contractors
to promote NATO expansion to the East in the 1990s. Does anyone have information concerning this group and its influence?
Olga, you mention the MICC, while to others, it's the MIC. What discourse or determination leads you to that difference? I'm
asking because I agree, and want further documentation, and the elimination of the last "C" is constant, and a great misperception.
I was there. I've never believed that western leaders were being deliberately deceitful about NATO expansion – they were as
much victims of events as anything else, and the situation was moving incredibly fast. Remember that the conversation with Gorbachev
(Document 9) dates from February 1990, barely three months after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when western capitals were in shock,
and the priority was a peaceful reunification of Germany and the exit of Soviet forces stationed there. At that stage, as the
situation changed almost daily, nobody much was thinking about NATO expansion. Indeed, many were wondering if NATO would go on
at all.
Vlade is quite right that there was pressure from the V3 (later 4) for closer ties with the West, and this eventually turned into
membership, but this was not being discussed in early 1990, when the V3 themselves did not want to move from one military bloc
to another, and when it would have been seen as a gratuitous insult to the Soviet Union. On the other hand, there was a lot of
worry about the stability of some of the ex Warsaw Pact countries and the Soviet successor states.
The real issue was the future of NATO itself. NATO had all sorts of pragmatic political advantages for all sorts of nations, including
many in Europe, and it was necessary to find something for it to do. In the absence of a threat, enlargement was more or less
all it could do, and so that was what it spent a long time doing.
By the late 90s, with Yeltsin in charge, Russian opposition
was less of an issue. In the end, NATO stumbled into enlargement, telling itself that it would be confined to the V3/4 and that
would be it. But as a number of us pointed out at the time, once you start, there's no logical point at which you stop. And so
Ukraine.
I'm grinding my teeth when I think about that time when it was possible to effect a genuine reset of relations between Russia
and the West.\
Another problem, and much more significant one, was that Russia adopted capitalist at the very unfortunate moment of the domination
of neoliberalism which led to many catastrophic decisions.
I find it hard to believe that Gorbachev, or indeed anyone in international politics, would trust the US government or US ruling
class absent some sort of material verification, guarantees, even hostages. That requires some explanation.
The article notes dishonesty originated in the Department of Defense. Why am I not surprised?
One the most attractive features of NATO is that it emasculates all its members before the most powerful one. The strongman
gets to know what the others can do militarily and adjusts for that. Its like a secret society – once in, you can't leave even
if you want to. So joining the NATO gang for security actually brings submission. Should the strongest one withdraw into domestic
contemplation the others will just wither away. Horror of horrors, peace might break out. Doubtful? What did we see in Serbia
and Bosnia? Remind me.
The Warsaw Pact was USSR military colonialism. NATO was US military colonialism. What does an imperial power do when its "enemy"
vacates a space, asking for neutrality? It takes over, demanding tribute. The tribute in this case was neoliberalism, to the benefit
of US business, especially the MIC.
NATO was formed in 1948 response to the Soviet refusal to withdraw from the Eastern European nations it continued to occupy
with Soviet troops and control with puppet governments after WWll. The Soviet response was to form the Warsaw Pact- consisting
of those very same nations: (East) Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslavakia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania. The only time Warsaw
Pact troops were used militarily was to put down rebellions by its own members: Hungary in 1956; Czechoslavakia in 1968.
The collapse of the Soviet empire- its Eastern European "sphere of influence"- began with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989
and culminated in the collapse of the Soviet "union" in 1991. In subsequent years, all of the Warsaw Pact members, plus the illegally
annexed and occupied Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, having reclaimed their sovereignty, also made a point of
joining NATO- to ensure that a reawakened Russian bear did not return to do even more damage.
Western leaders in 1990, seeking to reassure Gorbachev regarding German unification, had no standing to negotiate away the
future foreign policies of those nations which had endured half a century of the failed Soviet experiment and were still within
the Soviet "sphere of influence". In any case, how do you keep a "promise" to a political entity- the USSR- which no longer exists?
The nations of Eastern Europe chose to join NATO; they were not coerced into doing so. Russian actions in Ukraine have validated
their pragmatism in joining NATO. Although Putin described the demise of the USSR as "the greatest geopolitical disaster of the
20th Century", Russia does not have some sort of divine right to rebuild the Soviet empire and it "sphere of influence". NATO
is not a threat to Russia; it is only a threat to those who would seek to rebuild its lost empire.
Sorry, NATO is a club, just like the EU, which has refused entry to Turkey. NATO decides who to let in. Outsiders don't have
any rights, any more than Quebec could demand to join France.
"NATO decides who to let in". Precisely! All of the former Warsaw Pact members, plus the Baltic states, asked to join NATO,
and were granted membership. Don't the nations of Eastern Europe- after fifty years of Soviet (Russian) domination, have the right
to decide their own future, and to decide which alliances to join?
Considering the post WWll history of Eastern Europe -- the Soviet domination until the Soviet collapse -- Russia complaining about
NATO expansion is tantamout to a burglar complaining that his victims have installed a burglar alarm.
Looks like Browder was connected to MI6. That means that intellignece agances participated in economic rape of Russia That's explains a lot, including his change of citizenship from US to UK. He wanted better
protection.
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War. ..."
"... Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale. ..."
"... Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme. ..."
"... Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy. ..."
"... That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along. ..."
"... By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son. ..."
"... But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post. ..."
"... There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past. ..."
"... Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen." ..."
"... So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War. ..."
"... Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false." ..."
"... First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue. ..."
"... From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available. ..."
"... Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you. ..."
"... Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis. ..."
"... Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes. ..."
"... Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it. ..."
"... I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant. ..."
"... Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it. ..."
"... Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years. ..."
"... Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product. ..."
"... "[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row? ..."
"... "The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement. ..."
"... "The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD. ..."
"... Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination. ..."
"... Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not). ..."
"... I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them. ..."
"... backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries. ..."
"... I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. ..."
"... I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up. ..."
"... The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ..."
Exclusive: A documentary debunking the Magnitsky myth, which was an opening salvo in the New Cold War, was largely blocked from
viewing in the West but has now become a factor in Russia-gate, reports Robert Parry.
Near the center of the current furor over Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 is a documentary that
almost no one in the West has been allowed to see, a film that flips the script on the story of the late Sergei Magnitsky and his
employer, hedge-fund operator William Browder.
The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented
a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death
in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S.
Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called
the first shot in the New Cold War.
According to Browder's narrative, companies ostensibly under his control had been hijacked by corrupt Russian officials in furtherance
of a $230 million tax-fraud scheme; he then dispatched his "lawyer" Magnitsky to investigate and – after supposedly uncovering evidence
of the fraud – Magnitsky blew the whistle only to be arrested by the same corrupt officials who then had him locked up in prison
where he died of heart failure from physical abuse.
Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became
a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of
President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov
even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale.
However, the project took an unexpected
turn when Nekrasov's research kept turning up contradictions to Browder's storyline, which began to look more and more like a
corporate cover story. Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky
– rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme.
So, the planned docudrama suddenly was transformed into a documentary with a dramatic reversal as Nekrasov struggles with what
he knows will be a dangerous decision to confront Browder with what appear to be deceptions. In the film, you see Browder go from
a friendly collaborator into an angry adversary who tries to bully Nekrasov into backing down.
Blocked Premiere
Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for
a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats
– the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part,
brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy.
Film director Andrei Nekrasov, who produced "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes."
As a lawyer defending Prevezon, a real-estate company registered in Cyprus, on a money-laundering charge, she
was dealing with U.S. prosecutors in New York City and, in that role, became an advocate for lifting the U.S. sanctions, The
Washington Post reported.
That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the
sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian
government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump
campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along.
By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky
Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One
source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump
Tower with Trump's son.
But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's
blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post.
There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the
Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm
the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations
in the past.
Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams,
the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen."
In an article about the controversy in June 2016, The New York Times
added that "A screening at the Newseum is especially controversial because it could attract lawmakers or their aides." Heaven
forbid!
One-Time Showing
So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion
moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially
shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment
of the New Cold War.
Financier William Browder (right) with Magnitsky's widow and son, along with European parliamentarians.
After the Newseum presentation,
a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov's documentary Russian "agit-prop" and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing
his many documented examples of Browder's misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov
of using "facts highly selectively" and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin's "campaign to discredit Mr. Browder
and the Magnitsky Act."
The Post also misrepresented the structure of the film by noting that it mixed fictional scenes with real-life interviews and
action, a point that was technically true but willfully misleading because the fictional scenes were from Nekrasov's original idea
for a docu-drama that he shows as part of explaining his evolution from a believer in Browder's self-exculpatory story to a skeptic.
But the Post's deception is something that almost no American would realize because almost no one got to see the film.
The Post concluded smugly: "The film won't grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin's increasingly
sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television
networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky's family.
"We don't worry that Mr. Nekrasov's film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully
exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions."
The Post's gleeful editorial had the feel of something you
might read in a totalitarian
society where the public only hears about dissent when the Official Organs of the State denounce some almost unknown person for
saying something that almost no one heard.
New Paradigm
The Post's satisfaction that Nekrasov's documentary would not draw a large audience represents what is becoming a new paradigm
in U.S. mainstream journalism, the idea that it is the media's duty to protect the American people from seeing divergent narratives
on sensitive geopolitical issues.
Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about
"Russian propaganda" and "fake
news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets
eagerly awaiting algorithms
that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false."
First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such
as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of
Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue.
In the meantime, there is the ad hoc approach that was applied to Nekrasov's documentary. Having missed the Newseum showing, I
was only able to view the film because I was given a special password to an online version.
From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was.
I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
But the Post's editors were right in their expectation that "The film won't grab a wide audience." Instead, it has become a good
example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we used to call "the other side of the story." The film
now, however, has unexpectedly become a factor in the larger drama of Russia-gate and the drive to remove Donald Trump Sr. from the
White House.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't
Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You
did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give
us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you.
Rob Roy , July 13, 2017 at 2:45 pm
Parry isn't keeping the film viewing a secret. He was given a private password and perhaps can get permission to let the readers
here have it. It isn't up to Parry himself but rather to the person(s) who have the rights to the password. I've come across this
problem before.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 4:01 pm
Parry wrote: I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
Any link?? I am willing to buy it.
Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:28 pm
This may not be of much help, as the film is dubbed in Russian. If you want to look for the Russian versions on the internet,
search for: "????? ?????? ????????? "????? ???????????. ?? ????????"
Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain
in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the
Russian financial crisis.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes.
incontinent reader , July 13, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Well stated.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Mr. Parry,
Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding
Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the
film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it.
Is there any chance you can share information regarding a means of accessing the forbidden film?
I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding
back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America
and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and
1984 not so distant.
Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews.
I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into
accurately reporting it.
Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars.
The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial,
at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years.
Demonizing other countries is bad enough, but wilfully ignoring the potential for a nuclear war to end not only war, but life
as we know it, is appalling.
"After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson "
Am I the only one who thinks that Max Boot should have been institutionalized for some time already? He is not well.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 9:41 pm
Anna,
Perhaps Max can share a suite with John McCain. Sadly, the illness is widespread and sometimes seems to be in the majority. Neo
con/lib both are adamant in finding enemies and imposing punishment.
Finding splinters, ignoring beams. Changing regimes everywhere. Making the world safe for Democracy. Unless a man they don't
like get elected
Max Boot parents are Russain Jews who seemingly instilled in him a rabid hatred for everything Russian. The same is with Aperovitch,
the CrowdStrike fraudster. The first Soviet (Bolshevik) government was 85% Jewish. Considering what happened to Russia under Bolsheviks,
it seems that Russians are supremely tolerant people.
Anna, Anti-Semitism will get you NOWHERE, and you should be ashamed of yourself for injecting such HATRED into the rational
discussion here.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Dear orwell
re Anna
Its not anti Semitic if its true .and its true he is a Russian Jew and its very obvious he hates Russia–as does the whole Jewish
Zionist crowd in the US.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:02 am
orwell, I wonder why the truth always turns out to be so anti-semitic!?
Taras77 , July 13, 2017 at 11:17 pm
I hope you caught the preceding tucker interview with Ralph Peters, who says he is a retired us army LTC. He came off as completely
deranged and hysterical. The two interviews back to back struck me as neo con desperation and panic. My respect for Tucker
just went up for taking on these two wackos.
Zachary Smith , July 13, 2017 at 2:51 pm
The fact that the film is being suppressed by everybody is significant to me. I don't know a thing about the "facts" of the
Magnitsky case, and a quick look at the results of a Google search suggests this film isn't going to be available to me unless
I shell out some unknown amount of money.
If the producers want the film to be seen, perhaps they ought to release it for download to any interested parties for a nominal
sum. This will mean they won't make any profit, but on the other hand they will be able to spit in the eyes of the censors.
Dan Mason , July 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm
I went searching the net for access to this film and found that I was blocked at every turn. I did find a few links which all
seemed to go to the same destination which claimed to provide access once I registered with their site. I decided to avoid that
route. I don't really have that much interest in the Magnitsky affair, but I do wonder why we are being denied access to information.
Who has this kind of influence, and why are they so fearful. I'm really afraid that we already live in a largely hidden Orwellian
world. Now where did I put that tin foil hat?
The Orwellian World is NOT HIDDEN, it is clearly visible.
Drew Hunkins , July 13, 2017 at 2:53 pm
Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and
took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary
film product.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Drew – good comment. It's very hard to "turn", isn't it? I wonder if many people appreciate what it takes to do this. Easier
to justify, turn a blind eye, but to actually stop, question, think, and then follow where the story leads you takes courage and
strength.
Especially when your bucking an aggressive billionaire.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:49 am
BannanaBoat – that too!
Zim , July 13, 2017 at 3:11 pm
This is interesting:
"In December 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary
of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank!
for which he was paid $500,000.
"Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives
were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia.
Members of Congress wrote to Mrs. Clinton in 2010 seeking to deny visas to people who had been implicated by Russian accountant
Sergei Magnitsky, who was jailed and died in prison after he uncovered evidence of a large tax-refund fraud. William Browder,
a foreign investor in Russia who had hired Mr. Magnitsky, alleged that the accountant had turned up evidence that Renaissance
officials, among others, participated in the fraud."
The State Department opposed the sanctions bill at the time, as did the Russian government. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov pushed Hillary Clinton to oppose the legislation during a meeting in St. Petersburg in June 2012, citing that U.S.-Russia
relations would suffer as a result."
"[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some
past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row?
Now I remember that Post editorial. I was one of only 20 commenters before they shut down comments. It was some heavy pearl
clutching.
afterthought couldn't the film be shown on RT America?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:11 am
Would that not enable Bowder's employees online to claim that this documentary is Russian state propaganda, which it obviously
is not because it would have been made available for free everywhere already just like RT. I believe that Nekrasov does not like
RT and RT probably still does not like Nekrasov. The point of RT has never been the truth then the alternative point of view,
as they advertised: Audi alteram partem.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 3:41 pm
"The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical
blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein
and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a
body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better
indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement.
Moreover, when one reflects on the fact much of this 'body of reporting' was shoehorned after the fact into an analytical
premise predicated on a single source of foreign-provided intelligence, that statement suddenly loses much of its impact.
"The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of
Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic.
The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and
decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed
in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD.
'President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those
who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet
nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of
'analysis of alternatives' mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments
and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA's vaunted 'Red Cell' was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments
of premises such as 'What if President Putin is telling the truth?'
'Throughout its history, the NIC has dealt with sources of information that far exceeded any sensitivity that might attach
to Brennan's foreign intelligence source. The NIC had two experts that it could have turned to oversee a project like the Russia
NIA!the NIO for Cyber Issues, and the Mission Manager of the Russian and Eurasia Mission Center; logic dictates that both should
have been called upon, given the subject matter overlap between cyber intrusion and Russian intent.
'The excuse that Brennan's source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to
them, is ludicrous!both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA's mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the
most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into
Russian meddling in the American electoral process.
'President Trump has come under repeated criticism for his perceived slighting of the U.S. intelligence community in repeatedly
citing the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction intelligence failure when downplaying intelligence reports, including the Russia
NIA, about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Adding insult to injury, the president's most recent comments were made
on foreign soil (Poland), on the eve of his first meeting with President Putin, at the G-20 Conference in Hamburg, Germany, where
the issue of Russian meddling was the first topic on the agenda.
"The politics of the wisdom of the timing and location of such observations aside, the specific content of the president's
statements appear factually sound."
Thanks Abe once again, for providing us with news which will never be printed or aired in our MSM. Brennan may ignore the NIC,
as Congress and the Executive Branch constantly avoid paying attention to the GAO. Why even have these agencies, if our leaders
aren't going to listen them?
Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:16 pm
Abe, I'm always amazed at how much you know. Thank you for sharing. If you have your comments in article form or on a site
where they can be shared, I'd really like to know about it. I've tried, but I garble the many points you make when trying to explain
historical events you've told us about.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 9:08 am
Thanks Abe. You are a real asset to us here at CN.
John V. Walsh , July 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm
Very good article! The entire Magnitsky saga has become so convoluted and mired in controversy and propaganda that it is very
hard to understand. I remember vaguely the controversy surrounding the showing of the film at the Newseum. it is especially impressive
that Nekrasov changed his opinion as fcts unfolded.
I will now try to get the docudrama and watch it.
If anyone has suggestions on how to do this, please let me know via a response. here.
Thanks.
A 'Magnitsky Act' in Canada was approved by the (appointed) Senate several months ago and is now undergoing fine tuning in
the House of Commons prior to a third and final vote of approval. The proposed law has the unanimous support of the parties in
Parliament.
A column in today's Globe and Mail daily by the newspaper's 'chief political writer' tiptoes around the Magnitsky story, never
once daring to admit that a contrary narrative exists to that of Bill Browder.
Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern
about Canada following the Cold War without examination.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Roger Annis – just little lemmings following the leader. Disgusting. I hope you posted a comment at the Globe and Mail, Roger,
with a link to this article.
Britton , July 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm
Browder is a Communist Jew, his father has a Communist past according to his background so I know I can't trust anything he
says. Hes just one of many shady interests undermining Putin I've seen over the years. His book Red Notice is just as shady. Good
reporting Consortium News. Fox News promotes Browder like crazy every chance they get especially Fox Business channel.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:06 pm
"Browder is a Communist " Hedge Fund managers are hardly Communist – that's an oxymoron.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 6:02 pm
Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also
a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state
assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution
(in name yes, but in fact not).
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 6:34 pm
ToivoS,
thank you for this background information.
My main intention had been to straighten out the blurring of calling a hedge fund manager communist. Nowadays everything gets
blurred by people misrepresenting political concepts. Either the people have been dumbed-down by misinformation or misrepresenting
is done in order to keep neo-liberalism the dominant economical model. On many occasions I had read comments of people seemingly
believing that Nationalsocialism had been some variant of socialism. Even the ideas of Bernie Sanders had been misrepresented
as socialist instead of social democratic ones.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 6:21 pm
Joe Average – Dave P. mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book entitled "Two Hundred Years Together" the other day. I've been
reading a long synopsis of this book. What Britton says appears to be quite true. I don't know about Browder, but from what I've
read the Jews were instrumental in the communist party, in the deaths of so many Russians. It wasn't just the Jews, but they played
a big part. It's no wonder Solzhenitsyn's book has been "lost in translation", at least into English, for so many years.
I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could
(with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is
getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a
stop to them.
Dave P. , July 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm
backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and
construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial
institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work
place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going
on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All
the plunder flowed into the Western Countries.
In recent history, no country went through this kind of plunder on a scale Russia went through during ten or fifteen years
starting in 1992. Russia was a very badly ravaged country when Putin took over. Means of production, finance, all came to halt,
and society itself had completely broken down. It appears that the West has all the intentions to do it again.
I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of
the crooks looting Russia. Then he got to John McCain with all his lies and bullshit and was responsible for the sanctions
on Russia. All the comments aboutBrowders grandfather andCommunist party are all true but hardly important. Except that it probably
was how Browder was able to get his fingers on the pie in Russia. And he sure did get his fingers in the pie BIG TIME.
I am a Canadian and am aware of Maginsky Act in Canada. Our Minister Chrystal Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a
few months ago both of these two you could say are not fans of Putin, I certainly don't know what they spoke about but other than
lies from Browder there is no reason she should have been talking with him. I have made comments on other forums regarding these
two meeting. Read Browders book and hopefully see the documentary that this article is about. When I read his book I knew instantly
that he was a crook a charloten and a liar. Just the kind of folk John McCain and a lot of other folks in US politics love. You
all have a nice Peacefull day
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:38 am
Joe Average – "I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further
rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's."
No, it doesn't put the blame entirely on the Jews; it just spells out that they did play a large part. As one Jewish scholar
said, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was too much of an academic, too intelligent to ever put the blame entirely on one group. But something
like 40 – 60 million died – shot, taken out on boats with rocks around their necks and thrown overboard, starved, gassed in rail
cars, poisoned, worked to death, froze, you name it. Every other human slaughter pales in comparison. Good old man, so civilized
(sarc)!
But someone(s) has been instrumental in keeping this book from being translated into English (or so I've read many places online).
Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and his other books have been translated, but not this one. (Although I just found one site
that has almost all of the chapters translated, but not all). Several people ordered the book off Amazon, only to find out that
it was in the Russian language. LOL
Solzhenitsyn does say at one point in the book: "Communist rebellions in Germany post-WWI was a big reason for the revival
of anti-Semitism (as there was no serious anti-Semitism in the imperial [Kaiser] Germany of 1870 – 1918)."
Lots of Jewish people made it into the upper levels of the Soviet government, academia, etc. (and lots of them were murdered
too). I might skip reading these types of books until I get older. Too bleak. Hard enough reading about the day-to-day stuff here
without going back in time for more fun!
I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart.
I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia
was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it
up.
Keep smiling, Joe.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:58 am
Dave P. – I told you, you are a wealth of information, a walking encyclopedia. Interesting about your co-worker. Sounds like
it was a free-for-all in Russia. Yes, I totally agree that Putin has done and is doing all he can to bring his country back up.
Very difficult job he is doing, and I hope he is successful at keeping the West out as much as he can, at least until Russia is
strong and sure enough to invite them in on their own terms.
Now go and tell your wife what I said about you being a "walking encyclopedia". She'll probably have a good laugh. (Not that
you're not, but you know what she'll say: "Okay, smartie, now go and do the dishes.")
Chucky LeRoi , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 am
Just some small scale, local color kind of stuff, but living in the USA, west coast specifically, it was quite noticeable in
the mid to late '90's how many Russians with money were suddenly appearing. No apparent skills or 'jobs', but seemingly able to
pay for stuff. Expensive stuff.
A neighbor invited us to her 'place in the mountains', which turned out to be where a lumber company had almost terra-formed
an area and was selling off the results. Her advice: When you go to the lake (i.e., the low area now gathering runoff, paddle
boats rentals, concession stand) you will see a lot of men with huge stomachs and tiny Speedos. They will be very rude, pushy,
confrontational. Ignore them, DO NOT comment on their rudeness or try to deal with their manners. They are Russians, and the amount
of trouble it will stir up – and probable repercussions – are simply not worth it.
Back in town, the anecdotes start piling up quickly. I am talking crowbars through windows (for a perceived insult). A beating
where the victim – who was probably trying something shady – was so pulped the emergency room staff couldn't tell if the implement
used was a 2X4 or a baseball bat. When found he had with $3k in his pocket: robbery was not the motive. More traffic accidents
involving guys with very nice cars and serious attitude problems. I could go on. More and more often somewhere in the relating
of these incidents the phrase " this Russian guy " would come up. It was the increased use of this phrase that was so noticeable.
And now the disclaimer.
Before anybody goes off, I am not anti-Russian, Russo-phobic, what have you. I studied the Russian language in high school
and college (admittedly decades ago). My tax guy is Russian. I love him. My day to day interactions have led me to this pop psychology
observation: the extreme conditions that produced that people and culture produced extremes. When they are of the good, loving
, caring, cultured, helpful sort, you could ask for no better friends. The generosity can be embarrassing. When they are of the
materialistic, evil, self-centered don't f**k with me I am THE BADDEST ASS ON THE PLANET sort, the level of mania and self-importance
is impossible to deal with, just get as far away as possible. It's worked for me.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 8:10 pm
backwardsevolution,
thanks for the info. I'll add the book to the list of books onto my to-read list. As far as I know a Kibbutz could be described
as a Communist microcosm. The whole idea of Communism itself is based on Marx (a Jew by birth). A while ago I had started reading
"Mein Kampf". I've got to finish the book, in order to see if my assumption is correct. I guess that this book puts blame for
Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's.
The most known Russian Oligarchs that I've heard of are mainly of Jewish origin, but as far as I know they had been too young
to be commissars at the time of the demise of the USSR. At least one aspect I've read of many times is that a lot of them built
their fortunes with the help of quite shady business dealings.
With regard to President Putin I've read that he made a deal with the oligarchs: they should pay their taxes, keep/invest their
money in Russia and keep out of politics. In return he wouldn't dig too deep into their past. Right at the moment everybody in
the West is against President Putin, because he stopped the looting of his country and its citizens and that's something our Western
oligarchs and financial institutions don't like.
On a side note: Several years ago I had started to read several volumes about German history. Back then I didn't notice an
important aspect that should attract my attention a few years later when reading about the rise of John D. Rockefeller. Charlemagne
(Charles the Great) took over power from the Merovingians. Prior to becoming King of the Franks he had been Hausmeier (Mayor of
the Palace) for the Merovingians. Mayor of the Palace was the title of the manager of the household, which seems to be similar
to a procurator and/or accountant (bookkeeper). The similarity of the beginnings of both careers struck me. John D. Rockefeller
started as a bookkeeper. If you look at Bill Gates you'll realize that he was smart enough to buy an operating system for a few
dollars, improved it and sold it to IBM on a large scale. The widely celebrated Steve Jobs was basically the marketing guy, whilst
the real brain behind (the product) Apple had been Steve Wozniak.
Another side note: If we're going down the path of neo-liberalism it will lead us straight back to feudalism – at least if
the economy doesn't blow up (PCR, Michael Hudson, Mike Whitney, Mike Maloney, Jim Rogers, Richard D. Wolff, and many more economists
make excellent points that our present Western economy can't go on forever and is kept alive artificially).
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:50 am
Joe Average – somehow my reply to you ended up above your post. What? How did that happen? You can find it there. Thanks for
the interesting info about John D. Rockefeller, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak. Some are good managers, others good at sales, while others
are the creative inventors.
Yes, Joe, I totally agree that we are headed back to feudalism. I don't think we'll have much choice as the oil is running
out. We'll probably be okay, but our children? I worry about them. They'll notice a big change in their lifetimes. The discovery
and capture of oil pulled forward a large population. As we scale back, we could be in trouble, food-wise. Or at least it looks
that way.
Thanks, Joe.
Miranda Keefe , July 14, 2017 at 5:48 am
Charlemagne did not take over from the Merovingians. The Mayor of the Palace was not an accountant.
During the 7th Century the Mayor of the Place more and more became the actual ruler of the Franks. The office had existed for
over a century and was basically the "prime minister" to the king. By the time Pepin of Herstal, a scion of a powerful Frankish
family, took the position in 680, the king was ceremonial leader doing ritual and the Mayor ruled- like the relationship of the
Emperor and the Shogun in Japan. In 687 Pepin's Austrasia conquered Neustria and Burgundy and he added "Duke of the Franks" to
his titles. The office became hereditary.
When Pepin died in 714 there was some unrest as nobles from various parts of the joint kingdoms attempted to get different
ones of his heirs in the office until his son Charles Martel took the reins in 718. This is the famous Charles Martel who defeated
the Moors at Tours in 732. But that was not his only accomplishment as he basically extended the Frankish kingdom to include Saxony.
Charles not only ruled but when the king died he picked which possible heir would become king. Finally near the end of his reign
he didn't even bother replacing the king and the throne was empty.
When Charles Martel died in 741 he followed Frankish custom and divided his kingdom among his sons. By 747 his younger son,
Pepin the Short, had consolidated his rule and with the support of the Pope, deposed the last Merovingian King and became the
first Carolingian King in 751- the dynasty taking its name from Charles Martel. Thus Pepin reunited the two aspects of the Frankish
ruler, combining the rule of the Mayor with the ceremonial reign of the King into the new Kingship.
Pepin expanded the kingdom beyond the Frankish lands even more and his son, Charlemagne, continued that. Charlemagne was 8
when his father took the title of King. Charlemagne never was the Mayor of the Palace, but grew up as the prince. He became King
of the Franks in 768 ruling with his brother, sole King in 781, and then started becoming King of other countries until he united
it all in 800 as the restored Western Roman Emperor.
When he died in 814 the Empire was divided into three Kingdoms and they never reunited again. The western one evolved into
France. The eastern one evolved in the Holy Roman Empire and eventually Germany. The middle one never solidified but became the
Low Countries, Switzerland, and the Italian states.
The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock
together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian
Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/
Since the inti-Russian tenor of the Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland is in accord with the US ziocons anti-Russian policies
(never mind all this fuss about WWII Jewish mass graves in Ukraine), "Chrysta" is totally approved by the US government.
Joe Average , July 14, 2017 at 11:32 pm
I'll reply to myself in order to send a response to backwardsevolution and Miranda Keefe.
For a change I'll be so bold to ignore gentleman style and reply in the order of the posts – instead of Ladies first.
backwardsevolution,
in my first paragraph I failed to make a clear distinction. I started with the remark that I'm adding the book "Two Hundred
Years Together" to my to-read list and then mentioned that I'm right now reading "Mein Kampf". All remarks after mentioning the
latter book are directed at this one – and not the one of Solzhenitsyn.
Miranda Keefe,
I'm aware that accountant isn't an exact characterization of the concept of a Mayor of the Palace. As a precaution I had added
the phrase "seems to be similar". You're correct with the statement that Charlemagne was descendant Karl Martel. At first I intended
to write that Karolinger (Carolings) took over from Merowinger (Merovingians), because those details are irrelevant to the point
that I wanted to make. It would've been an information overload. My main point was the power of accountants and related fields
such as sales and marketing. Neither John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs actually created their products from scratch.
Many of those who are listed as billionaires haven't been creators / inventors themselves. Completely decoupled from actual
production is banking. Warren Buffet is started as an investment salesman, later stock broker and investor. Oversimplified you
could describe this activity as accounting or sales. It's the same with George Soros and Carl Icahn. Without proper supervision
money managers (or accountants) had and still do screw those who had hired them. One of those victims is former billionaire heiress
Madeleine Schickedanz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz
). Generalized you could also say that BlackRock is your money manager accountant. If you've got some investment (that dates
back before 2008), which promises you a higher interest rate after a term of lets say 20 years, the company with which you have
the contract with may have invested your money with BlackRock. The financial crisis of 2008 has shown that finance (accountants
/ money managers) are taking over. Aren't investment bankers the ones who get paid large bonuses in case of success and don't
face hardly any consequences in case of failure? Well, whatever turn future might take, one thing is for sure: whenever SHTF even
the most colorful printed pieces of paper will not taste very well.
Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:13 pm
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks on
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks . EVER SINCE THE Emperor Constantine established the legal
position of the church in the
Many Bolsheviks fled to Germany , taking with them some loot that enabled them to get established in Germany. Lots of invaluable
art work also.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 am
Cal – read about "History's Greatest Heist" on Amazon. Sounds interesting. Was one of the main reasons for the Czar's overthrow
to steal and then flee? It's got to have been on some minds. A lot of people got killed, and they would have had wedding rings,
gold, etc. That doesn't even include the wealth that could be stolen from the Czar. Was the theft just one of those things that
happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow in the first place, get some dough and run with
it?
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:22 pm
@ backwards
" Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow"'
imo some of both. I am sure when they were selling off Russian valuables to finance their revolution a lot of them set aside
some loot for themselves.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:09 pm
Cal – thank you. Good books like this get us closer and closer to the truth. Thank goodness for these people.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 11:45 am
An autocratic oligarch would probably be a better description. He probably believes like other Synarchist financiers that they
should rightfully rule the World, and see democratic processes as heresy against "The Natural Order for human society", or some
such belief.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 12:13 pm
Looking up "A short definition of Synarchism (a Post-Napoleonic social phenomenon) by Lyndon LaRouche" would give much insight
into what's going on. People from the intelligence community made sure a copy of a 1940 army intelligence dossier labelled something
like "Synarchism:NAZI/Communist" got into Lyndon's hands. It speaks of the the Synarchist method of attacking a targeted society
from both extreme (Right-Left) ends of the political spectrum. I guess this is dialectics? I suppose the existence of the one
extreme legitimizes the harsh, anti-democratic/anti-human measures taken to exterminate it by the other extreme, actually destroying
the targeted society in the process. America, USSR, and (Sun Yat Sen's old Republic of) China were the targeted societies in the
pre-WWII/WWII yearsfor their "sins" of championing We The People against Oligarchy. FDR knew the Synarchist threat and sided with
Russia and China against Germany and Japan. He knew that, after dealing with the battlefield NAZIs, the "Boardroom" NAZIs would
have to be dealt with Post-War. That all changed with his death.The Synarchists are still at it today, hence all the rabid Russo-phobia,
the Pacific Pivot, and the drive towards war. This is all being foiled with Trump's friendly, cooperative approach towards Russia
and China.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Big Brother at work – always protecting us from upsetting information. How nice of him to insure our comfort. No need for us
to bother with all of this confusing stuff, he can do all that for us. The mainstream media will tell us all we need to know ..
(Virginia – please notice my use of irony.)
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Do you remember mike K when porn was censored, and there were two sides to every issue as compromise was always on the table?
Now porn is accessible on cable TV, and there is only one side to every issue, and that's I'm right about everything and your
not, what compromise with you?
Don't get me wrong, I don't really care how we deal with porn, but I am very concerned to why censorship is showing up whereas
we can't see certain things, for certain reasons we know nothing about. Also, I find it unnerving that we as a society continue
to stay so undivided. Sure, we can't all see the same things the same way, but maybe it's me, and I'm getting older by the minute,
but where is our cooperation to at least try and work with each other?
Always like reading your comments mike K Joe
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm
Joe,
when it comes to the choice of watching porn and bodies torn apart (real war pictures), I prefer the first one, although we
in the West should be confronted with the horrible pictures of what we're assisting/doing.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 5:27 pm
This is where the Two Joe's are alike.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 6:07 pm
I do remember those days Joe. I am 86 now, so a lot has changed since 1931. With the 'greed is good' philosophy in vogue now,
those who seek compromise are seen as suckers for the more single minded to take advantage of. Respect for rules of decency is
just about gone, especially at the top of the wealth pyramid.
Distraction from critical thinking, excellent observation ( please forget the NeoCon Demos they are responsible for half of
the nightmare USA society has become.
ranney , July 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Wow Robert, what a fascinating article! And how complicated things become "when first we practice to deceive".
Abe thank you for the link to Ritter's article; that's a really good one too!
John , July 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm
If we get into a shooting war with Russia and the human race somehow survives it Robert Parry' s name will one day appear in
the history books as the person who most thoroughly documented the events leading up to that war. He will be considered to be
a top historian as well as a top journalist.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:01 pm
"Browder, who abjured his American citizenship in 1998 to become a British subject, reveals more about his own selective advocacy
of democratic principles than about the film itself. He might recall that in his former homeland freedom of the press remains
a cherished value."
Abe – "never driven by the money". No, he would never be that type of guy (sarc)!
"It's hard to know what Browder will do next. He rules out any government ambitions, instead saying he can achieve more by
lobbying it.
This summer, he says he met "big Hollywood players" in a bid to turn his book into a major film.
"The most important next step in the campaign is to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film," he says. "I have been approached
by many film-makers and spent part of the summer in LA meeting with screenwriters, producers and directors to figure out what
the best constellation of players will be on this.
"There are a lot of people looking at it. It's still difficult to say who we will end up choosing. There are many interesting
options, but I'm not going to name any names."
What the ..? I can see it now, George Clooney in the lead role, Mr. White Helmets himself, with his twins in tow.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:56 am
Is it not impressive how money buys out reality in the modern world? This is why one can safely assume that whatever is told
in the MSM is completely opposite to the truth. Would MSM have to push it if it were the truth? You may call this Kiza's Law if
you like (modestly): " The truth is always opposite to what MSM say! " The 0.1% of situations where this is not the case
is the margin of error.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm
"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill
Browder [ ]
"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing
billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated
British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia.
He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.
"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel,
to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection
come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?
"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum,
though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how
Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a
partner but also a mentor and friend.
"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party,
the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University,
the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising
that none of it gets mentioned.
"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that
seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."
Abe – what a web. Money makes money, doesn't it? It's often what club you belong to and who you know. I remember a millionaire
in my area long ago who went bankrupt. The wealthy simply chipped in, gave him some start-up money, and he was off to the races
again. Simple as that. And I would think that the Jews are an even tighter group who invest with each other, are privy to inside
information, get laws changed in favor of each other, pay people off when one gets in trouble. Browder seems a shifty sort. As
the article says, he leaves a lot out.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 11:37 pm
In 1988, Stanton Wheeler (Yale University – Law School), David L. Weisburd (Hebrew University of Jerusalem; George Mason University
– The Department of Criminology, Law & Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Faculty of Law). Elin Waring (Yale University
– Law School), and Nancy Bode (Government of the State of Minnesota) published a major study on white collar crime in America.
Part of a larger program of research on white-collar crime supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice's
National Institute of Justice, the study included "the more special forms associated with the abuse of political power [ ] or
abuse of financial power". The study was also published as a Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper
The research team noted that Jews were over-represented relative to their share of the U.S. population:
"With respect to religion, there is one clear finding. Although many in both white collar and common crime categories do not
claim a particular religious faith [ ] It would be a fair summary of our. data to say that, demographically speaking, white collar
offenders are predominantly middle-aged white males with an over-representation of Jews."
In 1991, David L. Weisburd published his study of Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts,
Weisburd found that although Jews comprised only around 2% of the United States population, they contributed at least 9% of lower
category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes
(mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud).
Weisburg showed greater frequency of Jewish offenders at the top of the hierarchy of white collar crime. In Weisbug's sample of
financial crime in America, Jews were responsible for 23.9%.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:26 am
What I find most interesting is how Putin handles the Jews.
It is obvious that he is the one who saved the country of Russia from the looting of the 90s by the Russian-American Jewish
mafia. This is the most direct explanation for his demonisation in the West, his feat will never be forgiven, not even in history
books (a demon forever). Even to this day, for example in Syria, Putin's main confrontation is not against US then against the
Zionist Jews, whose principal tool is US. Yet, there is not a single anti-Semitic sentence that Putin ever uttered. Also, Putin
let the Jewish oligarchs who plundered Russia keep their money if they accepted the authority of the Russian state, kept employing
Russians and paying Russian taxes. But he openly confronted those who refused (Berezovsky, Khodorovsky etc). Furthermore, Putin
lets Israel bomb Syria under his protection to abandon. Finally, Putin is known in Russia as a great supporter of Jews and Israel,
almost a good friend of Nutty Yahoo.
Therefore, it appears to me that the Putin's principal strategy is to appeal to the honest Jewish majority to restrain the
criminal Jewish minority (including the criminally insane), to divide them instead of confronting them all as a group, which is
what the anti-Semitic Europeans have traditionally been doing. His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews.
I still do not know if his strategy will succeed in the long run, but it certainly is an interesting new approach (unless I do
not know history enough) to an ancient problem. It is almost funny how so many US people think that the problem with the nefarious
Jewish money power started with US, if they are even aware of it.
Cal , July 16, 2017 at 5:41 am
" His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. "
The Jews have no power without their uber Jew money men, most of whom are ardent Zionist.
And because they get some benefits from the lobbying heft of the Zionist control of congress they arent going to go against them.
In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians
and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".
The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the
Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various
publications in Russia.
Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival
Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave
one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris
Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.
In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She
was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice
of America.
HIDE BEHIND , July 13, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Gramps was decended from an old Irish New England Yankee lineage and in my youth he always dragged me along when the town meetings
were held, so my ideas of American DEmocracy stem from that background, one of open participation.
The local newspapers had more social chit chat than political news of international or for that mstter State or Federal shenanigansbut
everu member in that far flung settled communit read them from front to back; ss a child I got to read the funny and sports pages
until Gramps got finidhed reading the "News Section, always the news first yhen the lesser BS when time allowed,this habit instilled
in me the sence of
priority.
Aftrr I had read his dection of paper he would talk with me,even being a yonker, in a serious but opinionated manner, of the Editorial
section which had local commentary letterd to the editor as large as somtimes too pages.
I wonder today at which section of papersf at all, is read by american public, and at how manyadults discuss importsn news worthy
tppics with their children.
At advent of TV we still had trustworthy journalist to finally be seen after years of but reading their columns or listening on
radios,almost tottaly all males but men of honesty and character, and worthy of trust.
They wrre a part of all social stratas, had lived real lives and yes most eere well educated but not the elitist thinking jrrks
who are no more than parrots repeating whatevrr a teleprompter or bias of their employers say to write.
Wrll back to Gramps and hid home spun wisdom: He alwsys ,and shoeed by example at those old and somrtimes boistrous town Halls,
that first you askef a question, thought about the answer, and then questioned the answer.
This made the one being question responsible for the words he spoke.
So those who have doubts by a presumed independent journalist, damn right they should question his motives, which in reality begin
to answer our unspoken questions we can no longer ask those boobs for bombs and political sychophants and their paymasters of
popular media outlets.
As one who likes effeciency in prodution one monitors data to spot trends and sny aberations bring questions so yes I note this
journalist deviation from the norms as well.
I can only question the why, by looking at data from surrounding trends in order to later be able to question his answers.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:07 am
Hide Behind – sounds like you had a smart grandpa, and someone who cared enough about you to talk things over with you (even
though he was opinionated). I try to talk things over with my kids, sometimes too much. They're known on occasion to say, "Okay,
enough. We're full." I wait a few days, and then fill them up some more! Ha.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 10:53 pm
Here's a thought; will letting go of Trump Jr's infraction cancel out a guilty verdict of Hillary Clinton's transgressions?
I keep hearing Hillary references while people defend Donald Trump Jr over his meeting with Russian Natalia Veselnitskaya.
My thinking started over how I keep hearing pundits speak to Trump Jr's 'intent'. Didn't Comey find Hillary impossible to prosecute
due to her lack of 'intent'? Actually I always thought that to be prosecuted under espionage charges, the law didn't need to prove
intent, but then again we are talking about Hillary here.
The more I keep hearing Trump defenders make mention of Hillary's deliberate mistakes, and the more I keep hearing Democrates
point to Donald Jr's opportunistic failures, the more similarity I see between the two rivals, and the more I see an agreed upon
truce ending up in a tie. Remember we live in a one party system with two wings.
Am I going down the wrong road here, or could forgiving Trump Jr allow Hillary to get a free get out of jail card?
F. G. Sanford , July 14, 2017 at 12:42 am
I've been saying all along, our government is just a big can of worms, and neither side can expose the other without opening
it. But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers like it's a game of chicken. My guess is, everybody is gonna get
a free pass. I read somewhere that Preet Bharara had the goods on a whole bunch of bankers, but he sat on it clear up to the election.
Then, he got fired. So much for draining the swamp. If they prosecute Hillary, it looks like a grudge match. If they prosecute
Junior, it looks like revenge. If they prosecute Lynch, it looks like racism. When you deal with a government this corrupt, everybody
looks innocent by comparison. I'm still betting nobody goes to jail, as long as the "deep state" thinks they have Trump under
control.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 1:29 am
It's like we are sitting on the top of a hill looking down at a bunch of little armies attacking each other, or something.
I'm really screwy, I have contemplated to if Petraues dropped a dime on himself for having a extra martial affair, just to
get out of the Benghazi mess. Just thought I'd tell you that for full disclosure.
When it comes to Hillary, does anyone remember how in the beginning of her email investigation she pointed to Colin Powell
setting precedent to use a private computer? That little snitch Hillary is always the one when caught to start pointing the finger
.she would never have lasted in the Mafia, but she's smart enough to know what works best in Washington DC.
I'm just starting to see the magic; get the goods on Trump Jr then make a deal with the new FBI director.
Okay go ahead and laugh, but before you do pass the popcorn, and let's see how this all plays out.
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
Joe
Lisa , July 14, 2017 at 4:22 am
"Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see."
Joe, where does this quote originate? Or is it a paraphrase?
I once had an American lecturer (political science) at the university, and he stressed the idea that we should not believe anything
we read or hear and only half of what we see. This was l-o-o-ng ago, in the 60's.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 10:59 am
The first time I ever heard that line, 'believe nothing of what you see', was a friend of mine said it after we watched Roberto
Clemente throw a third base runner out going towards home plate, as Robert threw the ball without a bounce to the catcher who
was standing up, from the deep right field corner of the field .oh those were the days.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 9:12 pm
JT,
Clemente had an unbelievable arm! The consummate baseball player I have family in western PA, an uncle your age in fact who remembers
Clemente well. Roberto also happened to be a great human being.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm
I got loss at Forbes Field. I was seven years old, it was 1957. I got separated from my older cousin, we got in for 50 cents
to sit in the left field bleachers. Like I said I loss my older cousin so I walked, and walked, and just about the time I wanted
my mum the most I saw daylight. I followed the daylight out of the big garage door, and I was standing within a foot of this long
white foul line. All of a sudden this Black guy started yelling at me in somekind of broken English to, 'get off the field, get
out of here'. Then I felt a field ushers hand grab my shoulder, and as I turned I saw my cousin standing on the fan side of the
right field side of the field. The usher picked me up and threw me over to my cousin, with a warning for him to keep his eye on
me. That Black baseball player was a young rookie who was recently just drafted from the then Brooklyn Dodgers .#21 Roberto Clemente.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:12 pm
You were a charmed boy and now you are a charmed man. Great story life is a Field of Dreams sometimes.
Zachary Smith , July 15, 2017 at 9:00 pm
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
My introduction to this had the wording the other way around:
"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."
This was because the workplace was saturated with rumors, and unfortunately there was a practice of management and union representatives
"play-acting" for their audience. So what you "saw" was as likely as not a little theatrical production with no real meaning whatever.
The two fellows shouting at each other might well be laughing about it over a cup of coffee an hour later.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 am
Sanford – "But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers " That's funny writing.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm
yessir, love it
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:41 am
Absolutely, one of the best political metaphors ever (unfortunately works in English language only).
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm
BTW, they are flashing at each other not only can openers then also jail cells and grassy knolls these days. But the can openers
would still be most scary.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 2:13 am
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options,
have been allowed to flourish here.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs,
criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:00 am
Abe – wow, what a story. I guess it's lucrative to "never forget"! Bandits.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
NCJRS Abstract
The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the
NCJRS Abstracts Database. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary
loans, or in a local library.
NCJ Number: NCJ 006180
Title: CRIMINALITY AMONG JEWS – AN OVERVIEW
United States of America
Journal: ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY Volume:6 Issue:2 Dated:(SUMMER 1971) Pages:1-39
Date Published: 1971
Page Count: 15
.
Abstract: THE CONCLUSION OF MOST STUDIES IS THAT JEWS HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE. IT IS LOWER THAN THAT OF NON-JEWS TAKEN AS A WHOLE,
LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS,
HOWEVER, THE JEWISH CRIME RATE TENDS TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT OF NONJEWS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS FOR WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES,
THAT IS, COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIALLY RELATED CRIMES, SUCH AS FRAUD, FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY, AND EMBEZZLEMENT.
Index Term(s): Behavioral and Social Sciences ; Adult offenders ; Minorities ; Behavioral science research ; Offender classification
Country: United States of America
Language: English
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Cal – that does not surprise me at all. Of course they would be where the money is, and once you have money, you get nothing
but the best defense. "I've got time and money on my side. Go ahead and take me to court. I'll string this thing along and it'll
cost you a fortune. So let's deal. I'm good with a fine."
A rap on the knuckles, a fine, and no court case, no discovery of the truth that the people can see. Of course they'd be there.
That IS the only place to be if you want to be a true criminal.
Skip Scott , July 15, 2017 at 1:57 pm
Thanks again Abe, you are a wealth of information. I think you have to allow for anyone to make a mistake, and Bharara has
done a lot of good.
Longtime Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz and his team have directed their grievance at Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior
White House adviser.
Citing a person familiar with Trump's legal team, The Times said Kasowitz has bristled at Kushner's "whispering in the president's
ear" about stories on the Russia investigation without telling Kasowitz and his team.
The Times' source said the attorneys, who were hired as private counsel to Trump in light of the Russia investigation, view Kushner
"as an obstacle and a freelancer" motivated to protect himself over over Trump. The lawyers reportedly told colleagues the work
environment among Trump's inner circle was untenable, The Times said, suggesting Kasowitz could resign
Second
Who thinks Jared works for Trump? I don't.
Jared works for his father Charles Kushner, the former jail bird who hired prostitutes to blackmail his brother in law into not
testifying against him. Jared spent every weekend his father was in prison visiting him.,,they are inseparable.
Third
So what is Jared doing in his WH position to help his father and his failing RE empire?
Trying to get loans from China, Russia, Qatar,Qatar
And why Is Robert Mueller Probing Jared Kushner's Finances?
Because of this no doubt:..seeking a loan for the Kushners from a Russian bank.
The White House and the bank have offered differing accounts of the Kushner-Gorkov sit-down. While the White House said Kushner
met Gorkov and other foreign representatives as a transition official to "help advance the president's foreign policy goals."
Vnesheconombank, also known as VEB, said it was part of talks with business leaders about the bank's development strategy.
It said Kushner was representing Kushner companies, his family real estate empire.
Jared Kushner 'tried and failed to get a $500m loan from Qatar before http://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas › US politics
2 days ago –
Jared Kushner tried and failed to secure a $500m loan from one of Qatar's richest businessmen, before pushing his father-in-law
to toe a hard line with the country, it has been alleged. This intersection between Mr Kushner's real estate dealings and his
father-in-law's
The Kushners are about to lose their shirts..unless one of those foreign country's banks gives them the money.
At Kushners' Flagship Building, Mounting Debt and a Foundered Deal https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/nyregion/kushner-companies-666-fifth-avenue.html
The Fifth Avenue skyscraper was supposed to be the Kushner Companies' flagship in the heart of Manhattan -- a record-setting $1.8
billion souvenir proclaiming that the New Jersey developers Charles Kushner and his son Jared were playing in the big leagues.
And while it has been a visible symbol of their status, it has also it has also been a financial headache almost from the start.
On Wednesday, the Kushners announced that talks had broken off with a Chinese financial conglomerate for a deal worth billions
to redevelop the 41-story tower, at 666 Fifth Avenue, into a flashy 80-story ultraluxury skyscraper comprising a chic retail mall,
a hotel and high-priced condominiums"
Get these cockroaches out of the WH please.,,,Jared and his sister are running around the world trying to get money in exchange
for giving them something from the Trump WH.
The NYC skyline displays 666 in really really really HUGE !!!! numbers. Perhaps the USA government as Cheney announced has
gone to the very very very DARK side.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Yea 666 probably isn't a coincidence .lol
Chris Kinder , July 14, 2017 at 12:15 am
What I think most comments overlook here is the following: the US is the primary imperialist aggressor in the world today,
and Russia, though it is an imperialist competitor, is much weaker and is generally losing ground. Early on, the US promised that
NATO would not be extended into Eastern Europe, but now look at what's happened: not only does the US have NATO allies and and
missiles in Eastern Europe, but it also engineered a coup against a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, and is now trying to drive
Russia out of Eastern Ukraine, as in Crimea and the Donbass and other areas of Eastern Ukraine, which are basically Russian going
back more than a century. Putin is pretty mild compered to the US' aggressive stance. That's number one.
Number two is that the current anti-Russian hysteria in the US is all about maintaining the same war-mongering stance against
Russia that existed in the cold war, and also about washing clean the Democratic Party leadership's crimes in the last election.
Did the Russians hack the election? Maybe they tried, but the point is that what was exposed–the emails etc–were true information!
They show that the DNC worked to deprive Bernie Sanders of the nomination, and hide crimes of the Clintons'! These exposures,
not any Russian connection to the exposures, are what really lost Hillary the election.
So, what is going on here? The Democrats are trying to hide their many transgressions behind an anti-Russian scare, why? Because
it is working, and because it fits in with US imperialist anti-Russian aims which span the entire post-war period, and continue
today. And because it might help get Trump impeached. I would not mind that result one bit, but the Democrats are no alternative:
that has been shown to be true over and over again.
This is all part of the US attempt to be the dominant imperialist power in the world–something which it has pursued since the
end of the last world war, and something which both Democrats and Republicans–ie, the US ruling class behind them–are committed
to. Revolutionaries say: the main enemy is at home, and that is what I say now. That is no endorsement of Russian imperialism,
but a rejection of all imperialism and the capitalist exploitative system that gives rise to it.
Thanks for your attention -- Chris Kinder
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:58 am
Chris – good post. Thanks.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 11:35 am
Chris, I think most commenters here are aware of everything you summarized above, but we just don't put all that in each individual
post.
Paranam Kid , July 14, 2017 at 6:40 am
It is ironic that Browder on his website describes himself as running a battle against corporate corruption in Russia, and
there is a quote by Walter Isaacson: "Bill Browder is an amazing moral crusader".
http://www.billbrowder.com/bio
HIDE BEHIND , July 14, 2017 at 10:02 am
One cannot talk of Russian monry laundering in US without exposing the Jewish Israeli and many AIPAC connections.
I studied not so much the Jewish Orthodoxy but mainly the evolution of noth their outlook upon G.. but also how those who do not
believe in a G.. and still keep their cultural cohesiveness
The largest money laundering group in US is
both Jewish and Israeli, and while helping those of their cultural similarities, their ecpertise goes. Very deep in Eastern U.S.
politics and especially strong in all commercial real estate, funding, setting up bribes to permitting officials,contractors and
owners of construvtion firms.
Financials some quite large are within this Jew/Israel connections, as all they who offshore need those proper connections to
do so. take bribes need the funding cleaned and
flow out through very large tax free Jewish Charity Orgd, the largest ones are those of Orthodox.
GOV Christie years ago headed the largest sting operation to try and uproot what at that time he believed was just statewide tax
fraud and laundering operations, many odd cash flows into political party hacks running for evrry gov position electefd or appointed.
Catchng a member of one of the most influential Orthofox familys mrmbers, that member rolled on many many indivifuals of his own
culture.
It was only when Vhristies investigative team began turning up far larger cases of laundering and political donations thst msinly
centered in NY Stste and City, fid he then find out howuch power this grouping had.
Soon darn near every AIPAC aided elected politico from city state and rspecially Congress was warning him to end investigation.
Which he did.
His reward was for his fat ass to be funded for a run towards US Presidency, without any visibly open opposition by that cultural
grouping.
No it is not odd for Jewery to charge goyim usury or to aid in political schemes that advance their groups aims.
One thing to remenber by the Bible thumpers who delay any talks of Israel ; Christian Zionist, is that to be of their culture
one does not have to believe in G.
There are a few excellent books written about early days Jewish immigrant Pre Irish andblre Sicilian mafias.
The Jewish one remainst to this day but are as well orgNized as the untold history of what is known as "The Southern mafia.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Hide Behind – fascinating! I guess if we ever knew half of what goes on behind the scenes, we'd be shocked. We only ever know
things like this exist when people like you enlighten us, or when there's a blockbuster movie about it. Thanks.
Deborah Andrew , July 14, 2017 at 10:03 am
With great respect and appreciation for your writing about the current unsubstantiated conversations/writing about 'Russia-gate'
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts. Analysis and opinions,
that include the facts, may differ. However, it is the readers who will evaluate the varied analysis and opinions when they include
all the facts known. I raise this question, as it seems to me that we have a binary approach to our thinking and decision making.
Something is either good or bad, this or that. Sides are taken. Labels are added (such as conservative and progressive). Would
we not be wiser and would our decision making not be wiser if it were based on a set of principles? My own preference: the precautionary
principle and the principle of do no harm. I am suggesting that we abandon the phrase and notion of the 'other side of the story'
and replace it with: based on the facts now known, or, based on all the facts revealed to date or, until more facts are revealed
it appears
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts.
Replying to a question with another question isn't really good form, but given my knowledge level of this case I can see no
alternative.
How do you propose to determine the "facts" when virtually none of the characters involved in the affair appear trustworthy?
Also, there is a lot of evidence (displayed by Mr. Parry) that another set of "characters" we call the Mainstream Media are
extremely biased and one-sided with their coverage of the story.
Again – Where am I going to find those "facts" you speak of?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:52 am
Spot on.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm
Deborah Andrew – good comment, but the problem is that we never seem to get "the other side of the story" from the MSM. You
are right in pointing out that "the other side of the story" probably isn't ALL there is (as nothing is completely black and white),
but at least it's something. The only way we can ever get to the truth is to put the facts together and question them, but how
are you going to do that when the facts are kept away from us?
It can be very frustrating, can't it, Deborah? Cheers.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm
Nice comment.
None of us can know the exact truth of anything we ourselves haven't seen or been involved in. The best we can do is try to
find trusted sources, be objective, analytical and compare different stories and known the backgrounds and possible agendas of
the people involved in a issue or story.
We can use some clues to help us cull thru what we hear and read.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of
the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players,
or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public
figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the
topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors
and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially
well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can
associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which
can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy
them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real
issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though
other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal',
'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and
so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before
an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments
where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation
or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal
agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon'
and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely
why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have
any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for
maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility,
someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should
the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt
with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can
usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues
-- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess'
with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it
all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later,
and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner
sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players
and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose
interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which
forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which
works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions
in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion
with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well
with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more
key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them
into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat
less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses
the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what
material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for
the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed
or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically
deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made
by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations
-- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies
for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to
be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful
evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the
matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be
used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to
forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you
must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution
so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction
of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging
their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to
avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these.
In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000 – formerly SEVEN Traits)
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references
or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their
authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators
supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. .
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior
record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the
topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally
in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.
Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute
opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe
JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a
single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone
on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior
motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and
persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment,
ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will
deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms
of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek
to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really
knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep
within.
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Wth respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen
to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players
can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE
READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum
of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get
permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay
– the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important
with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Michael Kenny , July 14, 2017 at 11:22 am
I don't really see Mr Parry's point. The banning of Nekrasov's film isn't proof of the accuracy of its contents and even less
does it prove that anything that runs counter to Nekrasov's argument is false. Nor does proving that a mainstream meida story
is false prove that an internet story saying the opposite is true. "A calls B a liar. B proves that A is a liar. That proves that
B is truthful." Not very logical! What seems to be established is that the lawyer in question represents a Russian-owned company,
a money-laundering prosecution against which was settled last May on the basis of what the company called a "surprise" offer from
prosecutors that was "too good to refuse". This "Russian government attorney" (dixit Goldstone) had information concerning illegal
campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr jumped at it and it makes no difference whether he was tricked
or even whether he actually got anything, his intent was clear. In addition DNC "dirt" did indeed appear on the internet via Wikileaks,
just as "dirt" appeared in the French election. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate and "Juniorgate" confirms MacronLeaks. The question
now is did Trump, as president, intervene to bring about this "too good to refuse" offer? That question cannot just be written
off with the "no evidence" argument.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm
God, you are persistent if nothing else. Keep repeating the same lie until it is taken as true, just like the MSM. You say
that Russia-gate, Macron leaks, etc can't be written off with the "no evidence" argument (how is that logical?), and then you
trash a film you haven't even seen because it doesn't fit your narrative. Maybe some evidence is provided in the film, did you
consider that possibility? That fact that Nekrasov started out to make a pro Broder film, and then switched sides, leads me to
believe he found some disturbing evidence. And if you look into Nekrasov you will find that he is no fan of Putin, so one has
to wonder what his motive is if he is lying.
I am wondering if you ever look back at previous posts, because you never reply to a rebuttal. If you did, you would see that
you are almost universally seen by the commenters here as a troll. If you are being paid, I suppose it might not matter much to
you. However, your employer should look for someone with more intelligent arguments. He is wasting his money on you.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 9:27 pm
Propaganda trolls attempt to trash the information space by dismissing, distracting, diverting, denying, deceiving and distorting
the facts.
The trolls aim at confusing rather than convincing the audience.
The tag team troll performance of "Michael Kenny" and "David" is accompanied by loud declarations that they have "logic" on
their side and "evidence" somewhere. Then they shriek that they're being "censored".
Propaganda trolls target the comments section of independent investigative journalism sites like Consortium News, typically
showing up when articles discuss the West's "regime change" wars and deception operations.
Pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda trolls also strive to discredit websites, articles, and videos critical of Israel and Zionism.
Hasbara smear tactics have intensified due to increasing Israeli threats of military aggression, Israeli collusion with the United
States in "regime change" projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and Israeli links to international organized crime
and terrorism in Syria.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:04 am
Gee Abe, you are a magician (and I thought that you only quote excellent articles). Short and sharp.
Abe , July 15, 2017 at 4:15 pm
When they have a hard time selling that they're being "censored" (after more than a dozen comments), trolls complain that they're
being "dismissed" and "invalidated" by "hostile voices".
exiled off mainstreet , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons
to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence conspiracy
theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky law, not
the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. Though
it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something
they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 pm
I think as you say Skip that most on this blog have seen through Michael Kenny's stuff. Nobody's buying it. He's harmless.
If he's here on his own dime, if we don't feed him, he will get bored and go away. If he's being payed, he may persist, but so
what. Sometimes I check the MSM just to see what the propaganda line is. Kenny is like that; his shallow arguments tell me what
we must counter to wake people up.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Yeah mike k, I know you're right. I don't know why I let the guy get under my skin. Perhaps it's because he never responds
to a rebuttal.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:14 am
Then you would have to waste more time rebutting the (equally empty) rebuttal.
The second thing is that many trolls suffer from DID, that is the Dissociative Identity Disorder, aka sock puppetry. There
is a bit of similarity in argument between David and Michael and HAWKINS, only one of them rebuts quite often.
Another excellent article! I wrote a very detailed
blog post
in which I methodically take apart the latest "revelation" about Donald Trump Jr.'s emails. I talk a lot about the Magnitsky
Act, which is very relevant to this whole story.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm
I always like reading your articles Philippe, you have a real talent. Maybe read what I wrote above, but I'm sensing this Trump
Jr affair will help Hillary more than anything, to give her a reprieve from any further FBI investigations. I mean somehow, I'm
sure by Hillary's standards and desires, that this whole crazy investigation thing has to end. So, would it not seem reasonable
to believe that by allowing Donald Jr to be taken off the hook, that Hillary likewise will enjoy the taste of forgiveness?
Tell me if you think this Donald Trump Jr scandal could lead to this Joe
PS if so this could be a good next article to write there I go telling the band what to play, but seriously if this Russian
conclusion episode goes on much longer, could you not see a grand bargain and a deal being made?
Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you like the blog. I wasn't under the impression that Clinton was under any particular
danger from the Justice Department, but even if she was, she doesn't have the power to stop this Trump/Russia collusion nonsense
because it's pushed by a lot of people that have nothing to do with her except for the fact that they would have preferred her
to win.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 6:48 pm
Excellent summary and analysis, Philippe. Key observation:
"as even the New York Times admits, there is no evidence that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr., Jared
Kushner and Paul Manafort for 20-30 minutes on 9 June 2016, provided any such information during that meeting. Donald Trump Jr.
said that, although he asked her about it, she didn't give them anything on Clinton, but talked to him about the Magnitsky Act
and Russia's decision to block adoption by American couples in retaliation. Of course, if we just had his word, we'd have no particularly
good reason to believe him. But the fact remains that no documents of the sort described in Goldstone's ridiculous email ever
surfaced during the campaign, which makes what he is saying about how the meeting went down pretty convincing, at least on this
specific point. It should be noted that Donald Trump Jr. has offered to testify under oath about anything related to this meeting.
Moreover, he also said during the interview he gave to Sean Hannity that there was no follow-up to this meeting, which is unlikely
to be a lie since he must know that, given the hysteria about this meeting, it would come out. He may not be the brightest guy
in the world, but surely he or at least the people who advised him before that interview are not that stupid."
Your own necpluribus article was one of the best I've seen summarising the whole controversy, and your exhaustive responses
to the pro-deep state critics was edifying. I am now convinced that your view of Veselnitskaya's role in the affair and the nature
her connections to the dossier drafting company GPS being based on their unrelated work on the magnitsky law is accurate.
"Bill Browder, born into a notable Jewish family in Chicago, is the grandson of Earl Browder, the former leader of the Communist
Party USA,[2] and the son of Eva (Tislowitz) and Felix Browder, a mathematician. He grew up in Chicago, Illinois, and attended
the University of Chicago where he studied economics. He received an MBA from Stanford Business School[3] in 1989 where his classmates
included Gary Kremen and Rich Kelley. In 1998, Browder gave up his US citizenship and became a British citizen.[4] Prior to setting
up Hermitage, Browder worked in the Eastern European practice of the Boston Consulting Group[5] in London and managed the Russian
proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers.[6]"
Rake , July 15, 2017 at 9:13 am
Successfully keeping a salient argument from being heard is scary, given the social media and alternative media players who
are all ripe to uncover a bombshell. Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks.
"Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks."
Agree.
P. Clark , July 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm
When Trump suggested that a Mexican-American judge might be biased because of this ethnicity the media said this was racist.
Yet these same outlets like the New York Times are now routinely questioning Russian-American loyalty because of their ethnicity.
As usual a ridiculous double standard. Basically the assumption is all Russians are bad. We didn't even have this during the cold
war.
Cal , July 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm
Yes indeed P. Clark .that kind or hypocrisy makes my head explode!
MichaelAngeloRaphaelo , July 15, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Enough's Enough
STOP DNC/DEMs
#CryBabyFakeNewsBS
Support Duly ELECTED
@POTUS @realDonaldTrump
#BoycottFakeNewsSponsors
#DrainTheSwamp
#MAGA
Wow, I just learned via this article that in US Nekrasov is labeled as "pro-Kremlin" by WaPo. That's just too funny. He's in
a relationship with a Finnish MEP Heidi Hautala, who is very well known for her anti-Russia mentality. Nekrasov is defenetly anti-Kremlin
if something. He was supposed to make an anti-Kremlin documentary, but the facts turned out to be different than he thought, but
still finished his documentary.
The lengths to which the Neo Conservative War Cabal will go to destroy freedom of speech and access to alternative news sources
underscores that the United States is becoming an Orwellian agitation-propaganda police state equally dedicated to igniting World
War III for Netanyahu, the Central Banks, our Wahhabic Petrodollar Partners, and a pipeline consortium or two. The Old American
Republic is dead.
Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm
Interesting to note that each and everyone of David's comments were bleached from this page. Looks like he was right about
the censorship. Sad.
Duly noted Abe. But you should adhere to the first part of the statement that you somehow forgot to include:
From Editor Robert Parry: At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid
abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia),
and allegations that are unsupported by facts.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:06 pm
My favorite was David's claim that he contributed to this zine whilst it was publishing articles not to his liking (/sarc).
I kindly reminded him that people pay much more money to have publishing the way they like it – for example how much Bezos paid
for Washington Post, or Omidyar to establish The Intercept.
Except for such funny component, David's comments were totally substance free and useless. Nothing lost with bleaching.
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:44 am
You're practicing disinformation. He actually said he contributed early on and had problems with the recent course of the CN
trajectory. Censorship is cowardly.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm
Consortium News welcomes substantive comments.
"David" was presenting allegations unsupported by facts and disrupting on-topic discussion.
Violations of CN comment policy are taken down by the moderator. Period. It has nothing to do with "censorship".
Stop practicing disinformation and spin, "Roy G Biv".
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:57 pm
I stopped contributing after the unintellectual dismissal of scientific 911 truthers. And it's easy for you to paint over my
comments as they have been scrubbed. There was plenty of useful substance, it just ran against the tide. Sorry you didn't appreciate
it the contrary viewpoint or have the curiosity to read the backstory.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 5:02 pm
The cowardly claim of "censorship".
The typical troll whine is that their "contrary viewpoint" was "dismissed" merely because it "ran against the tide".
No. Your allegations were unsupported by facts. They still are.
Martyrdom is just another troll tactic.
dub , July 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm
torrent for the film?
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:56 am
Here is the pdf of the legal brief about the Magnitsky film submitted by Senator Grassly to Homeland Security Chief. Interesting
read and casts doubt on the claims made in the film, refutes several claims actually. Skip past Chuck Grassly's first two page
intro to get to the meat of it. If you are serious about a debate on the merits of the case, this is essential reading.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the brief.
But forget the spin from "Roy G Biv" because the brief actually refutes nothing about Andrei Nekrasov's film.
It simply notes that the Russian government was understandably concerned about "unscrupulous swindler" and "sleazy crook" William
Browder.
After your finished reading the brief, try to remember any time when Congress dared to examine a lobbying campaign undertaken
on behalf of Israeli (which is to say, predominantly Russian Jewish) interests, the circumstances surrounding a pro-Israel lobbying
effort and the potential FARA violations involved. or the background of a Jewish "Russian immigrant".
Note on page 3 of the cover letter the CC to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary. Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman,
a surgeon. Feinstein's paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family,
were from Saint Petersburg, Russia. While they were of German-Jewish ancestry, they practiced the Russian Orthodox faith as was
required for Jews residing in Saint Petersburg.
In 1980, Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator,
with an estimated net worth of US$26 million. By 2005 her net worth had increased to between US$43 million and US$99 million.
Like the rest of Congress, Feinstein knows the "right way" to vote.
David , July 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm
So you're saying because a Jew Senator was CC'd it invalidates the information? Read the first page again. The Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee is obligated to CC these submissions to the ranking member of the Committee, Jew heritage or not.
Misinformation and disinformation from you Abe, or generously, maybe lazy reading. The italicized unscrupulous swindler and sleazy
crook comments were quoting the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the Washington screening of Nekrasov's film and demonstrating
Russia's intentions to discredit Browder. You are practiced at the art of deception. Hopefully readers will simply look for themselves.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 2:11 pm
Ah, comrade "David". We see you're back muttering about "disinformation" using your "own name".
My statements about Senator Feinstein are entirely supported by facts. You really should look into that.
Also, please note that quotation marks are not italics.
And please note that the Russian Foreign Minister is legally authorized to present the view of the Russian government.
Browder is pretty effective at discrediting himself. He simply has to open his mouth.
I encourage readers to look for themselves, and not simply take the word of one Browder's sockpuppets.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm
It won't last papushka. Every post and pended moderated post was scrubbed yesterday, to the cheers of you and your mean spirited
friends. But truth is truth and should be defended. So to the point, I reread the Judiciary Committee linked document, and the
items you specified are in italics, because the report is quoting Lavrov's comments to a Moscow news paper and "another paper"
as evidence of Russia's efforts to undermine the credibility and standing of Browder. This is hardly obscure. It's plain as day
if you just read it.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm
Also Abe, before I get deleted again, I don't question any of you geneological description of Feinstein. I merely pointed out
that she is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and it is normal for the Chairman of the Committee (Republican)
to CC the ranking member. Unless of course it is Devin Nunes, then fairness and tradition goes out the window.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:01 pm
It's plain as day, "David" or whatever other name you're trolling under, that you're here to loudly "defend" the "credibility"
and "standing" of William Browder.
Sorry, but you're going to have to "defend" Browder with something other than your usual innuendo, blather about 9-11, and
slurs against RP.
Otherwise it will be recognized for what it is, repeated violation of CN comment policy, and taken down by the moderator again.
Good luck to any troll who wants to "defend" Browder's record.
But you're gonna have to earn your pay with something other than your signature unsupported allegations, 9-11 diversions, and
the "non-Jewish Russian haters gonna hate" propaganda shtick.
David , July 16, 2017 at 5:07 pm
I wish you would stop with the name calling. I am not a troll. I have been trying to make simple rational points. You respond
by calling me names and wholly ignoring and/or misrepresenting and obfuscating easily verifiable facts. I suspect you are the
moderator of this page, and if so am surprised by your consistent negative references to Jews. I'm not Jewish but you're really
over the top. Of course you have many friends here so you get little push back, but I really hope you are not Bob or Sam.
Anonymous , July 16, 2017 at 10:26 am
We can see that it was what can be considered to be a Complex situation, where it was said that someone had Dirt on Hillary
Clinton, but there was No collusion and there was No attempted collusion, but there was Patriotism and Concern for Others during
a Perplexing situation.
This is because of what is Known as Arkancide, and which is associated with some People who say they have Dirt on the Clintons.
The Obvious and Humane thing to do was to arrange to meet the Russian Lawyer, who it was Alleged to have Dirt on Hillary Clinton,
regardless of any possible Alleged Electoral advantage against Hillary Clinton, and until further information, there may have
been some National Security Concerns, because it was Known that Hillary Clinton committed Espionage with Top Secret Information
on her Unauthorized, Clandestine, Secret Email Server, and the Obvious cover up by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and
so it was with this background that this Complex situation had to be dealt with.
This is because there is Greater Protection for a Person who has Dirt or Alleged Dirt on the Clintons, if that Information
is share with other People.
This is because it is a Complete Waste of time to go to the Authorities, because they will Not do anything against Clinton
Crimes, and a former Haitian Government Official was found dead only days before he was to give Testimony regarding the Clinton
Foundation.
We saw this with Seth Rich, where the Police Videos has been withheld, and we have seen the Obstruction in investigating that
Crime.
The message to Leakers is that Seth Rich was taken to hospital and Treated and was on his way to Fully Recovering, but he died
in hospital, and those who were thinking of Leaking Understood the message from that.
There was Also concern for Rob Goldstone, who Alleged that the Russian Lawyer had Dirt on the Clintons.
We Know that is is said Goldstone that he did Not want to hear what was said at the meeting.
This is because Goldstone wanted associates of Candidate Donald Trump to Know that he did Not know what was said at that meeting.
We now Know that the meeting was a set up to Improperly obtain a FISA Warrant, which was Requested in June of 2016, and that
is same the month and the year as the meeting that the Russian Lawyer attended.
There was what was an Unusual granting of a Special Visa so that the Russian Lawyer could attend that set up, which was Improperly
Used to Request a FISA Warrant in order to Improperly Spy on an Opposition Political Candidate in order to Improperly gain an
Electoral advantage in an Undemocratic manner, because if anything wrong was intended by Associates of Candidate Donald Trump,
then there were enough People in that meeting who were the Equivalent of Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans,
because we Know that after that meeting, that the husband of the former Florida chair of the Trump campaign obtained a front row
seat to a June 2016 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for the Russian Lawyer.
There are Americans who consider that the 2 Major Political Party Tyranny has Betrayed the Constitution and the Principles
of Democracy, because they oppose President Donald Trump's Election Integrity Commission, because they think that the Establishment
Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupted Puppets of the Shadow Regime.
We Know from Senator Sanders, that if Americans want a Political Revolution, then they will need their own Political Party.
There are Americans who think that a Group of Democratic Party Voters and Republican Party Voters who have No association with
the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and that they may be named The Guardians of American Democracy.
These Guardians of American Democracy would be a numerous Group of People, and they would ask Republican Voters to Vote for
the Democratic Party Representative instead of the Republican who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, in exchange for
Democratic Party Voters to Vote for the Republican Party Candidate instead of the Democrat who is in Congress and who is seeking
Reelection, and the same can be done for the Senate, because the American People have to Decide if it is they the Shadow Regime,
or if it is We the People, and the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupt Puppets
of the Shadow Regime, and there would be equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats replaced in this manner, and so it will Not
affect their numbers in the Congress or the Senate.
There could be People who think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Unacceptability Biased and Unacceptability Corrupt during
the Democratic Party Primaries, and that if she wants a Democratic Party Candidate to be Elected in her Congressional District,
then she Should announce that she will Not be contesting the next Election, and there could be People who think that Speaker Paul
Ryan was Unacceptability Disloyal by insufficiently endorse the Republican Presidential nominee, and with other matters, and that
if he wants a Republican Party Candidate to be Elected in his Congressional District, then he Should announce that he will Not
be contesting the next Election, and then the Guardians of American Democracy can look at other Dinos and Rinos, including those
in the Senate, because the Constitution says the words: We the People.
There are Many Americans who have Noticed that Criminal Elites escape Justice, and Corruption is the norm in American Politics.
There are those who Supported Senator Sanders who Realize that Senator Sanders would have been Impeached had he become President,
and they Know that they Need President Donald Trump to prepare the Political Landscape so that someone like Senator Sanders could
be President, without a Coup attempt that is being attempted on President Donald Trump, and while these People may not Vote for
the Republicans, they can Refuse to Vote for the Democratic Party, until the conditions are there for a Constitutional Republic
and a Constitutional Democracy, and they want the Illegal Mueller Team to recuse themselves from this pile of Vile and Putrid
McCarthyist Lies Invented by their Shadow Regime Puppet Masters,
There are Many Americans who want Voter Identification and Paper Ballots for Elections, and they have seen how several States
are Opposed to President Donald Trump's Commission on Election Integrity, because they want to Rig their Elections, and this is
Why there are Many Americans who want America to be a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy.
MillyBloom54 , July 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm
I just read this article in the Washington Monthly, and wish to read informed comments about this issue. There are suggestions
that organized crime from Russian was heavily involved. This is a complicated mess of money, greed, etc.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the article, which concludes:
"So, let's please stay focused on why this matters.
"And why was Preet Bharara fired again?"
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries have been allowed to
flourish in Israel.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Why was Bharara fired?
Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance,
Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.
Ain't gonna happen.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Remember Milly that essentially one of the first things Trump did when he came into office was fire Preet, and just days before
the long awaited trial. Then, Jeff Sessions settled the case for 6 million without any testimony on a 230 million dollar case,
days after. Spectacular and brazen, and structured to hide the identities of which properties were bought by which investors.
Hmmmm.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
By the way Milly, great summary article you have linked and one that everyone who is championing the Nekrasov film should read.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm
The "great" article was not written by a journalist. It's an opinion piece written by Martin Longman, a blogger and Democratic
Party political consultant.
From 2012 to 2013, Longman worked for Democracy for America (DFA) a political action committee, headquartered in South Burlington,
Vermont, founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.
Since March 2014, political animal Longman has managed the The Washington Monthly website and online magazine.
Although it claims to be "an independent voice", the Washington Monthly is funded by the Ford Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation,
and well-heeled corporate entities http://washingtonmonthly.com/about/
Longman's credentials as a "progressive" alarmist are well established. Since 2005, he has been the publisher of Booman Tribune.
Longman admits that BooMan is related to the 'bogey man' (aka, bogy man, boogeyman), an evil imaginary character who harms children.
Vladimir Putin is the latest bogey man of the Democratic Party and its equally pro-Israel "opposition".
Neither party wants the conversation to involve Jewish Russian organized crime, because that leads to Israel and the pro-Israel
AIPAC lobby that funds both the Republican and Democratic parties.
"... Sean Gervasi (1933-1996) spent the latter part of his career exposing the role of the United States and Western powers in the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia. He was working on a book,Balkan Roulette, at the time of his death. ..."
"... New York Amsterdam News ..."
"... Le Monde Diplomatique ..."
"... Covert Action Information Bulletin ..."
"... Global Research ..."
"... Capitalism in the Web of Life ..."
"... An Inconvenient Truth ..."
"... Sean Gervasi (1933-1996) spent the latter part of his career exposing the role of the United States and Western powers in the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia. He was working on a book,Balkan Roulette, at the time of his death. ..."
Although the United States played a crucial role in WWII, it was slow to get involved and it
let the Soviet Union do much of the heavy lifting and suffer the heaviest losses. The United
States had a lot of help in achieving the victory Mr. Gore claims for America, and we could
assume he knows this, so the way he chose to describe historical events is telling.
Perhaps acknowledging the reality would have detracted from his second point about "bringing
down communism." Everyone knows that what he is referring to so proudly is the destabilization
and destruction of the USSR, the Warsaw bloc nations, and Yugoslavia, not the abstract notion
of communism. He is referring to a "victory" which precipitated civil wars and a disastrous
collapse of the economy and social welfare systems in these countries, one that killed and
impoverished millions. In China, Cuba and the DPRK, contrary to what he stated, these nations'
versions of socialism haven't been brought down at all. [1992]
Explicitly describing the "bringing down of communism" as America's deliberate actions to
dismantle the USSR might run the risk of reminding the audience about the illegality of
interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, and it might have reminded people of
what a betrayal this was of America's WWII ally and partner in the détente of the 1970s.
The inconvenient truth is that the USSR was the WWII ally that played a crucial role in the
victory that Mr. Gore claimed solely for America.
Nonetheless, the comment about "bringing down communism" is refreshingly, and maybe
accidentally, very honest. Most descriptions of the Soviet collapse, even those done by
historians specializing in this field, pay little attention to American efforts to undermine
the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s. The political class always denied that America had a
plan to dismantle the USSR, and denied having any significant influence on events which they
claim arose from domestic causes. If America's influence is addressed at all, it is considered
as a matter of speculation, a mystery hardly worth thinking about when one can more easily look
at the dramatic events that occurred on the surface within the Soviet Union in the last decade
of its existence. The following transcript of the lecture by Sean Gervasi, delivered in 1992,
shortly after the collapse, is unique and valuable for what it reveals about the significant,
and perhaps decisive, American role in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In his conclusion, Mr. Gervasi came to this judgment:
The Soviet Union today, in the absence of this extraordinarily crafty, well-thought-out,
extremely costly strategy deployed by the Reagan administration, would be a society struggling
through great difficulties. It would still be a socialist society, at least of the kind that it
was. It would be far from perfect, but it would still be there, and I think, therefore, that
Western intervention made a crucial difference in this situation."
The journey to how he came to this conclusion is well worth the reader's time.
A final comment about Mr. Gore's remarks: He is oblivious to the inconvenient solution that
has been staring him in the face all these years: that the necessary reduction of carbon
emissions will require severe constraints on capitalism, a thesis developed by Jason W. Moore
in Capitalism in the Web of Life .[ii] Mr. Gore should know that a radical solution is
needed. In his recent sequel to An Inconvenient Truth he complains about the undue
influence of "money in politics" that has gotten so much worse over the last ten years, but
that's as deep as the class analysis and ideological exploration can go in America. He evinces
no awareness of the historical figures who developed answers to the problem of unaccountable
private control of a nation's government, resources and productive capacities. Gore is still
proud of having actively worked against a revolution in human affairs that aimed to curtail the
savage capitalism that led to the present ecological catastrophe.
In spite of the flaws one might see in what the Soviet Union actually became, flaws that
arose to a great extent because it had to fight against external threats throughout its
existence, the goals of the revolution of 1917 are still relevant to the crises of the 21st
century, and this is what makes Sean Gervasi's research so valuable now, after a quarter
century in which America doubled down on its "winning ways" and worsened the crises that were
evident long ago in 1992.
About Sean Gervasi
Sean Gervasi (1933-1996) spent the latter part of his career exposing the role of the
United States and Western powers in the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia. He was working on a
book,Balkan Roulette, at the time of his death.
Gervasi was an economist trained at the University of Geneva, Oxford and Cornell. His
political career began when he took a post as an economic adviser in the Kennedy
administration. He resigned in protest after the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.
After his resignation, Gervasi was never able to get work again in the United States as an
economist, despite his impressive academic credentials. He became a lecturer at the London
School of Economics after leaving Washington. Notwithstanding his great popularity, the school
refused to renew his contract in 1965.
During the 1970s and 1980s he was an adviser to a number of governments in Africa and the
Middle East, helping them navigate the hostile and predatory world of transnational
corporations and megabanks. He also worked for the UN Committee on Apartheid and the UN
Commission on Namibia.
In addition, Gervasi was a journalist, contributing to a wide range of publications, from
the New York Amsterdam News to Le Monde Diplomatique . He was a frequent
commentator on the listener-supported Pacifica radio station WBAI in New York. In 1976, Gervasi
broke the story of how the U.S. government was secretly arming the apartheid regime in South
Africa.
In the late 1980s, Gervasi began to focus on the Cold War and what he called the "full court
press," a basketball term for a highly aggressive "all in" strategy. In an article published in
the Covert Action Information Bulletin in early 1991[iii], when the breakup of the
USSR was imminent, Gervasi showed how the Reagan administration's strategy of economic
isolation, a gargantuan arms buildup with the threat of a nuclear attack, overt funding of
internal dissent, and CIA-directed sabotage had been decisive in bringing down the USSR.
Gervasi backed up his analysis with careful scholarship and documentation.
Gervasi was widely respected as a leading independent figure in the left, but his views were
contrary to the fashionable dogma that attributed the USSR's collapse almost exclusively to
such things as failures of leadership, centralization of the economy, the black market,
Chernobyl, or independence movements, and not to external hostility. These are the subjects
which he addressed in the following lecture given to a small audience in January 1992. The
lecture can still be found on internet video sites, but the thesis of this lecture still
remains marginal and obscure two decades later, even though it is highly pertinent to the Cold
War replay that is underway in the second decade of the 21st century -- one in which Russia
stands accused of turning the tables and doing a comparatively very tame version of the
propaganda war waged on the USSR in the 1980s.
After 1992, Gervasi focused his attention on the breakup of Yugoslavia, which he discovered
was a replay of the strategy used to break up the Soviet Union. He became active in exposing
the role of external powers, particularly the U.S. and German governments, in fomenting the
civil war in the Balkans. His view that the war in Bosnia was sparked by the aggressive
machinations these nations, and not age-old ethnic rivalries, alienated Gervasi from much of
the liberal and progressive movement. Journals to which he had once regularly contributed would
no longer print his articles. He had great difficulty finding a publisher for his book on the
Balkans, but some of his research on this topic can be found in the article "Why Is NATO In
Yugoslavia?"[iv] published by Global Research in 2001.[v]
Dennis Riches, November 2017
***
VIDEO Although the United States played a crucial role in WWII, it was slow to get involved
and it let the Soviet Union do much of the heavy lifting and suffer the heaviest losses. The
United States had a lot of help in achieving the victory Mr. Gore claims for America, and we
could assume he knows this, so the way he chose to describe historical events is telling.
Perhaps acknowledging the reality would have detracted from his second point about "bringing
down communism." Everyone knows that what he is referring to so proudly is the destabilization
and destruction of the USSR, the Warsaw bloc nations, and Yugoslavia, not the abstract notion
of communism. He is referring to a "victory" which precipitated civil wars and a disastrous
collapse of the economy and social welfare systems in these countries, one that killed and
impoverished millions. In China, Cuba and the DPRK, contrary to what he stated, these nations'
versions of socialism haven't been brought down at all. [1992]
Explicitly describing the "bringing down of communism" as America's deliberate actions to
dismantle the USSR might run the risk of reminding the audience about the illegality of
interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, and it might have reminded people of
what a betrayal this was of America's WWII ally and partner in the détente of the 1970s.
The inconvenient truth is that the USSR was the WWII ally that played a crucial role in the
victory that Mr. Gore claimed solely for America.
Nonetheless, the comment about "bringing down communism" is refreshingly, and maybe
accidentally, very honest. Most descriptions of the Soviet collapse, even those done by
historians specializing in this field, pay little attention to American efforts to undermine
the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s. The political class always denied that America had a
plan to dismantle the USSR, and denied having any significant influence on events which they
claim arose from domestic causes. If America's influence is addressed at all, it is considered
as a matter of speculation, a mystery hardly worth thinking about when one can more easily look
at the dramatic events that occurred on the surface within the Soviet Union in the last decade
of its existence. The following transcript of the lecture by Sean Gervasi, delivered in 1992,
shortly after the collapse, is unique and valuable for what it reveals about the significant,
and perhaps decisive, American role in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In his conclusion, Mr. Gervasi came to this judgment:
The Soviet Union today, in the absence of this extraordinarily crafty, well-thought-out,
extremely costly strategy deployed by the Reagan administration, would be a society struggling
through great difficulties. It would still be a socialist society, at least of the kind that it
was. It would be far from perfect, but it would still be there, and I think, therefore, that
Western intervention made a crucial difference in this situation."
The journey to how he came to this conclusion is well worth the reader's time.
A final comment about Mr. Gore's remarks: He is oblivious to the inconvenient solution that
has been staring him in the face all these years: that the necessary reduction of carbon
emissions will require severe constraints on capitalism, a thesis developed by Jason W. Moore
in Capitalism in the Web of Life .[ii] Mr. Gore should know that a radical solution is
needed. In his recent sequel to An Inconvenient Truth he complains about the undue
influence of "money in politics" that has gotten so much worse over the last ten years, but
that's as deep as the class analysis and ideological exploration can go in America. He evinces
no awareness of the historical figures who developed answers to the problem of unaccountable
private control of a nation's government, resources and productive capacities. Gore is still
proud of having actively worked against a revolution in human affairs that aimed to curtail the
savage capitalism that led to the present ecological catastrophe.
In spite of the flaws one might see in what the Soviet Union actually became, flaws that
arose to a great extent because it had to fight against external threats throughout its
existence, the goals of the revolution of 1917 are still relevant to the crises of the 21st
century, and this is what makes Sean Gervasi's research so valuable now, after a quarter
century in which America doubled down on its "winning ways" and worsened the crises that were
evident long ago in 1992.
About Sean Gervasi
Sean Gervasi (1933-1996) spent the latter part of his career exposing the role of the
United States and Western powers in the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia. He was working on a
book,Balkan Roulette, at the time of his death.
Gervasi was an economist trained at the University of Geneva, Oxford and Cornell. His
political career began when he took a post as an economic adviser in the Kennedy
administration. He resigned in protest after the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.
After his resignation, Gervasi was never able to get work again in the United States as an
economist, despite his impressive academic credentials. He became a lecturer at the London
School of Economics after leaving Washington. Notwithstanding his great popularity, the school
refused to renew his contract in 1965.
During the 1970s and 1980s he was an adviser to a number of governments in Africa and the
Middle East, helping them navigate the hostile and predatory world of transnational
corporations and megabanks. He also worked for the UN Committee on Apartheid and the UN
Commission on Namibia.
In addition, Gervasi was a journalist, contributing to a wide range of publications, from
the New York Amsterdam News to Le Monde Diplomatique . He was a frequent
commentator on the listener-supported Pacifica radio station WBAI in New York. In 1976, Gervasi
broke the story of how the U.S. government was secretly arming the apartheid regime in South
Africa.
In the late 1980s, Gervasi began to focus on the Cold War and what he called the "full court
press," a basketball term for a highly aggressive "all in" strategy. In an article published in
the Covert Action Information Bulletin in early 1991[iii], when the breakup of the
USSR was imminent, Gervasi showed how the Reagan administration's strategy of economic
isolation, a gargantuan arms buildup with the threat of a nuclear attack, overt funding of
internal dissent, and CIA-directed sabotage had been decisive in bringing down the USSR.
Gervasi backed up his analysis with careful scholarship and documentation.
Gervasi was widely respected as a leading independent figure in the left, but his views were
contrary to the fashionable dogma that attributed the USSR's collapse almost exclusively to
such things as failures of leadership, centralization of the economy, the black market,
Chernobyl, or independence movements, and not to external hostility. These are the subjects
which he addressed in the following lecture given to a small audience in January 1992. The
lecture can still be found on internet video sites, but the thesis of this lecture still
remains marginal and obscure two decades later, even though it is highly pertinent to the Cold
War replay that is underway in the second decade of the 21st century -- one in which Russia
stands accused of turning the tables and doing a comparatively very tame version of the
propaganda war waged on the USSR in the 1980s.
After 1992, Gervasi focused his attention on the breakup of Yugoslavia, which he discovered
was a replay of the strategy used to break up the Soviet Union. He became active in exposing
the role of external powers, particularly the U.S. and German governments, in fomenting the
civil war in the Balkans. His view that the war in Bosnia was sparked by the aggressive
machinations these nations, and not age-old ethnic rivalries, alienated Gervasi from much of
the liberal and progressive movement. Journals to which he had once regularly contributed would
no longer print his articles. He had great difficulty finding a publisher for his book on the
Balkans, but some of his research on this topic can be found in the article "Why Is NATO In
Yugoslavia?"[iv] published by Global Research in 2001.[v]
To others: Even FB may gain some historical wisdom by reading Amy K.'s description of the Chicago School of Economics and
how Milton Friedman's economic "Shock Doctrine" was brought to S. America, Russia, Iraq, and other awe struck nations vulnerable
to the greedy Vampire Squid's insatiable appetite for money and unchallenged world power.
you must mean Naomi Klein, who wrote "Shock Doctrine". She's great and looks good too. Recently some British black woman interviewed
her and she was nicely poised and patient with the Dodo. Milton Friedman, whata guy, is he any relative of Thomas (alla'akbar
) Friedmin? (whata other f'n guy too.
I think Vampire Squid was a phrase that Taibbi started about Wall St. But haven't seen much of him lately.
That explains why after dissolution of the USSR organized crime reached such level: this is standard capitalism development scenario.
Notable quotes:
"... In fact, the evolution of the modern economy owes more than you might think to these outlaws. That's the theme of " Forging Capitalism: Rogues, Swindlers, Frauds, and the Rise of Modern Finance " by Ian Klaus. It's a history of financial crimes in the 19th and early 20th centuries that traces a recurring sequence: new markets, new ways to cheat, new ways to transact and secure trust. As Klaus says, criminals helped build modern capitalism. ..."
"... Cochrane, in a way, was convicted of conduct unbecoming a man of his position. Playing the markets, let alone cheating, was something a man of his status wasn't supposed to do. Trust resided in social standing. ..."
"... The stories are absorbing and the larger theme is important: "Forging Capitalism" is a fine book and I recommend it. But I have a couple of criticisms. The project presumably began as an academic dissertation, and especially at the start, before Klaus starts telling the stories, the academic gravity is crushing. ..."
"... Nonetheless, Klaus is right: Give the markets' ubiquitous and ingenious criminals their due. They helped build modern capitalism, and they aren't going away. Just ask Bernie Madoff. ..."
Whenever buyers and sellers get together, opportunities to fleece the other guy arise. The history of markets is, in part, the
history of lying, cheating and stealing -- and of the effort down the years to fight commercial crime.
In fact, the evolution of the modern economy owes more than you might think to these outlaws. That's the theme of "Forging
Capitalism: Rogues, Swindlers, Frauds, and the Rise of Modern Finance" by Ian Klaus. It's a history of financial crimes in the
19th and early 20th centuries that traces a recurring sequence: new markets, new ways to cheat, new ways to transact and secure trust.
As Klaus says, criminals helped build modern capitalism.
And what a cast of characters. Thomas Cochrane is my own favorite. (This is partly because he was the model for Jack Aubrey in
Patrick O'Brian's "Master and Commander" novels, which I've been reading and rereading for decades. Presumably Klaus isn't a fan:
He doesn't note the connection.)
Cochrane was an aristocrat and naval hero. At the height of his fame in 1814 he was put on trial for fraud. An associate had spread
false rumors of Napoleon's death, driving up the price of British government debt, and allowing Cochrane to avoid heavy losses on
his investments. Cochrane complained (with good reason, in fact) that the trial was rigged, but he was found guilty and sent to prison.
The story is fascinating in its own right, and the book points to its larger meaning. Cochrane, in a way, was convicted of
conduct unbecoming a man of his position. Playing the markets, let alone cheating, was something a man of his status wasn't supposed
to do. Trust resided in social standing.
As the turbulent century went on, capitalism moved its frontier outward in every sense: It found new opportunities overseas; financial
innovation accelerated; and buyers and sellers were ever more likely to be strangers, operating at a distance through intermediaries.
These new kinds of transaction required new ways of securing trust. Social status diminished as a guarantee of good faith. In its
place came, first, reputation (based on an established record of honest dealing) then verification (based on public and private records
that vouched for the parties' honesty).
Successive scams and scandals pushed this evolution of trust along. Gregor MacGregor and the mythical South American colony of
Poyais ("the quintessential fraud of Britain's first modern investment bubble," Klaus calls it); Beaumont Smith and an exchequer
bill forging operation of remarkable scope and duration; Walter Watts, insurance clerk, theatrical entrepreneur and fraudster; Harry
Marks, journalist, newspaper proprietor and puffer of worthless stocks. On and on, these notorious figures altered the way the public
thought about commercial trust, and spurred the changes that enabled the public to keep on trusting nonetheless.
The stories are absorbing and the larger theme is important: "Forging Capitalism" is a fine book and I recommend it. But I
have a couple of criticisms. The project presumably began as an academic dissertation, and especially at the start, before Klaus
starts telling the stories, the academic gravity is crushing.
Trust, to be simple with our definition, is an expectation of behavior built upon norms and cultural habits. It is often dependent
upon a shared set of ethics or values. It is also a process orchestrated through communities and institutions. In this sense,
it is a cultural event and thus a historical phenomenon.
No doubt, but after a first paragraph like that you aren't expecting a page-turner. Trust me, it gets better. When he applies
himself, Klaus can write. Describing the messenger who brought the false news of Napoleon's death, he says:
Removed from the dark of the street, the man could be seen by the light of two candles. He looked, a witness would later testify,
"like a stranger of some importance." A German sealskin cap, festooned with gold fringes, covered his head. A gray coat covered
his red uniform, upon which hung a star Neighbors and residents of the inn stirred and peered in as the visitor penned a note.
Tell me more.
My other objection is to the book's repeated suggestion that Adam Smith and other classical proponents of market economics naively
underestimated the human propensity to deceive and over-credited the market's ability to promote good behavior. Klaus doesn't examine
their claims at length or directly, but often says things such as:
The sociability in which Adam Smith had placed his hopes for harnessing self-interest was not a sufficient safeguard in the
sometimes criminal capitalism of the ruthless free market.
Of course it wasn't. Smith didn't believe that the market's civilizing tendencies, together with humans' instinct for cooperation,
were a sufficient safeguard against fraud or breach of contract or other commercial wrongs. He was nothing if not realistic
about human nature. And by the way, many of the subtle adaptations to the shifting risk of fraud that Klaus describes were private
undertakings, not government measures. Far from being surprised by them, Smith would have expected their development.
Nonetheless, Klaus is right: Give the markets' ubiquitous and ingenious criminals their due. They helped build modern capitalism,
and they aren't going away. Just ask Bernie Madoff.
To contact the author on this story: Clive Crook at [email protected]
"... "The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since. ..."
"... According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed in the United
States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist countries in Eastern
Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark estimates, the wealth
held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable in magnitude to total
household financial assets held in Russia. ..."
"... For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it is not
the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel. ..."
"... And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts dismembering
the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the Western people have
with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without serious dying on our
side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience. ..."
The people who worked in int'l finance in the 90s (representing countries to the WB and IMF) knew about the criminal callousness
of these institutions when pushing 'austerity' or 'reform' policies. Local elites sometimes were complacent and profited (those
privatizations! those newly opened markets!), sometimes resisted, but the US and the multilateral system –financial or otherwise–
are ruthless and very hard to resist.
Many countries suffered, not because they were Russian or Brazilian or Mexican, but because the opportunity for gain was there.
There's some common ground between the reds and whites in that the reds tapped into nationalist sentiments, hence the wars of
national liberation around the world being supported by the communists: Korea, Vietnam, insurgencies in Latin America, Africa,
etc. The script has flipped with the western countries now being the 'godless' ones who are trying to destroy religion, the family
and traditional ways of life. The 1% were horrified that there was an ideology out there that advocated taking their loot away
so they used all their resources in combatting it, even being willing to take the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in
doing so. They'd take the world down with them rather than lose their positions of power and money. Now that the ideology is no
longer there it's just back to the business of robbing everyone weaker than them. All the hysteria about Putin is simply that
he's built up the Russian state to where they can resist and that he's not a fellow slaveholder like them.
The intervention in Syria has unhinged parts of the west where they thought they could rob and kill anywhere they pleased but
now have been successfully resisted. Political systems come and go but the people have endured for the past thousand years, something
the fat cats of the west are trying to destroy to enlarge their slave plantation.
" Russia has greater economic disparity than any other major global power. In 2016, Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report found
that the wealthiest 10% of people in Russia controlled 89% of the country's wealth ..
"The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since.
The headline findings: official Russian estimates drastically understate national inequality; Russia is as unequal as the USA
or even moreso; Russian inequality is more intense than the inequality in other post-Soviet states and in post-Deng China.
This paper combines national accounts, survey, wealth and fiscal data (including recently released tax data on high-income
taxpayers) in order to provide consistent series on the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in Russia from the
Soviet period until the present day. We find that official survey-based measures vastly under-estimate the rise of inequality
since 1990. According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed
in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist
countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark
estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable
in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.
From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016 [Filip Novokmet, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman/World
Wealth and Income Database]"
People used to stage revolutions in order to bring communism to their countries. Plenty of examples for that: Russia, China,
Cuba and many others. Of course, those people were deluded, right? Who would want to bring a system that preaches economic equality?
It must be someone who is out of their mind. Has there ever been a capitalist revolution where someone took up arms trying to
bring capitalism to their country? Must be because it's such a humane and desirable system. Also, a lot of people think that Islam
is a backward religion. Really? Then how come it tolerates socialism (communism), better than Christianity ever did? Libya, Iraq,
Syria, Afghanistan they were all socialist at some point. That's why the greatest democracy set their sights on them to destroy
them. Because, you see, by their calculations, no matter how extremist and backward the Islam gets, it's still more progressive
than socialism or communism. Helluva math there. The game has always been about preserving capitalism, and not the most benign
version either. Which is too bad, because capitalism has been known to tolerate dictatorship, fascism, Nazism, slavery – pretty
much the ugliest forms of government the sick human mind can come up with, but it can't tolerate little bit of socialism. Because
you see, socialism is worse than any of those lovely political systems. Democracy (capitalism) is too pure for that, such a fragile
and delicate thing that it is.
I am surprised Sweden hasn't been bombed yet, for their flirting with socialism, but the way the things are going over there,
they don't have to be bombed. They did themselves in by following someone's stupid ideas about multiculturalism – which of course
is also a form of socialism – racial one, instead the real deal – the economic socialism that the greatest democracy of them all
is so afraid of.
When the Serbians in different parts of Yugoslavia started being attacked by the West, I was constantly pointing out that in recent
times, since WW1, an attack on Serbia has been a kind of introduction to an attack on Russia. In other words, I had no doubt that
Russia was next.
But, there is one huge difference between Serbia and Russia. Whilst the Serbians killed very few of those Western Zionist military
mercenaries who were killing Serbians directly or using their Croat, Muslim and Albanian proxies, if attacked the Russian military
could kill hundreds of thousands of the Western mercenaries. This is why whilst the war on Serbia was real and bloody only on
Serbians and the Bosnian Muslim proxies, the war on Russia would be totally disastrous for the Anglozionist Empire. This is the
only reason a shooting war on Russia has not started already.
For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it
is not the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel.
And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts
dismembering the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the
Western people have with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without
serious dying on our side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience.
Well, what evidence have you for asserting that Putin is a thug? You saw through the media's false reporting earlier as you
admit, so how come you again swallow the load of marbles that they dish out?
And while Putin may or may not be feared by "near abroad" he certainly is feared by those who seek total dominance of the planet.
The thing is, he is not an easy pushover and that is what is behind the thug claims. Many thinking people admire his intellect,
statesmanship, and skill in dealing with major problems of our times. The media also hates him because he shows up the western
leaders for the clowns that they are.
A principled US Government would have dealt very differently with Russia and Putin. There is no inherent conflict of interest
with Russia once global dominance is discarded as the main policy objective.
{The only people that fear Putin is the near abroad, .}
Sure, if you say so, Bub.
Texas* is, of course, 'near aboard' .
[Russia has begun testing of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat. Sarmat can carry a payload
of up to ten tons of nukes. The missile system is set to enter service in 2018.
The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons.
Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being
able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France.]
_______________________
*
[Russia's New ICBM Could "Wipe Out Texas"]
Wow, this is the most refreshing and clear minded comment I've seen here in a while. Nice job WorkingClass, you've managed
to keep your mind clear and not buy into the BS. You've given me some hope Thank you.
The supposed leaders of the West are busy trying to replace or at the very least water down their own populations with a totally
different set of people from far away. Obviously these supposedly democratic leaders loathe what are supposed to be their own
people but rather see all those below them as just so many replaceable units of labor, the mark of a "slaveholder". Putin has
helped his people immensely. Life expectancies had plummeted into the 50′s and that's now been improved greatly as well as living
standards. He's popular because he's done much for the people he identifies with, unlike Western leaders who hold their noses
when anywhere near the citizenry. If the Russians like him then they must not be as worried about some issues as critics outside
the country appear to be.
It is hard to find people in the West who "hate the Russian people themselves"; but in place of hatred there is definitely
fear – fear of Russia's military strength.
Disagree. The enormous propagandistic effort to demonize Russia in the West, not only reveals fear. It also reveals hate, at
least on most of the elites. Most people are indifferent toward Russia but elites definitively have fear to the bear. You can
test some people by simply naming "Russia" and you will see on their eyes a quite irrationala mix of hate and fear. I think this
is result of an Orwellian propaganda effort aimed at injecting fear to "Eurasia".
This fear is exaggerated by the US military-industrial complex for its own purposes;
Given any two races or culture , what they are and what I think of them hardly matters. However pitted against each other it
will cultivate and create good conditions for the scum of both of them and embroil the rest in the conflict. It is an against
of chaos for a hostile order.
Right. Those were capitalist revolutions. You are bang on. Capitalism is one of the most tolerant systems of all kinds of extremism,
as I already mentioned. Capitalism has been known to tolerate monarchy, fascism, Nazism, various forms of dictatorships, slavery,
pretty much everything. But they draw the line at tolerating socialism, like it's the worst extremism they have ever tolerated.
My point is, capitalism is pretty robust system, it's not some delicate beauty that will fall apart if it comes in touch with
socialism. Democracy is only a window dressing, it has never been about democracy, it has always been about capitalism.
There's nothing easier nowadays than becoming a Kremlin (or any other kind of) Troll. Just start talking about things as they
are and you're half way through. Keep talking that way a bit longer, and you'll forever become another precious source of income
for the army of no-talent crooks with unlimited rights and zero oversee from those for whom they officially work. These guys are
simply used to build their entire careers and financial well-beings by adjusting reality to their needs. They've been doing it
for decades. Why not, as long as the true bosses are happy ? Why not, when the MSM will make population to swallow anything, no
matter how idiotic and illogical it is ?
The people who worked in int'l finance in the 90s (representing countries to the WB and IMF) knew about the criminal callousness
of these institutions when pushing 'austerity' or 'reform' policies. Local elites sometimes were complacent and profited (those
privatizations! those newly opened markets!), sometimes resisted, but the US and the multilateral system –financial or otherwise–
are ruthless and very hard to resist.
Many countries suffered, not because they were Russian or Brazilian or Mexican, but because the opportunity for gain was there.
There's some common ground between the reds and whites in that the reds tapped into nationalist sentiments, hence the wars of
national liberation around the world being supported by the communists: Korea, Vietnam, insurgencies in Latin America, Africa,
etc. The script has flipped with the western countries now being the 'godless' ones who are trying to destroy religion, the family
and traditional ways of life. The 1% were horrified that there was an ideology out there that advocated taking their loot away
so they used all their resources in combatting it, even being willing to take the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in
doing so. They'd take the world down with them rather than lose their positions of power and money. Now that the ideology is no
longer there it's just back to the business of robbing everyone weaker than them. All the hysteria about Putin is simply that
he's built up the Russian state to where they can resist and that he's not a fellow slaveholder like them.
The intervention in Syria has unhinged parts of the west where they thought they could rob and kill anywhere they pleased but
now have been successfully resisted. Political systems come and go but the people have endured for the past thousand years, something
the fat cats of the west are trying to destroy to enlarge their slave plantation.
" Russia has greater economic disparity than any other major global power. In 2016, Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report found
that the wealthiest 10% of people in Russia controlled 89% of the country's wealth ..
"The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since.
The headline findings: official Russian estimates drastically understate national inequality; Russia is as unequal as the USA
or even moreso; Russian inequality is more intense than the inequality in other post-Soviet states and in post-Deng China.
This paper combines national accounts, survey, wealth and fiscal data (including recently released tax data on high-income
taxpayers) in order to provide consistent series on the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in Russia from the
Soviet period until the present day. We find that official survey-based measures vastly under-estimate the rise of inequality
since 1990. According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed
in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist
countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark
estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable
in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.
From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016 [Filip Novokmet, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman/World
Wealth and Income Database]"
People used to stage revolutions in order to bring communism to their countries. Plenty of examples for that: Russia, China,
Cuba and many others. Of course, those people were deluded, right? Who would want to bring a system that preaches economic equality?
It must be someone who is out of their mind. Has there ever been a capitalist revolution where someone took up arms trying to
bring capitalism to their country? Must be because it's such a humane and desirable system. Also, a lot of people think that Islam
is a backward religion. Really? Then how come it tolerates socialism (communism), better than Christianity ever did? Libya, Iraq,
Syria, Afghanistan they were all socialist at some point. That's why the greatest democracy set their sights on them to destroy
them. Because, you see, by their calculations, no matter how extremist and backward the Islam gets, it's still more progressive
than socialism or communism. Helluva math there. The game has always been about preserving capitalism, and not the most benign
version either. Which is too bad, because capitalism has been known to tolerate dictatorship, fascism, Nazism, slavery – pretty
much the ugliest forms of government the sick human mind can come up with, but it can't tolerate little bit of socialism. Because
you see, socialism is worse than any of those lovely political systems. Democracy (capitalism) is too pure for that, such a fragile
and delicate thing that it is.
I am surprised Sweden hasn't been bombed yet, for their flirting with socialism, but the way the things are going over there,
they don't have to be bombed. They did themselves in by following someone's stupid ideas about multiculturalism – which of course
is also a form of socialism – racial one, instead the real deal – the economic socialism that the greatest democracy of them all
is so afraid of.
When the Serbians in different parts of Yugoslavia started being attacked by the West, I was constantly pointing out that in recent
times, since WW1, an attack on Serbia has been a kind of introduction to an attack on Russia. In other words, I had no doubt that
Russia was next.
But, there is one huge difference between Serbia and Russia. Whilst the Serbians killed very few of those Western Zionist military
mercenaries who were killing Serbians directly or using their Croat, Muslim and Albanian proxies, if attacked the Russian military
could kill hundreds of thousands of the Western mercenaries. This is why whilst the war on Serbia was real and bloody only on
Serbians and the Bosnian Muslim proxies, the war on Russia would be totally disastrous for the Anglozionist Empire. This is the
only reason a shooting war on Russia has not started already.
For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it
is not the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel.
And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts
dismembering the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the
Western people have with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without
serious dying on our side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience.
Well, what evidence have you for asserting that Putin is a thug? You saw through the media's false reporting earlier as you
admit, so how come you again swallow the load of marbles that they dish out?
And while Putin may or may not be feared by "near abroad" he certainly is feared by those who seek total dominance of the planet.
The thing is, he is not an easy pushover and that is what is behind the thug claims. Many thinking people admire his intellect,
statesmanship, and skill in dealing with major problems of our times. The media also hates him because he shows up the western
leaders for the clowns that they are.
A principled US Government would have dealt very differently with Russia and Putin. There is no inherent conflict of interest
with Russia once global dominance is discarded as the main policy objective.
{The only people that fear Putin is the near abroad, .}
Sure, if you say so, Bub.
Texas* is, of course, 'near aboard' .
[Russia has begun testing of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat. Sarmat can carry a payload
of up to ten tons of nukes. The missile system is set to enter service in 2018.
The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons.
Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being
able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France.]
_______________________
*
[Russia's New ICBM Could "Wipe Out Texas"]
Wow, this is the most refreshing and clear minded comment I've seen here in a while. Nice job WorkingClass, you've managed
to keep your mind clear and not buy into the BS. You've given me some hope Thank you.
The supposed leaders of the West are busy trying to replace or at the very least water down their own populations with a totally
different set of people from far away. Obviously these supposedly democratic leaders loathe what are supposed to be their own
people but rather see all those below them as just so many replaceable units of labor, the mark of a "slaveholder". Putin has
helped his people immensely. Life expectancies had plummeted into the 50′s and that's now been improved greatly as well as living
standards. He's popular because he's done much for the people he identifies with, unlike Western leaders who hold their noses
when anywhere near the citizenry. If the Russians like him then they must not be as worried about some issues as critics outside
the country appear to be.
It is hard to find people in the West who "hate the Russian people themselves"; but in place of hatred there is definitely
fear – fear of Russia's military strength.
Disagree. The enormous propagandistic effort to demonize Russia in the West, not only reveals fear. It also reveals hate, at
least on most of the elites. Most people are indifferent toward Russia but elites definitively have fear to the bear. You can
test some people by simply naming "Russia" and you will see on their eyes a quite irrationala mix of hate and fear. I think this
is result of an Orwellian propaganda effort aimed at injecting fear to "Eurasia".
This fear is exaggerated by the US military-industrial complex for its own purposes;
Given any two races or culture , what they are and what I think of them hardly matters. However pitted against each other it
will cultivate and create good conditions for the scum of both of them and embroil the rest in the conflict. It is an against
of chaos for a hostile order.
Right. Those were capitalist revolutions. You are bang on. Capitalism is one of the most tolerant systems of all kinds of extremism,
as I already mentioned. Capitalism has been known to tolerate monarchy, fascism, Nazism, various forms of dictatorships, slavery,
pretty much everything. But they draw the line at tolerating socialism, like it's the worst extremism they have ever tolerated.
My point is, capitalism is pretty robust system, it's not some delicate beauty that will fall apart if it comes in touch with
socialism. Democracy is only a window dressing, it has never been about democracy, it has always been about capitalism.
There's nothing easier nowadays than becoming a Kremlin (or any other kind of) Troll. Just start talking about things as they
are and you're half way through. Keep talking that way a bit longer, and you'll forever become another precious source of income
for the army of no-talent crooks with unlimited rights and zero oversee from those for whom they officially work. These guys are
simply used to build their entire careers and financial well-beings by adjusting reality to their needs. They've been doing it
for decades. Why not, as long as the true bosses are happy ? Why not, when the MSM will make population to swallow anything, no
matter how idiotic and illogical it is ?
The Soviet authorities had long listed me, and my entire family, as dangerous anti-Soviet activists and I, therefore, could not
travel to Russia until the fall of Communism in 1991 when I immediately caught the first available flight and got to Moscow while
the barricades built against the GKChP coup were still standing. Truly, by this fateful month of August 1991, I was a perfect anti-Soviet
activist and an anti-Communist hardliner. I even took a photo of myself standing next to the collapsed statue of Felix Derzhinsky
(the founder of the ChK – the first Soviet Secret police) with my boot pressed on his iron throat. That day I felt that my victory
was total. It was also short-lived.
Instead of bringing the long-suffering Russian people freedom, peace, and prosperity, the end of Communism in Russia only
brought chaos, poverty, violence, and abject exploitation by the worst class of scum the defunct Soviet system had produced. I was
horrified. Unlike so many other anti-Soviet activists who were also Russophobes, I never conflated my people and the regime which
oppressed them. So, while I rejoiced at the end of one horror, I was also appalled to see that another one had taken its place.
Even worse, it was undeniable that the West played an active role in every and all forms of anti-Russian activities, from the total
protection of Russian mobsters, on to the support of the Wahabi insurgents in Chechnya, and ending with the financing of a propaganda
machine which tried to turn the Russian people into mindless consumers to the presence of western "advisors" (yeah, right!) in all
the key ministries. The oligarchs were plundering Russia and causing immeasurable suffering, and the entire West, the so-called
"free world" not only did nothing to help but helped all the enemies of Russia with every resource it had. Soon the NATO forces attacked
Serbia, a historical ally of Russia, in total violation of the most sacred principles of international law. East Germany was not
only reunified but instantly incorporated into West Germany and NATO pushed as far East as possible. I could not pretend that all
this could be explained by some fear of the Soviet military or by a reaction to the Communist theory of world revolution. In truth,
it became clear to me that the western elites did not hate the Soviet system or ideology, but that they hated Russian people themselves
and the culture and civilization which they had created.
By the time the war against the Serbian nation in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo broke out, I was in a unique situation: all day long
I could read classified UNPROFOR and military reports about what was taking place in that region and, after work, I could read the
counter-factual anti-Serbian propaganda the western corporate Ziomedia was spewing out every day. I was horrified to see that literally
everything the media was saying was a total lie. Then came the false flags, first in Sarajevo, but later also in Kosovo. My illusions
about "Free World" and the "West" were crumbling. Fast.
Fate brought me to Russia in 1993 when I saw the carnage of meted out by the "democratic" Eltsin regime against thousands of Russians
in Moscow (many more than what the official press reported). I also saw the Red Flags and Stalin portraits around the parliament
building. My disgust by then was total. And when the Eltsin regime decided to bring Dudaev's Chechnia to heel triggering yet another
needless bloodbath, that disgust turned into despair. Then came the stolen elections of 1996 and the murder of General Lebed. At
that point, I remember thinking "Russia is dead."
So, when the entourage of Eltsin suddenly appointed an unknown nobody to acting President of Russia, I was rather dubious, to
put it mildly. The new guy was not a drunk or an arrogant oligarch, but he looked rather unimpressive. He was also ex-KGB which was
interesting: on one hand, the KGB had been my lifelong enemy but on the other hand, I knew that the part of the KGB which dealt with
foreign intelligence was staffed by the brightest of the brightest and that they had nothing to do with political repression, Gulags
and all the rest of the ugly stuff another Directorate of the KGB (the 5th) was tasked with (that department had been abolished in
1989). Putin came from the First Main Directorate of the KGB, the "PGU KGB." Still, my sympathies were more with the (far less political)
military intelligence service (GRU) than the very political PGU which, I was quite sure by then, had a thick dossier on my family
and me.
Then, two crucial things happened in parallel: both the "Free world" and Putin showed their true faces: the "Free world" as
an AngloZionist Empire hell-bent on aggression and oppression, and Vladimir Putin as a real patriot of Russia. In fact, Putin slowly
began looking like a hero to me: very gradually, in small incremental steps first, Putin began to turn Russia around, especially
in two crucial matters: he was trying to "re-sovereignize" the country (making it truly sovereign and independent again), and he
dared the unthinkable: he openly told the Empire that it was not only wrong, it was illegitimate (just read the transcript of Putin's
amazing 2007 "Munich Speech").
Putin inspired me to make a dramatic choice: will I stick to my lifelong prejudices or will I let reality prove my lifelong prejudices
wrong. The first option was far more comfortable to me, and all my friends would approve. The second one was far trickier, and it
would cost me the friendship of many people. But what was the better option for Russia? Could it be that it was the right thing for
a "White Russian" to join forces with the ex-KGB officer?
Thanks for that Steve, I had intended to search for it but got sidetracked by visits to the vet. What strikes me whenever I
read a transcript of Putin's speeches is the precision of his language, it's really impressive. It really isn't fair to compare
that to the loose waffle of GWB or the Trumpster but even WJC or BHO who were considered to be commendable orators just lack the
fine edge and the gravitas of Putin.
The implication being that communism and Nazism is pretty much the same.
What is the reason for this idea that communism is evil or like Nazism and fascism and
aims to kill people?
Is it merely due to the propaganda during the Cold War? I find that doubtful as that was
quite a while ago. So why do Americans still commonly have this opinion?
This question is more of a philosophical one than about any specific policy, but it strikes
at the very heart of political thought and policymaking in general. I think it should be left
open. – Wes Sayeed
yesterday
Do you have any stats about how communism is viewed throughout the Western world? I always
get the feeling the hatred of communism isn't a "Western" thing, it's a "United States"
thing. – Erik
yesterday
The current most popular answers don't answer this question, but are explanations why the
answerer thinks that communism is evil. Even if everything in those answers is true, it only
shows that mass murders are an originally unintended consequence of communism, while the mass
murders of Nazism are part of the ideology. For me, Nazism is an evil idea, and Communism is
a bad idea because it leads to evil things. This is a big difference. I think this is a great
question, and I hope there will be a true answer to this question, because I don't know the
answer. – Pakk
11 hours ago
@Pakk - there's two competing philosophies (and no, they aren't communism and capitalism :).
One posits that things ought to be judged on the basis of intent. The other posits that
things ought to be judged on the basis of outcome (aka the road to hell is paved with good
intentions). – user4012
1 hour ago
Fundamental to communist ideology is the common ownership of the means of production and
abolishment of social classes and social hierarchy. In practice, that means no (or very few)
private property rights, and forced redistribution of wealth from those who are most able to
produce to those who are less able or unwilling to do so.
Private property and the exclusive access to the fruits of one's own labor are fundamental
human rights under natural law. In order for communism to be moral, it requires everyone to
voluntarily cooperate with each other towards a common goal. Unfortunately, people do not
work this way. They are different in their ambitions, in their capabilities, and in their
values. These differences cause different outcomes, cause some to be more successful than
others, and even cause differences by which success is measured in the first place. But
communism requires collectivism in order to work. Communism must eliminate those variations
of the individual in order to harmonize with the collective good. This is absolutely
counterintuitive to everything about human nature.
In order to realize communist goals, private property and the individual's right to their
own labor must be seized from them for the sake of the collective. And because this is
antithetical to individual freedom, communist governments must also work to eliminate
dissent. Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of
opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive
measures until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where
everyone lives in fear.
In light of the authoritarian oppression of every communist regime in the history of ever,
there are those who still make the argument that the idea of communism is good; it's
just been "done wrong" by every communist state that has attempted it. However, this is not
true. Communism is a fundamentally flawed ideology at its core. Its goals are attractive in
principle, but completely unworkable in practice.
Communist governments must necessarily use coercion to achieve the social harmony they
promise, depriving the individual of the right to choose their own destiny -- especially if
those choices lead to better outcomes for them than for others. This is why every communist
state has been a totalitarian nightmare replete with rampant and gross human rights
violations. That is the inevitable destiny of any communist regime because it is utterly and
completely incompatible with individual freedom and conscience.
Communists would argue that people already do not have full access to the result of their
labor (because capitalists own the means of production and thus collect a surplus value from
that labor). I also think that you make a pretty big jump from "right to their labor must be
seized" (which is already a reach) to "terror" and living in fear. If you make that jump, and
would agree that workers currently do not have full access to the result of their labor
(which is fair to say), you could also say that people in capitalist societies must live in
terror and fear (which is not generally the case). – tim
yesterday
@tim People living in capitalist societies who do not own 100% of their labor (per your
definition) give up the percentage to their employer so that they do not have to own the risk
of investing in equipment/office space/etc to be able to perform their labor and the risk of
having to actually turn the labor into something someone else is willing to buy.
Additionally, everyone is free to try to own 100% of their labor by investing in it and
selling it themselves. If anything, the only thing laborers have to fear is that they must
sell their labor to someone in order to pay taxes. – IllusiveBrian
yesterday
@IllusiveBrian Even if you calculate "risk" into the equation, there is still a surplus; it's
why large companies end up with billions in revenue. I don't see how say a coal miner could
bypass that by "selling it themselves"; it's not a realistic possibility. But my point was
that capitalist exploitation is comparable to the "no right to their labor" argument by OP.
Both have to be enforced, but saying that it has to be enforced with terror is a reach
(anti-communists might argue that it needs to be in communism, and anti-capitalists might
argue that the same is true for capitalism). – tim
yesterday
This answer is focussing more on why communism is bad (and is an opinion piece regardless of
the validity or not of said opinion). Perhaps focussing on why it is viewed in this
way instead of stating said view would make this a less controversial answer. –
wizzwizz4
10 hours ago
TL;DR: because communism did, in fact, kill people. Between 23 million (low estimate) and
100 million (high estimate) of them killed by regimes that collectively self-branded
themselves as led by "communist" parties.
The question contains two premises, both 100% false:
That the only reason Communism is seen as evil is "because propaganda" and "because the
people with that view are uneducated/stupid".
Contrary to that, as the answer below shows, there's objective evidence leading people
to consider Communism evil.
That Communism is universally unpopular in the West, especially USA.
Let's expand on both points:
Is it merely due to the propaganda during the Cold War? I find that doubtful. That was
so long ago, and the people who were subject to that propaganda are all old or dead now. So
why have Americans and other westerners not smartened up by now and understood what
Communism is?
It's a nice theory that is fully contradicted by the fact that among the most
anti-communist segments of population are those who know best - immigrants from "communist"
(well, socialist) states. People from former USSR, refugees from Castro's Cuba, Venezuelans
who escaped Chavez's regime - they are all far more anti-Communist than the average
Westerner. Because:
They know exactly what the reality of living in your "communist" dream entails.
They know their history. My grandmother was almost repressed because she happened to
study genetics when Lysenko was in power. Many members of my extended family were repressed
during Stalin's times. She also remembers "Doctor's Plot" (and the fact that Stalin
missed out on getting rid most Soviet Jews by a few weeks when he died unexpectedly).
Or, for less personalized history lessons:
The editor of the latter book quantifies the answer for why communism should be
considered as evil as nazism:
Communist regimes have killed approximately 100 million people in contrast
to the approximately 25 million victims of the Nazis
So yes, people who "understood what Communism is" are actually the ones most
anti-Communist.
Secondly, Communism is actually pretty popular in the US/West, especially
among millennials - who have been shown to not even know basic facts about history of
communism.
According to a new survey, one third of millennial, generation "X" and "Z"
respondents believe that more people were killed while Bush was US president than under
the dictatorship of former Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin.
Only 5 per cent of millennials were unfamiliar with the former US president - his
decision to invade Iraq took place within recent memory - while 18 per cent were
unfamiliar with Stalin
Re: "My grandmother was almost repressed [...] Many members of my extended family were
repressed during Stalin's times": I think you may be using the wrong word here; Stalin's
regime was definitely repressive, but "repress" is very vague, to the point that "almost
repressed" is meaningless. Did you mean something more specific? – ruakh
6 hours ago
The poll says 7% prefer a communist country while 44% prefer a socialist country. The same
poll also says that most people don't know or misidentify what socialism or communism really
are. Is it not, then, misleading to say "51%... prefer to live in socialist or communist
country..." in support of the premise that "Communism is actually pretty
popular..." ? – canadianer
3 hours ago
Marx wrote about the inevitability of a paradise of post scarcity once communism is achieved,
but very strongly implied that we need to climb over some well dressed corpses to get there.
It seems pretty expected that the people currently wearing those clothes aren't going to want
that.
Negative news reports weren't that long ago. Whether this is propaganda or not is
increasingly hard to say, but:
Two of the countries Americans are most concerned about are still aligned with communism.
There are still reports of humans rights violations. Some fairly brutal suppressions happened
in the last 40 years, which is withing living memory (not everyone is a millennial no matter
what the internet says).
I remember watching The Wall being smashed and a man stopping a tank on TV. And they will
live on in the internet, forever counterrevolutionary, with commentary about why they are
important. These are events that stick with some people as strongly as One Small Step, I Have
A Dream, or a man burning as he falls.
Some of the none governmental propaganda against communism is still regularly used. 1984
and Animal Farm are fairly hard to avoid in American school and Ayn Rand is surprisingly
often mentioned.
@user4012 it's in many school libraries...or at least was. I had it as part of coursework in
college. My son had it as a book he could read (suggested, not required) in high school.
– blip
yesterday
Looked up Ayn Rand rom wikipedia: "In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as
immoral,[3] and opposed collectivism and statism as well as anarchism, and instead supported
laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system based on recognizing individual
rights". What's so controversial about disliking oppressive regimes and supporting individual
rights? – Shautieh
3 hours ago
I don't particularly see how these reflect negatively on communism as an ideology. Rather,
they are examples of failed/inefficient policies by specific authoritarian governments, and
in some of the above might have even been politically motivated. If one were to ascribe these
failings to any particular form of government, I would personally attribute them to the
authoritarian underpinnings of the states in question, not their goals of communism.
Moreover, states like the USSR weren't communist in any form (they were socialist, both in
the constitution and in practice). – user41281
yesterday
user41281 The parent question asked "why it's so easy to ban Nazi symbols and so hard to ban
communist symbols" I thinks it's fair to say many evils have been done under those symbols,
it is strange they are seen in a positive light. The symbols represent specific
implementations of Communism. I personally think communism as an ideology is destined to lead
to tyranny but even if you don't think that's the case they symbols were used by some
horrific tyrannies. – Dan Walmsley
yesterday
@MoziburUllah Colonialism isn't required by capitalism. Communal farming is required by
communism. Also, tu
quoque is a logical fallacy. – Chloe
yesterday
Colonialism and slavery is historically linked with Capitalism in the same way that Communism
is historically linked with the atrocities you've mentioned; its part of a even-handed
critique to look at both sides of an argument, as opposed to criticism which is just
one-sided. – Mozibur Ullah
yesterday
@Mozibur Ullah: Linked by whom? Usually as propaganda by the left, no? Certainly we can find
colonialism and slavery in cultures that pre-date modern capitalism: Rome and Islam to pick
just two well-known instances. – jamesqf
yesterday
Why is communism considered as evil (like fascism and nazism) in western countries?
Simple answer is them vs us. This was previously nationality, but cold-war era saw this
them vs us line drawn more on economic lines as alliances spanned multiple nations. I'll try
to ignore the actuals behind why communism is evil and try to focus more on the perception of
why it's remained the big evil within western society.
It should be noted that if you include deaths from sweatshops, activities outlined in
'confessions of an economic hitman', and a handful of wars...capitalism likely has quite the
death toll behind it as well, but where do you draw the line between imperial ambitions and
capitalism...and if we're willing to draw that line for capitalism, where does that line lay
for the communists death toll? Ideal theory vs less than ideal implementation is always a
factor in this discussion, usually people have to wear pretty heavy blinders to declare why
our system is good and just while their system is corrupt and evil.
Much longer answer, a lot of this is generational. Younger generations are more and more
embracing a 'help your neighbor' viewpoint associating capitalism with a 'Individual at the
expense of everyone else' ala Martin Shkreli vs a communism 'collective looking out for the
good of one another', which seems to have caused a bit of a leftist tilt in the younger
generation (probably a bit to do with people get screwed over by capitalism as well and the
much greener grass of communism is a dream to address that). Of course, this is entirely a
dream world and has little to do with what communism actually is, yet a large number of
youths in capitalist nations have somehow come to the conclusion that communism is
preferable. Teaching this younger generation what the implementation of communism actually
looks like is often done in the 'communism is evil' standpoint, perpetuating the 'communism
is evil' viewpoint.
This is greatly exacerbated in the US, which shows a weird mix of misunderstanding and
political posturing...we've already got an answer claiming all socialism is communism (same
people that use 'liberal' as a curseword), which makes a pretty good example for this. Very
much an exercise of reductio ad absurdum in action, suggesting some social support is
countered by all social support is communism and therefore evil. Much of the wealthy within
the US is generally against using their money to finance social constructs (healthcare is a
big one here, but it's used against a pretty wide array of social programs) and a consistent
tactic to whip up support is to use the lines "this is socialism, all socialism is communism,
communism is evil, therefore "insert hot topic like universal healthcare" is evil. This
political posturing is a heavy reason this 'communism is evil!' argument continues in
America.
But with all that said...the key reason why Communism is regarded as evil can be reduced
to freedom. "communism = someone else/collective telling us what to do and how to behave" vs
"capitalism is the individual choosing what to do and how to behave". People who have had
their freedom denied will heavily resist what appears to be taking freedom away.
The catch with capitalism is that it can equally end up being someone else telling us what to
do and how to behave. It's not a simple contrast in that regard. – blip
yesterday
@blip - Agreed entirely, I'm tried to keep my talking points to perception and not the
reality...more often than not, perceptions are reduced down to the simplest form. –
Twelfth
yesterday
The base of socialism is higher tax and more control over the economy in order to "help the
poor". If one amplifies this to total [everything is taken away by tax, every economical
decision is controlled], then one gets exactly in a situation that is equivalent with
communism.
So "communism" is just the extreme of socialism. To be general, i will speak about
socialism mostly, but it applies to communism too.
Socialism, as any other social order : has a basic categorization : voluntary or enforced.
By the word "socialism" most people mean the one enforced by state, which is of course
violent, as laws of the state are mandatory, and enforced by violence. Such socialism is
really bad, even if not by intention, but at least by results.
In the enforced socialism : the state [hence, and more precisely the rulers] gain power to
take away the private property of the people and control economical activity. This has 2
notable results :
The rulers can decide who will get rich and who will get broke. This is enormous
political power. The big power tempts any ruler : even if it intended to do good with
socialism, the power corrupts it very soon and it becomes a tyrant.
It hurts the economy.
People are less motivated to produce if more of their product is taken away from
them.
Control disrupts the market mechanism. A healthy market is one that does not
produce externality and there is enough competition to prevent economical exploitation.
Most markets, absence of state regulation, work in such a healthy state. The prices
established by these competitive markets make demand and supply to equal, by this they
organize the economy into maximal efficiency. As state regulation changes the state of
the markets, distort prices : they move the economy into an other, hence a less
efficient state.
In short time : exploitation of the economy and distribution of the stolen assets to the
poor is popular. This also strengthens the political power of the socialist ruler. But in the
long time : the effect on the economy is felt by the people, who then start to want political
change. In this stage the ruler, who has by now established a tyranny : has 2 choices :
Use the tyranny to oppress the people.
Exploit the economy in a faster way, distribute to poor more heavily to temporarily
hide the economic problem. This only postpones and deepens the problem.
What makes socialism especially dangerous idea is that it gives high power to the ruler,
hence is prone to tyranny. I said "prone". Socialism does not necessarily leads to tyranny.
In fact : most democratic countries today are socialist for decades. If socialism is applied
in a sufficiently small dose then the negative consequences are small too and the country can
survive it, even prosper.
Socialism and hitlerism are the same in their core principle, which is : "I have an idea
about how people should live. It is so good that we should gain power and attack people to
force them to live that way."
It is very important to see where the problem is. It is not in the social ideology
itself.
Many people have nationalistic feelings, and they are still harmless, even good,
positive people.
There are a few small voluntary communist communities, which do not force others to
live such way.
Most people have some idea about how they and other people should live. That alone is
not dangerous.
The problem is the idea that people should be violently attacked to enforce an idea.
Violence itself may be even a good thing. For example it is good to kill a person who is
committing mass shooting. Not only because it saves more lives than it takes, but because it
saves innocent life and takes guilty life. Even it is good to shoot a group of criminals who
are killing a single innocent person. What is then really bad about violence? It is the
initiation of it ["attack", "aggression"].
More precisely we should condemn not only initiation of violence, but more generally :
initiation of harm. Harm also contains theft.
Economic freedom [voluntary exchange of goods and services] does not need violence at all,
but restricting economic freedom does. Defending property right does need violence, but
robbery needs more. Theft is initiation of harm, while using force against theft is violence
and therefore harm too, but not initiation of harm.
You've done a great job of illustrating how communism is erroneously conflated with
socialism. Not exactly the point of the question, unless you were going with irony. –
Twelfth
yesterday
"help the poor" - it's to help the people regardless of wealth, middle class still use the
social structures. But you are badly mixing the two topics up, communism is political while
socialism is economical and you seem to have this driving point to say that socialism cannot
be achieved without a dictator which is completely false. Democratic socialism already exists
proving your answer to be complete paranoia and a perfect example of the 'communism is evil,
flee while you can' mantra. Hence my +1 for ironic answer award – Twelfth
yesterday
@Andy - Can one have a capitalist economy without the use of force? ;) Private property
rights don't enforce themselves, you know. – Obie 2.0
yesterday
@Andy The Internet is not in America. There is no "they". The European socialists are already
here, in the comments with you. Hello! – owjburnham
9 hours ago
I am reading Alex Krainer's book on Bill Browder. After introducing himself, he summarized Browser's Red Alert, then spends several
chapters giving the context of the 1990s US/IMF rape of Russia via Yeltsin. One thing that he mentions of which I was not aware,
is that the IMF forced Russia to allow other former Soviet countries to use, and issue , Rubles, thereby delaying the introduction
of national currencies by a year, and giving the other former Soviet countries a motivation to issue huge quantities of currency,
and thereby driving hyperinflation. He portrays Jeffrey Sachs as possibly a geopolitical useful idiot of the US and IMF.
The IMF refused to give loans to actually assist the transition, but they had no problem giving Yeltsin a 6.7 billion dollar
loan for the Chechen war. Banks were given loans "to support the ruble," which were promptly used to bet against same.
At times, the conduct of the Harvard connected personnel in Russia became so blatantly criminal that the FBI investigated and
prosecuted. Harvard defended the guilty parties, and even paid a 31 million dollar US fine to settle the matter, and kept the
guilty party as faculty.
By the way, Jeff Sachs has come to the conclusion that he was used in exactly that way, that the USG never intended to actually
assist Russia's transition, but to make the process as prolonged and destructive as possible.
And then there was the US support to Yeltsin's reelection campaign in '96. In January Yeltsin was polling with a 5% approval
rating. 55% of Russians thought he should resign rather than seek reelection, mostly because his policies had them dying off by
almost a million a year. Funny that. He and the 'Family' seriously considered cancelling the election and ruling by decree.
Instead, they decided to steal it, with the assistance of Western governments & the IMF. In March, President Clinton prevailed
on the IMF to release about $10b to the Russian government, which used the funds to support Yeltsin's reelection. Years of wage
arrears for government workers were suddenly cleared, as if by magic! Zyuganov was buried under a tsunami of stories that he intended
to bring back War Communism and the Purges from both State and Oligarch-owned media, while getting no coverage of his actual positions
from same. Zyuganov adhered to the legal limits on campaign spending, while Yeltsin exceeded them by a couple of orders of magnitude,
with no consequence. And to top it all off, there was flagrant use of 'administrative resource' and outright voter fraud. Mr.
Michael Meadowcroft, the leader of the OSCE election monitoring team, told The Exile of the heavy pressure he got from Western
governments to minimize his reporting of how the Yeltsin reelection team was abusing Russian political processes in every possible
way to ensure his reelection and the continuation of the policies that had Russians dying off by almost a million a year.
And so in '96 Western media celebrated the 54% majority vote for the guy with the 5% approval rating as 'A Triumph of Democracy!'
In 2012 they called it 'Massive Fraud!' when the guy with the 66% approval rating got 63% of the vote.
The only possible conclusion from this is that Western government care nothing for what Russians think, or how, or even whether,
they live, only that the Russian government submit.
Their big problem for Western governments is that Russian voters now understand this, which puts them beyond the influence
of the Anglosphere Foreign Policy Elite & Punditocracy.
This drives the AFPE&P up the wall, for they are obsessed with having 'Leverage' and 'Influence' and cannot stand having none.
And so they bleat about a miniscule Facebook ad buy.
The desperation is in full display. One interesting thing that I notice is that the apolitical people are not aware, and even
forget the propaganda shortly after being subjected to it. While this has the downside of making them uninterested in the facts,
it does make them indifferent to the propaganda as well. Should they be dragooned into fighting, they will fight to survive, rather
than to conquer.
As such, the powers that still are, are out of options. Winning a battle such as a colour revolution is more expensive to their
aims in the long run than not initiating one, yet they need to steal other countries' wealth to roll over their expense accounts.
I need to work up my cynicism and invest in popcorn.
Another nice little detail that Krainer includes is the sending of large sums of mint US banknotes to Russian banks involved in
money laundering for gangs. This was done by a bank owned by Browser's "angel" investor, Edmond Safra, and he lists how the regulators
went out of their way to avoid their legal responsibilities in that matter. He also spends some time on Browder's confession that
his (Browder's) pretensions of being in opposition to Soros outfit Renaissance Capital was a ruse, as Browder admits to having
conducted much business with same.
He also spends some pages looking at Browder's tax evasion through transfer pricing (selling cheaply abroad, to a tax haven)
using avionics outfit AVISMA.
Finally, some humour: when Browder got served his summons, he started complaining that he left the US due to prosecution of
his family. Under examination, it turns out that his immediate family included professors at prestigious US universities, long
after McCarthy, but long before he opted for UK citizenship.
Yes, I did
a piece on that long ago , probably before your time here. It included some very useful links, some of which probably still
work – perhaps the most eye-popping being Robert Friedman's "The Money Plane", from New York Magazine . Check it out;
I think you'll find it enlightening.
I did not know that Renaissance Capital was connected to Soros, though; that's news to me, and I guess you can always learn
something.
You go into more detail, e.g. that the purpose of the shell companies was to take ownership of and manipulate Gazprom et alia.
You also have more detail on Safra -- Krainer did not mention his death, and I don't recall him mentioning Mr North.
And there is considerable anecdotal confirmation – which I realize is not evidence – that Zyuganov actually won the election,
but was so stupefied and frightened at the prospect of leading such a restive country that he allowed the election to be stolen
from him without opposing it. If true, he has never spoken of it himself to my knowledge. But others have.
I found the following article to be reasonable and consistent with my admittedly imperfect
understanding of pre-WW II Russian/Soviet history. The consistency for me was was in finding
a balance with the typically hyper-exaggerated claims of Western historians (evident to this
day) and the demonstrated behavior of Slavic Orthodox who tend be be far less excessive than
the West when it comes to war and genocide.
Regarding Jews in Russia, the article maintains that many were associated with betrayal of
Russia and many fought valiantly against the Western invaders so its a mixed bag in that
regard.
The article suggests that the Soviet Union concluded that it had 10 years to prepare for
the Western invasion that was meant to murder them all. They had to collectivize to release
labor for rapid industrialization and had to eliminate the anti-Russian 5th column. Only the
foregoing allowed the Soviet Union to survive and then defeat the Western invasion. It seems
quite plausible.
The article also debunks (sorry) claims of multi-million deaths from the famine and more
from the purges although this seems to still be a point of contention even among Russian
historians not slavishly following the Western party line.
I do recall that Gorbechev himself caused ire in the West when he stated that the numbers
killed by the purges were in the tens of thousands and not millions.
I think that it is time for Russia to write its own history without the slightest regard
of what the West will think. That holds even more so for Serbia.
"... Socialism a century ago seemed to be the wave of the future. There were various schools of socialism, but the common ideal was to guarantee support for basic needs, and for state ownership to free society from landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. In the West these hopes are now much further away than they seemed in 1917. Land and natural resources, basic infrastructure monopolies, health care and pensions have been increasingly privatized and financialized. ..."
"... Instead of Germany and other advanced industrial nations leading the way as expected, Russia's October 1917 Revolution made the greatest leap. But the failures of Stalinism became an argument against Marxism – guilt-by-association with Soviet bureaucracy. European parties calling themselves socialist or "labour" since the 1980s have supported neoliberal policies that are the opposite of socialist policy. Russia itself has chosen neoliberalism. ..."
"... Few socialist parties or theorists have dealt with the rise of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector that now accounts for most increase in wealth. Instead of evolving into socialism, Western capitalism is being overcome by predatory finance and rent extraction imposing debt deflation and austerity on industry as well as on labor. ..."
"... Failure of Western economies to recover from the 2008 crisis is leading to a revival of Marxist advocacy. The alternative to socialist reform is stagnation and a relapse into neofeudal financial and monopoly privileges. ..."
"... Russia's Revolution ended after 74 years, leaving the Soviet Union so dispirited that it ended in collapse. The contrast between the low living standards of Russian consumers and what seemed to be Western success became increasingly pronounced. ..."
"... When the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, its leaders took neoliberal advice from its major adversary, the United States, in hope that this would set it on a capitalist road to prosperity. But turning its economies into viable industrial powers was the last thing U.S. advisors wanted to teach Russia. [3] Their aim was to turn it and its former satellites into raw-materials colonies of Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt – victims of capitalism, not rival producers. ..."
"... It should not be surprising that banks became the economy's main control centers, as in the West's bubble economies. Instead of the promised prosperity, a new class of billionaires was endowed, headed by the notorious Seven Bankers who appropriated the formerly state-owned oil and gas, nickel and platinum, electricity and aluminum production, as well as real estate, electric utilities and other public enterprises. It was the largest giveaway in modern history. The Soviet nomenklatura became the new lords in outright seizure that Marx would have characterized as "primitive accumulation." ..."
"... The American advisors knew the obvious: Russian savings had been wiped out by the polst-1991 hyperinflation, so the new owners could only cash out by selling shares to Western buyers. The kleptocrats cashed out as expected, by dumping their shares to foreign investors so quickly at such giveaway prices that Russia's stock market became the world's top performer for Western investors in 1994-96. ..."
"... The basic neoliberal idea of prosperity is financial gain based on turning rent extraction into a flow of interest payments by buyers-on-credit. This policy favors financial engineering over industrial investment, reversing the Progressive Era's industrial capitalism that Marx anticipated would be a transition stage leading to socialism. Russia adopted the West's anti-socialist rollback toward neofeudalism. ..."
"... Russia joined the dollar standard. Buying Treasury bonds meant lending to the U.S. Government. The central bank bought U.S. Treasury securities to back its domestic currency. These purchases helped finance Cold War escalation in countries around Russia. Russia paid 100% annual interest in the mid-1990s, creating a bonanza for U.S. investors. On balance, this neoliberal policy lay Russia's economy open to looting by financial institutions seeking natural resource rent, land rent and monopoly rent for themselves. Instead of targeting such rents, Russia imposed taxes mainly on labor via a regressive flat tax – too right wing to be adopted even in the United States! ..."
"... Theories of Surplus Value ..."
"... This Western financial advice became a textbook example of how not ..."
"... By 1991, when the Soviet Union's leaders decided to take the "Western" path, the Western economies themselves were reaching a terminus. Appearances were saved by a wave of unproductive credit and debt creation to sustain the bubble economy that finally crashed in 2008. ..."
"... The same debt overgrowth occurred in the industrial sector, where bank and bondholder credit since the 1980s has been increasingly for corporate takeovers and raiding, stock buybacks and even to pay dividends. Industry has become a vehicle for financial engineering to increase stock prices and strip assets, not to increase the means of production. The result is that capitalism has fallen prey to resurgent rentier ..."
"... Theories of Surplus Value ..."
"... American Journal of Economics and Sociology ..."
"... Super-Imperialism ..."
"... The Great Credit Crash ..."
"... The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Neoliberal Baltic Model ..."
Socialism
a century ago seemed to be the wave of the future. There were various schools of socialism, but
the common ideal was to guarantee support for basic needs, and for state ownership to free
society from landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. In the West these hopes are now much
further away than they seemed in 1917. Land and natural resources, basic infrastructure
monopolies, health care and pensions have been increasingly privatized and financialized.
Instead of Germany and other advanced industrial nations leading the way as expected,
Russia's October 1917 Revolution made the greatest leap. But the failures of Stalinism became
an argument against Marxism – guilt-by-association with Soviet bureaucracy. European
parties calling themselves socialist or "labour" since the 1980s have supported neoliberal
policies that are the opposite of socialist policy. Russia itself has chosen
neoliberalism.
Few socialist parties or theorists have dealt with the rise of the Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate (FIRE) sector that now accounts for most increase in wealth. Instead of
evolving into socialism, Western capitalism is being overcome by predatory finance and rent
extraction imposing debt deflation and austerity on industry as well as on labor.
Failure of Western economies to recover from the 2008 crisis is leading to a revival of
Marxist advocacy. The alternative to socialist reform is stagnation and a relapse into
neofeudal financial and monopoly privileges.
Socialism flowered in the 19 th century as a program to reform capitalism by
raising labor's status and living standards, with a widening range of public services and
subsidies to make economies more efficient. Reformers hoped to promote this evolution by
extending voting rights to the working population at large.
Ricardo's discussion of land rent led early industrial capitalists to oppose Europe's
hereditary landlord class. But despite democratic political reform, the world has un-taxed land
rent and is still grappling with the problem of how to keep housing affordable instead of
siphoning off rent to a landlord class – more recently transmuted into mortgage interest
paid to banks by owners who pledge the rental value for loans. Most bank lending today is for
real estate mortgages. The effect is to bid up land prices toward the point where the entire
rental value is paid as interest. This threatens to be a problem for socialist China as well as
for capitalist economies.
Landlords, banks and the cost of living
The classical economists sought to make their nations more competitive by keeping down the
price of labor so as to undersell competitors. The main cost of living was food; today it is
housing. Housing and food prices are determined not by the material costs of production, but by
land rent – the rising market price for land.
In the era of the French Physiocrats, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, this
land rent accrued to Europe's hereditary landlord class. Today, the land's rent is paid mainly
to bankers – because families need credit to buy a home. Or, if they rent, their
landlords use the property rent to pay interest to the banks.
The land issue was central to Russia's October Revolution, as it was for European politics.
But the discussion of land rent and taxation has lost much of the clarity (and passion) that
guided the 19 th century when it dominated classical political economy, liberal
reform, and indeed most early socialist politics.
In 1909/10 Britain experienced a constitutional crisis when the democratically elected House
of Commons passed a land tax, only to be overridden by the House of Lords, governed by the old
aristocracy. The ensuing political crisis was settled by a rule that the Lords never again
could overrule a revenue bill passed by the House of Commons. But that was Britain's last real
opportunity to tax away the economic rents of landlords and natural resource owners. The
liberal drive to tax the land faltered, and never again would gain serious chance of
passage.
The democratization of home ownership during the 20 th century led middle-class
voters to oppose property taxes – including taxes on commercial sites and natural
resources. Tax policy in general has become pro- rentier and anti-labor – the
regressive opposite of 19 th -century liberalism as developed by "Ricardian
socialists" such as John Stuart Mill and Henry George. Today's economic individualism has lost
the early class consciousness that sought to tax economic rent and socialize banking.
The United States enacted an income tax in 1913, falling mainly on rentier income,
not on the working population. Capital gains (the main source of rising wealth today) were
taxed at the same rate as other income. But the vested interests campaigned to reverse this
spirit, slashing capital gains taxes and making tax policy much more regressive. The result is
that today, most wealth is not gained by capital investment for profits. Instead, asset-price
gains have been financed by a debt-leveraged inflation of real estate, stock and bond
prices.
Many middle-class families owe most of their net worth to rising prices for their homes. But
by far the lion's share of the real estate and stock market gains have accrued to just One
Percent of the population. And while bank credit has enabled buyers to bid up housing prices,
the price has been to siphon off more and more of labor's income to pay mortgage loans or
rents. As a result, finance today is what is has been throughout history: the main force
polarizing economies between debtors and creditors.
Global oil and mining companies created flags of convenience to make themselves tax-exempt,
by pretending to make all their production and distribution profits in tax-free trans-shipping
havens such as Liberia and Panama (which use U.S. dollars instead of being real countries with
their own currency and tax systems).
The fact that absentee-owned real estate and natural resource extraction are practically
free of income taxation shows that democratic political reform has not been a sufficient
guarantee of socialist success. Tax rules and public regulation have been captured by the
rentiers , dashing the hopes of 19 th -century classical reformers that
progressive tax policy would produce the same effect as direct public ownership of the means of
production, while leaving "the market" as an individualistic alternative to government
regulation or planning.
In practice, planning and resource allocation has passed to the banking and financial
sector. Many observers hoped that this would evolve into state planning, or at least work in
conjunction with it as in Germany. But liberal "Ricardian socialist" failed, as did
German-style "state socialism" publicly financing transportation and other basic
infrastructure, pensions and similar "external" costs of living and doing business that
industrial employers otherwise would have to bear. Attempts at "half-way" socialism via tax and
regulatory policy against monopolies and banking have faltered repeatedly. As long as major
economic or political choke points are left in private hands, they will serve s springboards to
subvert real reform policies. That is why Marxist policy went beyond these would-be socialist
reforms.
To Marx, the historical task of capitalism was to prepare the way for socializing the means
of production by clearing away feudalism's legacy: a hereditary landlord class, predatory
banking, and the monopolies that financial interests had pried away from governments. The path
of least resistance was to start by socializing land and basic infrastructure. This drive to
free society from economic overhead in the form of hereditary privilege and unearned income by
the "idle rich" was a step toward socialist management, by minimizing rentier costs ("
faux frais of production").
Proto-socialist reform in the leading industrial nations
Marx was by no means alone in expecting a widening range of economic activity to be shifted
away from the market to the public sector. State socialism (basically, state-sponsored
capitalism) subsidized pensions and public health, education and other basic needs so as to
save industrial enterprise from having to bear these charges.
In the United States, Simon Patten – the first economics professor at the new Wharton
business school at the University of Pennsylvania – defined public infrastructure as a
"fourth factor of production" alongside labor, capital and land. The aim of public investment
was not to make a profit, but to lower the cost of living and doing business so as to minimize
industry's wage and infrastructure bill. Public health, pensions, roads and other
transportation, education, research and development were subsidized or provided freely.
[1]
The most advanced industrial economies seemed to be evolving toward some kind of socialism.
Marx shared a Progressive Era optimism that expected industrial capitalism to evolve in the
most logical way, by freeing economies from the landlordship and predatory banking inherited
from Europe's feudal era. That was above all the classical reform program of Adam Smith, John
Stuart Mill and the intellectual mainstream.
But the aftermath of World War I saw the vested interests mount a Counter-Enlightenment.
Banking throughout the Western world find its major market in real estate mortgage lending,
natural resource extraction and monopolies – the Anglo-American model, not that of German
industrial banking that had seemed to be capitalism's financial future in the late 19
th century.
Since 1980 the Western nations have reversed early optimistic hopes to reform market
economies. Instead of the classical dream of taxing away the land rent that had supported
Europe's hereditary landed aristocracies, commercial real estate has been made virtually exempt
from income taxation. Absentee owners avoid tax by a combination of tax-deductibility for
interest payments (as if it is a necessary business expense) and fictitious over-depreciation
tax credits that pretend that buildings and properties are losing value even when market prices
for their land are soaring.
These tax breaks have made real estate the largest bank customers. The effect has been to
financialize property rents into interest payments. Likewise in the industrial sphere,
regulatory capture by lobbyists for the major monopolies has disabled public attempts to keep
prices in line with the cost of production and prevent fraud by breaking up or regulating
monopolies. These too have become major bank clients.
The beginning and end of Russian socialism
Most Marxists expected socialism to emerge first in Germany as the most advanced capitalist
economy. After its October 1917 Revolution, Russia seemed to jump ahead, the first nation to
free itself from rent and interest charges inherited from feudalism. By taking land, industry
and finance into state control, Soviet Russia's October Revolution created an economy without
private landlords and bankers. Russian urban planning did not take account of the natural
rent-of-location, nor did it charge for the use of money created by the state bank. The state
bank created money and credit, so there was no need to rely on a wealthy financial class. And
as property owner, the state did not seek to charge land rent or monopoly rent.
By freeing society from the post-feudal rentier class of landlords, bankers and
predatory finance, the Soviet regime was much more than a bourgeois revolution. The
Revolution's early leaders sought to free wage labor from exploitation by taking industry into
the public domain. State companies provided labor with free lunches, education, sports and
leisure activity, and modest housing.
Agricultural land tenure was a problem. Given its centralized marketing role, the state
could have reallocated land to build up a rural peasantry and helped it invest in
modernization. The state could have manipulated crop prices to siphon off agricultural gains,
much like Cargill does in the United States. Instead, Stalin's collectivization program waged a
war against the kulaks. This political shock led to famine. It was a steep price to pay for
avoiding rent was paid to a landlord class or peasantry.
Marx had said nothing about the military dimension of the transition from progressive
industrial capitalism to socialism. But Russia's Revolution – like that of China three
decades later – showed that the attempt to create a socialist economy had a military
dimension that absorbed the lion's share of the economic surplus. Military aggression by a half
dozen leading capitalist nations seeking to overthrow the Bolshevik government obliged Russia
to adopt War Communism. For over half a century the Soviet Union devoted most of capital to
military investment, not provide sufficient housing or consumer goods for its population beyond
spreading literacy, education and public health.
Despite this military overhead, the fact that the Soviet Union was free of a
rentier class of financiers and absentee landlords should have made the Soviet Union
the world's most competitive low-cost economy in theory. In 1945 the United States certainly
feared the efficiency of socialist planning. Its diplomats opposed Soviet membership on the
ground that state enterprise and pricing would enable such economies to undersell capitalist
countries.
[2] So socialist countries were kept out of the IMF, World Bank and the planned World Trade
Organization, explicitly on the ground that they were free of land rent, natural resource rent,
monopoly rent and financial charges.
Capitalist economies are now privatizing and financializing their basic needs and
infrastructure. Every activity is being forced into "the market," at prices that need to cover
not only the technological costs of production but also interest, ancillary financial fees and
pension set-asides. The cost of living and doing business is further privatized as financial
interests pry roads, health care, water, communications and other public utilities away from
the public sector, while driving housing and commercial real estate deeply into debt.
The Cold War has shown that capitalist countries plan to continue fighting socialist
economies, forcing them to militarize in self-defense. The resulting oppressive military
overhead is then blamed on socialist bureaucracy and inefficiency.
The collapse of Russian Stalinism
Russia's Revolution ended after 74 years, leaving the Soviet Union so dispirited that it
ended in collapse. The contrast between the low living standards of Russian consumers and what
seemed to be Western success became increasingly pronounced. In contrast to China's housing
construction policy, the Soviet regime insisted that families double up. Clothing and other
consumer goods had only drab designs, needlessly suppressing variety. To cap matters, public
opposition to Russia's military personnel losses in Afghanistan caused popular resentment.
When the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, its leaders took neoliberal advice from its
major adversary, the United States, in hope that this would set it on a capitalist road to
prosperity. But turning its economies into viable industrial powers was the last thing U.S.
advisors wanted to teach Russia.
[3] Their aim was to turn it and its former satellites into raw-materials colonies of Wall
Street, the City of London and Frankfurt – victims of capitalism, not rival
producers.
Russia has gone to the furthest anti-socialist extreme by adopting a flat tax that fails to
distinguish wages and profits of labor and capital from unearned rental income. By also having
to pay a value-added tax (VAT) on consumer goods (with no tax on trading in financial assets),
labor is taxed much higher than the wealthy.
Most Western "wealth creation" is achieved by debt-leveraged price increases for real
estate, stocks and bonds, and by privatizing the public domain. The latter process has gained
momentum since the early 1980s in Margaret Thatcher's Britain and Ronald Reagan's America,
followed by Third World countries acting under World Bank tutelage. The pretense is that
privatization will maximize technological efficiency and prosperity for the economy as a
whole.
Following this advice, Russian leaders agreed that the major sources of economic rent
– natural resource wealth, real estate and state companies – should be transferred
to private owners (often to themselves and associated insiders). The "magic of the marketplace"
was supposed to lead the new owners to make the economy more efficient as a byproduct of making
money in the quickest way possible.
Each Russian worker got a "voucher" worth about $25. Most were sold off simply to obtain
money to buy food and other needs as many companies stopped paying wages. Russia had wiped out
domestic savings with hyperinflation after 1991.
It should not be surprising that banks became the economy's main control centers, as in the
West's bubble economies. Instead of the promised prosperity, a new class of billionaires was
endowed, headed by the notorious Seven Bankers who appropriated the formerly state-owned oil
and gas, nickel and platinum, electricity and aluminum production, as well as real estate,
electric utilities and other public enterprises. It was the largest giveaway in modern history.
The Soviet nomenklatura became the new lords in outright seizure that Marx would have
characterized as "primitive accumulation."
The American advisors knew the obvious: Russian savings had been wiped out by the polst-1991
hyperinflation, so the new owners could only cash out by selling shares to Western buyers. The
kleptocrats cashed out as expected, by dumping their shares to foreign investors so quickly at
such giveaway prices that Russia's stock market became the world's top performer for Western
investors in 1994-96.
The Russian oligarchs kept most of their sales proceeds abroad in British and other banks,
beyond the reach of Russian authorities to recapture. Much was spent on London real estate,
sports teams and luxury estates in the world's flight-capital havens. Almost none was invested
in Russian industry. Wage arrears often mounted up half a year behind. Living standards shrank,
along with the population as birth rates plunged throughout the former Soviet economies.
Skilled labor emigrated.
The basic neoliberal idea of prosperity is financial gain based on turning rent extraction
into a flow of interest payments by buyers-on-credit. This policy favors financial engineering
over industrial investment, reversing the Progressive Era's industrial capitalism that Marx
anticipated would be a transition stage leading to socialism. Russia adopted the West's
anti-socialist rollback toward neofeudalism.
Russian officials failed to understand the State Theory of money that is the basis of Modern
Monetary Theory: States can create their own money, giving it value by accepting it in payment
of taxes. The Soviet government financed its economy for seventy years without any need to back
the ruble with foreign exchange. But Russia's central bank was persuaded that "sound money"
required it to back its domestic ruble currency with U.S. Treasury bonds in order to prevent
inflation. Russian leaders did not realize that dollars or other foreign currencies were only
needed to finance balance-of-payments deficits, not domestic spending except as this money was
spent on imports.
Russia joined the dollar standard. Buying Treasury bonds meant lending to the U.S.
Government. The central bank bought U.S. Treasury securities to back its domestic currency.
These purchases helped finance Cold War escalation in countries around Russia. Russia paid 100%
annual interest in the mid-1990s, creating a bonanza for U.S. investors. On balance, this
neoliberal policy lay Russia's economy open to looting by financial institutions seeking
natural resource rent, land rent and monopoly rent for themselves. Instead of targeting such
rents, Russia imposed taxes mainly on labor via a regressive flat tax – too right wing to
be adopted even in the United States!
When the Soviet Union dissolved itself, its officials showed no apprehension of how quickly
their economies would be de-industrialized as a result of accepting U.S. advice to privatize
state enterprises, natural resources and basic infrastructure. Whatever knowledge of Marx's
analysis of capitalism had existed (perhaps in Nicolai Bukharin's time) was long gone. It is as
if no Russian official had read Volumes II and III of Marx's Capital (or Theories
of Surplus Value ) where he reviewed the laws of economic rent and interest-bearing
debt.
The inability of Russia, the Baltics and other post-Soviet countries to understand the FIRE
sector and its financial dynamics provides an object lesson for other countries as to what to
avoid. Reversing the principles of Russia's October 1917 Revolution, the post-Soviet
kleptocracy was akin to the feudal epoch's "primitive accumulation" of the land and commons.
They adopted the neoliberal business plan: to establish monopolies, first and most easily by
privatizing the public infrastructure that had been built up, extracting economic rents and
them paying out the resulting as interest and dividends.
This Western financial advice became a textbook example of how not to organize an
economy.
[4] Having rejoined the global economy free of debt in 1991, Russia's population, companies
and government quickly ran up debts as a result of its man-made disaster. Families could have
been given their homes freely, just as corporate managers were given their entire companies
virtually for free. But Russian managers were as anti-labor as they were greedy to grab their
own assets from the public domain. Soaring housing prices quickly plagued Russian's economy
with one of the world's highest-priced living and business costs. That prevented any thought of
industrial competitiveness with the United States or Europe. What passed for Soviet Marxism
lacked an understanding of how economic rents and the ensuing high labor costs affected
international prices, or how debt service and capital flight affected the currency's exchange
rate.
Adversaries of socialism pronounced Marxist theory dead, as if the Soviet dissolution meant
the end of Marxism. But today, less than three decades later, the leading Western economies are
themselves succumbing to an overgrowth of debt and shrinking prosperity. Russia failed to
recognize that just as its own economy was expiring, so was the West's. Industrial capitalism
is succumbing to a predatory finance capitalism that is leaving Western economies debt-ridden.
[5] The underlying causes were clear already a century ago: unchecked financial
rentiers , absentee ownership and monopolies.
The post-Soviet collapse in the 1990s was not a failure of Marxism, but of the
anti-socialist ideology that is plunging Western economies under domination by the Finance,
Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector's symbiosis of the three forms of rent extraction: land
and natural resource rent, monopoly rent, and interest (financial rent). This is precisely the
fate from which 19 th -century socialism, Marxism and even state capitalism sought
to save the industrial economies.
A silver lining to the Soviet "final" stage has been to free Marxist analysis from Russian
Marxology. Its focus of Soviet Marxology was not an analysis of how the capitalist nations were
becoming financialized neo- rentier economies, but was mainly propagandistic,
ossifying into a stereotyped identity politics appealing to labor and oppressed minorities.
Today's revival of Marxist scholarship has begun to show how the U.S.-centered global economy
is entering a period of chronic austerity, debt deflation, and polarization between creditors
and debtors.
Financialization and privatization are submerging capitalism in debt deflation
By 1991, when the Soviet Union's leaders decided to take the "Western" path, the Western
economies themselves were reaching a terminus. Appearances were saved by a wave of unproductive
credit and debt creation to sustain the bubble economy that finally crashed in 2008.
The pitfalls of this financial dynamic were not apparent in the early years after World War
II, largely because economies emerged with their private sectors free of debt. The ensuing boom
endowed the middle class in the United States and other countries, but was debt financed, first
for home ownership and commercial real estate, then by consumer credit to purchase of
automobiles and appliances, and finally by credit-card debt just to meet living expenses.
The same debt overgrowth occurred in the industrial sector, where bank and bondholder credit
since the 1980s has been increasingly for corporate takeovers and raiding, stock buybacks and
even to pay dividends. Industry has become a vehicle for financial engineering to increase
stock prices and strip assets, not to increase the means of production. The result is that
capitalism has fallen prey to resurgent rentier interests instead of liberating
economies from absentee landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. Banks and bondholders have
found their most lucrative market not in the manufacturing sector but in real estate and
natural resource extraction.
These vested interests have translated their takings into the political power to shed taxes
and dismantle regulations on wealth. The resulting political Counter-Reformation has inverted
the idea of "free market" to mean an economy free for rent extractors, not free
from landlords, monopolists and financial exploitation as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill
and other classical economists had envisioned. The word "reform" as used by today's neoliberal
media means undoing Progressive Era reforms, dismantling public regulation and
government power – except for control by finance and its allied vested
interests.
All this is the opposite of socialism, which has now sunk to its nadir through the Western
World. The past four decades have seen most of the European and North American parties calling
themselves "socialist" make an about-face to follow Tony Blair's New Labour, the French
socialists-in-name and the Clinton's New Democrats. They support privatization,
financialization and a shift away from progressive taxation to a value-added tax (VAT) falling
on consumers, not on finance or real estate.
China's socialist diplomacy in today's hostile world
Now that Western finance capitalism is stagnating, it is fighting even harder to prevent the
post-2008 crisis from leading to socialist reforms that would re-socialize infrastructure that
has been privatized and put a public banking system in place. Depicting the contrast between
socialist and finance-capitalist economies as a clash of civilizations, U.S.-centered "Western"
diplomacy is using military and political subversion to prevent a transition from capitalism
into socialism.
China is the leading example of socialist success in a mixed economy. Unlike the Soviet
Union, it has not proselytized its economic system or sought to promote revolution abroad to
emulate its economic doctrine. Just the opposite: To avert attack, China has given foreign
investors a stake in its economic growth. The aim has been to mobilize U.S. and other foreign
interests as allies, willing customers for China's exports, and suppliers of modern production
facilities in China.
This is the opposite of the antagonism that confronted Russia. The risk is that it involves
financial investment. But China has protected its autonomy by requiring majority Chinese
ownership in most sectors. The main danger is domestic, in the form of financial dynamics and
private rent extraction. The great economic choice facing China today concerns the degree to
which land and natural resources should be taxed.
The state owns the land, but does fully tax its rising valuation or rent-of-location that
has made many families rich. Letting the resulting real-estate and financialized wealth
dominate its economic growth poses two dangers: First, it increases the price that new buyers
must pay for their home. Second, rising housing prices force these families to borrow –
at interest. This turns the rental value of land – value created by society and public
infrastructure investment – into a flow of interest to the banks. They end up receiving
more over time than the sellers, while increasing the cost of living and doing business. That
is a fate which a socialist economy must avoid at all costs.
At issue is how China can best manage credit and natural resource rent in a way that best
meets the needs of its population. Now that China has built up a prosperous industry and real
estate, its main challenge is to avoid the financial dynamics that are subjecting the West to
debt deflation and burying Western economies. To avoid these dynamics, China must curtail the
proliferation of unproductive debt created merely to transfer property on credit, inflating
asset prices in the process.
Socialism is incompatible with a rentier class of landlords, natural resource
owners and monopolists – the preferred clients of banks hoping to turn economic rent into
interest charges. As a vehicle to allocate resources "the market" reflects the status quo of
property ownership and credit-creation privileges at any given moment of time, without
consideration for what is fair and efficient or predatory. Vested interests claim that such a
market is an immutable force of nature, whose course cannot be altered by government
"interference." This rhetoric of political passivity aims to deter politicians and voters from
regulating economies, leaving the wealthy free to extract as much economic rent and interest as
markets can bear by privatizing real estate, natural resources, banking and other
monopolies.
Such rent seeking is antithetical to socialism's aim to take these assets into the public
domain. That is why the financial sector, oil and mineral extractors and monopolists fight so
passionately to dismantle state regulatory power and public banking. That is the diplomacy of
finance capital, aiming to consolidate American hegemony over a unipolar world. It backs this
strategy with a neoliberal academic curriculum that depicts predatory financial and
rentier gains as if they add to national income, not simply transfer it into the hands
of the rentier classes. This misleading picture of economic reality poses a danger for
China sending its students to study economics at American and European universities.
The century that has elapsed since Russia's October 1917 Revolution has produced a
substantial Marxist literature describing how finance capitalism has overpowered industrial
capitalism. Its dynamics occupied Marx in Volumes II and III of Capital (and also his
Theories of Surplus Value ). Like most observers of his era, Marx expected capitalism
to make a substantial step toward socialism by overcoming the dynamics of parasitic capital,
above all the tendency for debt to keep on expanding at compound interest until it produces a
financial crash.
The only way to control banks and their allied rentier sectors is outright
socialization. The past century has shown that if society does not control the banks and
financial sector, they will control society. Their strategy is to block government money
creation so that economies will be forced to rely on banks and bondholders. Regulatory
authority to limit such financial aggression and the monopoly pricing and rent extraction it
supports has been crippled in the West by "regulatory capture" by the rentier
oligarchy.
Attempts to tax away rental income (the liberal alternative to taking real estate and
natural resources directly into the public domain) is prone to lobbying for loopholes and
evasion, most notoriously via offshore banking centers in tax-avoidance enclaves and the "flags
of convenience" sponsored by the global oil and mining companies. This leaves the only way to
save society from the financial power to convert rent into interest to be a policy of
nationalizing natural resources, fully taxing land rent (where land and minerals are not taken
directly into the public domain), and de-privatizing infrastructure and other key sectors.
Conclusion
Markets have not recovered for the products of American industry and labor since 2008.
Industrial capitalism has been sacrificed to a form of finance capitalism that is looking more
pre-capitalist (or simply oligarchic and neofeudal) with each passing year. The resulting
polarization forces every economy – including China – to choose between saving its
bankers and other creditors or freeing debtors and lowering the economy's cost structure. Will
the government enforce bank and bondholder claims, or will it give priority to the economy and
its people? That is an eternal political question spanning pre-capitalist, capitalist and
post-capitalist economies.
Marx described the mathematics of compound interest expanding to absorb the entire economy
as age-old, long predating industrial capitalism. He characterized the ancient mode of
production as dominated by slavery and usury, and medieval banking as predatory. These
financial dynamics exist in socialist economies just as they did in medieval and ancient
economies. The way in which governments manage the dynamics of credit and debt thus are the
dominant force in every era, and should receive the most pressing attention today as China
shapes its socialist future.
Notes.
[1] I give the details in "Simon Patten on Public Infrastructure and Economic Rent
Capture," American Journal of Economics and Sociology 70 (October 2011):873-903.
[2] My book Super-Imperialism
(1972; new ed. 2002) reviews this discussion during 1944-46.
[3] I discuss the IMF and World Bank plan to wipe out Russian savings with hyperinflation
and make manufacturing investment uneconomic in "How Neoliberal Tax and Financial Policy
Impoverishes Russia – Needlessly," Mir Peremen (The World of Transformations),
2012 (3):49-64 (in Russian). МИР
ПЕРЕМЕН 3/2012 (ISSN 2073-3038) Mir peremen М.
ХАДСОН,
Неолиберальная
налоговая и
финансовая
политика
приводит к
обнищанию
России, 49-64.
-- Согласно внешнеполитической доктрине США само существование Советского Союза было несовместимо с американской безопасностью.
Изменилось ли, на Ваш взгляд, отношение США к России после официальной констатации окончания "холодной войны" и распада СССР?
-- К 1991 году, если судить по документам МВФ и ряду документов внутри самих США, американцами было проведено глубокое изучение
нашей экономики и морально-политического состояния и настроения советского народа. Конгресс США рассмотрел эти материалы и в результате
был принят закон 102 от 1992 года под оскорбительным для России названием "Закон о свободе для России и новых независимых государств".
Одновременно, осенью 1992 года, Объединённый комитет начальников штабов США доложил президенту и Конгрессу оценку состояния Вооружённых
Сил США, где в первом же абзаце 11-й главы "Специальные операции" говорится, что, не смотря на то, что руководители России взяли
на себя обязательства реформировать свои Вооружённые Силы и правоохранительные органы, Россия всё равно будет оставаться нашим главным
противником, требующим самого пристального внимания.
( Читать дальше...Свернуть ) -- Но можно ведь и сказать, что это были только первые постсоветские годы, и США, быть может, ещё находились под впечатлением
недавнего милитаристского с их точки зрения прошлого нашей страны? Просто-напросто не спешили нам доверять.
-- Можно сказать, что тогда ещё было горячее время, "лихие 1990-е", но Несколько лет тому назад Норвежский институт стратегических
исследований опубликовал работу, написанную бывшим советским офицером, который, вероятно, когда-то "ушёл" на Запад (я специально
не исследовал это обстоятельство) под названием "Может ли территория бывшей сверхдержавы стать полем боя". В ней он, исходя из собственного
опыта и на основании анализа многих документов, даёт заключение, какое сопротивление на территории России могут встретить военные
подразделения стран НАТО: в каком месте их будут встречать камнями, в каком месте будут стрелять, а в каком будут приветствовать.
Насколько нам удалось понять, в дальнейшем наблюдая за судьбой этой работы, она прошла большой круг исследования в странах НАТО
и была очень серьёзно принята в США. Они, конечно, никогда в этом не признаются, но это так. Так что я полностью уверен, что со времён
крушения Советского Союза отношение США к нам не изменилось. Сегодняшнее внимание США к России -- это внимание к не поверженному
окончательно в 1991 году противнику. И США руководствуются этим принципом в осуществлении своей внешней политики.
-- Если США, по-прежнему нам не доверяют и, мягко говоря, не способствуют нашему развитию, то почему они не боялись возрождения
послевоенной Германии, своего реального врага на поле боя?
-- Возрождения послевоенной Германии американцы не боялись, как не боятся её усиления сейчас, потому что в 1949 году, прежде чем
окончательно сформировалась ФРГ, которой разрешили иметь Бундесвер, Германию по рукам и ногам связали соглашениями с США и другими
странами НАТО. Бывший начальник военной контрразведки Бундесвера генерал Камоса опубликовал книгу "Секретные игры тайных служб",
где прямо пишет, что согласно послевоенным германо-американским соглашениям каждый новый канцлер Германии, приходящий к управлению
страной, должен сразу после выборов приехать в США и подписаться под документом под названием "Канцлер-акт". Срок окончания "Канцлер-акта"
-- 2099 год.
Процитирую вам выдержку из "Секретных игр тайных служб":
"21 мая 1949 года Федеральная разведка опубликовала под грифом "Совершенно секретно" тайный государственный договор, в котором
были изложены основные принципы подходов победителей к суверенитету Федеральной республики до 2099 года "
Останется ли к этому времени немец немцем? Останется ли к этому времени Бундесвер способным воевать так, как он воевал во Второй
Мировой войне? Каково вообще конечное назначение "Канцлер-акта"? Вот какие вопросы возникают при чтении этой книги.
Кстати, генерал Камоса был очень осторожен, поэтому не осмелился издать "Секретные игры тайных служб" в Германии, а вынужден был
выпустить книгу в Австрии. Был небольшой шум. Наши корреспонденты, которые прочитали "Секретные игры тайных служб" в Австрии, опубликовали
маленькую заметку: отдаёт ли себе отчёт генерал Камоса какую "бомбу" он выдал? Вместе с тем они задались вопросом: а что подписали
в 1991 году наши руководители? Политический обозреватель "Независимой газеты" Фаенко полгода назад в одной из своих статей выложил
свою "бомбу" Он пишет, что в США очень многие видные политические деятели и крупные бизнесмены недовольны тем, что Россия не придерживается
негласных соглашений, которые были подписаны её руководителями.
-- Была ли, на Ваш взгляд, у СССР вообще хоть когда-нибудь пусть теоретическая возможность стать полноценным партнёром США?
Ну, хотя бы на пике советско-американского сотрудничества во Второй Мировой войне.
-- Нет, потому что вина за то, что немцы в 1941 году напали на СССР, в том числе лежит и на США. Об этом почему-то сейчас не вспоминают,
но ведь в 1940-м году советник английского премьер-министра Черчилля -- Монтгомери Хайд, который помогал Уильяму Доновану (один из
руководителей американских спецслужб -- авт.) создавать Управление стратегических служб, передал ему для вручения президенту США
Рузвельту письмо Черчилля, где тот писал: поскольку США не находятся в состоянии войны с Германией, то не могли бы вы побудить Гитлера
оставить в покое Балканы и ускорить мероприятия в отношении России. С той поры прошло уже много лет и многим на Западе кажется, что
про это письмо все забыли. Но забыть можно лишь тогда, когда ты не хочешь помнить о чём-то.
Сегодня никто не вспоминает так же, что на самом деле подготовка ко Второй Мировой войне началась в 1929 году со встречи американского
президента Герберта Гувера с виднейшими предпринимателями США из центра Рассела; есть у них такое тайное общество. Оно заявило Гуверу:
"Приближается кризис, попытаться избежать трудного положения, в котором могут оказаться США, можно лишь изменив расстановку сил
в мире. Для этого надо оказать помощь России, чтобы она окончательно избавилась от разрухи -- последствий гражданской войны, и помочь
Германии избавиться от тисков Версальского договора". "Но на это нужны деньги, -- возразил Гувер, -- несколько миллиардов. Да и для
чего нам это нужно, что будет потом?". "А потом надо столкнуть Россию и Германию лбами для того, чтобы, воспрянув после кризиса,
США оказались только один на один с оставшимся из этих противников".
Такие деньги в результате были выделены. И те же самые американские концерны, которые помогали России восстанавливать хозяйство
-- строили заводы, участвовали в создании Днепрогэса -- восстанавливали и оснащали Германию. Не зря же дед президента США Буша --
Прескотт Буш, который в 1930-е годы помогал немцам, сразу после начала войны был лишён права управлять своим имуществом, исходя из
того, что США в данный момент находятся в состоянии войны с Германией. Всё это документально зафиксировано, в том числе и в пятитомнике
американского экономиста и историка Энтони Саттона. А что было после войны известно: американцы на протяжении всего 20 века вели
очень серьёзную, продуманную работу по уничтожению оставшегося у них одного сильного противника в лице СССР.
Кстати, наглядно принцип выборочной памяти в отношении истории демонстрировал сегодня, например, Сванидзе в своей передаче "Суд
времени", где регулярно нарочно умалчивает о важных фактах, ну, а если собеседник ему о них напоминает, то он его быстро обрывает.
Смотреть эту передачу, конечно, было противно, но интересно, потому что она показывает глубину работы американцев по осуществлению
операции влияния на противную сторону. В Америке же разработана очень интересная система влияния на большие людские массивы, для
того, чтобы убедить их принять американскую точку зрения по тому или иному поводу.
-- С 1979 по 1991 год Вы возглавляли Управление нелегальной разведки КГБ СССР, поэтому наверняка лучше всех знаете, каковы,
кроме чисто гуманитарного навязывания американского взгляда на прошлое и настоящее той или иной страны, ещё цели деятельности "системы
влияния на большие людские массивы"?
-- Например, чтобы получить во взаимоотношениях с тем или иным государством какое-либо дипломатическое преимущество. Именно поэтому
политическая линия США по разрушению внутреннего спокойного содержания той или иной страны глубоко продумана, а не локальна и спонтанна,
как иногда кажется. Для этого во многих странах создаются прослойки людей, распространяющих те идеи, которые им диктуют на Западе,
чтобы облегчить ему овладение конкретной территорией. Ведь ещё Сунь Цзы говорил, что лучше покорить страну, не сражаясь. США, начав
серьезно изучать нас в 1917-м году, больше никогда не оставляли вне поля своего зрения, занимались не просто аналитической или научной
работой, а вели и очень серьёзную разведывательную деятельность.
Кстати, интересный факт. После взрыва башен-близнецов в Нью-Йорке американцы провели большую работу по изучению опыта борьбы советской
власти с басмачеством. Между прочим, и развитие терроризма в странах Ближнего Востока, Юго-Восточной Азии, и на нашей территории
-- явление отнюдь не случайное. Если внимательно посмотреть, кто учился в специальных школах на территории США и Великобритании,
то становится понятно, что именно там готовили моджахедов и ваххабитов, скажем, для подрывной деятельности в Уфе или на Северном
Кавказе.
А то, что происходило в Татарстане в районе Зеленодольска -- было, видимо, подготовлено англичанами, я имею в виду волнения среди
мусульман, спровоцированные ваххабитами, которых, к счастью, сами татары быстро подавили; люди, организовавшие эти волнения, ведь
ездили на подготовку в Англию, и очень много было таких людей. Или взять сложности, которые сейчас переживает Башкирия. Они тоже
имеют западные корни. И удивляться тут нечему, потому что американцы создали специальное учреждение -- Объединённый университет по
подготовке лидеров антитеррористических организаций, под эгидой которого и готовятся кадры для организации волнений в различных регионах
мира, а не только для реальной борьбы с террором.
Тут надо ещё сказать вот что Запад использует территорию Афганистана и территории наших Среднеазиатских республик для проникновения
в Россию. В Афганистане готовят людей, которые создают очаги напряжённости в Киргизии, Таджикистане, Узбекистане В данном случае
американцы осуществляют план, который изложен в работе "Задачи ВВС США на Северном Кавказе и в Средней Азии" -- разделять бывшие
республики СССР на куски, чтобы тут же подбирать то, что отвалится.
-- Вы несколько лет работали резидентом советской разведки в Нью-Йорке и знаете Америку и её политическое устройство, что называется,
изнутри. Скажите, может ли политика США в отношении России колебаться в зависимости от личностных особенностей тех или иных персон
американского правящего истаблишмента? Насколько независимы, по Вашему мнению, в принятии решений высшие государственные деятели
США?
-- Несколько лет назад Конгресс США возложил на президента в качестве одной из приоритетных его задач работу с общественными организациями,
а руководитель Госдепартамента США Кондолиза Райс незадолго до своего ухода с этого поста утвердила специальную директиву "О задачах
Госдепартамента при осуществлении специальных операций политического влияния", где расписаны функции каждого дипломатического сотрудника:
от посла до самого маленького драгомана.
В контексте ответа на ваш вопрос большой интерес представляет работа, подготовленная Rand Corporation (неофициальный мозговой
центр правительства США -- авт.) "Внешняя политика США до и после Буша", где дана оценка целому комплексу политических мероприятий
правительства США и выработана национальная стратегия в отношении стран, которые представляют для США большой интерес. Так что политика
США по отношению к России и к другим интересным им странам -- это тщательно продуманный подход при подготовке любых официальных или
неофициальных мероприятий. Другое дело, что выводы, которые делают те или иные американские аналитики из того же Rand Corporation,
не всегда воспринимаются администрацией США при разработке конкретных мероприятий -- и это святое право любого государственного деятеля
-- но то, что к ним внимательно прислушиваются, это точно.
-- Декларировали когда-нибудь вслух США свои интересы к недрам СССР или идея освоить природные богатства нашей страны стала
витать в воздухе только в постсоветское время?
-- В отношении экономических богатств нашей страны у США аппетиты были большими всегда. Мало кто знает, что в конце Великой Отечественной
войны, когда странами-участницами антигитлеровской коалиции обсуждалось будущее мира, были приняты два решения, цитирую:
"создать Организацию объединённых наций с Советом безопасности -- как прообраз мирового правительства" и -- на нём особенно настаивали
американские миллиардеры -- "создать трёхстороннюю комиссию для осуществления постепенных попыток слияния экономик США и СССР".
И такая комиссия была создана. Она существовала. Она действовала. Когда я работал в Америке, мне приходилось принимать участие
в некоторых встречах с Рокфеллером, и по его вопросам мне становилось понятно, что в результате хотят от СССР американцы.
Для них главной политической целью работы в этой комиссии было, конечно, полное поглощение нашей экономики, о чём некоторые люди
из ЦК КПСС, стоявшие тогда у руля нашей экономической политики, знали или догадывались, но участвовали в этой игре, надеясь в свою
очередь перехитрить противника и посредством этой комиссии усовершенствовать торговые контакты между СССР и Западом. В некоторых
случаях им это удавалось, в некоторых нет, а вот Западу, чтобы полностью реализовать свои замыслы понадобилось, как мы видим, около
50-ти лет.
-- Судя по тому, что Вы пишите в своей книге "Операция "Президент". От "холодной войны" до перезагрузки", всё ужасное для России
только начинается:
"Мир вступил в фазу наиболее опасного противостояния -- цивилизованного. Цена поражения в этом противостоянии -- полное исчезновение
с лица Земли одной из цивилизаций".
-В данном случае под словом "цивилизация" понимается система или системы ценностей, объединяющих людей разных национальностей,
живущих в разных государствах и исповедующих разные религии. Могущественные транснациональные олигархические кланы уже определили
будущее всего человечества, а академические круги Запада даже придали ему для большей убедительности научно-теоретическую форму.
Практический процесс глобализации уже идет, и с каждым годом мир неуклонно приближается к торжеству нового мирового порядка.
При этом история Запада не дает никаких оснований для надежды на то, что его правящие круги предоставят незападным странам и народам
необходимые ресурсы и материальные блага, которые западные государства целеустремленно отбирали у них на протяжении столетий. Вся
мировая история убедительно свидетельствует, что они никогда и ни при каких обстоятельствах не пойдут на уменьшение своего потребления
ради выживания незападных народов. В этих условиях России уготована участь тельца, который должен быть принесен в жертву "для блага
всего человечества", как и предлагал почти сто лет назад личный советник президента США Вильсона полковник Хауз.
-- Каково в этой ситуации будет значение органов госбезопасности, призванных охранять суверенитет страны?
-- Голландский ученый, лауреат Нобелевской премии Ян Тинберген прямо говорил:
"Обеспечение безопасности нельзя отдать на усмотрение суверенных национальных государств. < > Мы должны стремиться к созданию
децентрализованного планетарного суверенитета и сети сильных международных институтов, которые будут его осуществлять ".
Вот так. Глобальная структуризация и иерархизация мира при одновременном упразднении суверенитета национальных государств откроет
олигархии свободный доступ ко всем природным ресурсам планеты.
-- Давая оценку советскому политическому наступлению периода разрядки, администрация США делала вывод, что активность советских
разведывательных операций в пять раз превышает размеры деятельности ЦРУ и союзников. Но если иметь в виду, что могильщиком СССР всё-таки
стали США, то возникает резонный вопрос: а почему же мы проиграли?
-- Американский разведчик, бывший резидент США в Индии Гарри Розицки в своей книге написал, что если бы в США была такая нелегальная
разведывательная служба, как в Советском Союзе, численностью хотя бы человек в 100, то Америка могла бы чувствовать себя спокойно.
Так что, разведка не проиграла. Проиграла страна в целом. А проиграла, потому что у нас не было времени. Ведь практически весь период
первых пятилеток, когда нам удалось кое-что создать, и то происходил в условиях борьбы. Причём борьбы, как извне, так и в результате
очень серьёзных споров и разногласий в политическом руководстве СССР. Причём эти разногласия были и в последние годы существования
СССР.
В частности на примере взаимодействия разведки и политической власти СССР могу сказать, что работа наших руководителей по использованию
установленных нами связей в политических интересах государства в какой-то мере была ослаблена. Каждый из руководителей считал свою
точку зрения истинной в последней инстанции, у них были серьёзные споры друг с другом. Скажем, по делу Шевченко (в 1970-е годы зам
представителя СССР в ООН, сбежавший на Запад ) мне Юрий Владимирович (Андропов) прямо сказал:
"Я прочитал всё, что ты писал. Ты был прав, и никто тебя наказывать не будет".
Дело в том, что заподозрив Шевченко в измене, я, как резидент нашей разведки в США, стал сигнализировать об этом в Москву. А в
результате получил запрет на наблюдение за Шевченко! Тем не менее, я сам себе сказал: "Нет, так дело не пойдёт!" и продолжал отправлять
компрометирующие Шевченко материалы в центр.
-- Запрет трогать Шевченко был внутриведомственным конфликтом и нежеланием бросать тень на МИД или в Москве его берегли агенты
влияния во властных структурах?
-- Мне сложно сейчас сказать, почему мне не разрешали трогать Шевченко, но я знаю, что влияние самого Шевченко на наших руководителей
было достаточно высоким. Он и его семья были в очень близких отношениях с Громыко. Кроме этого у Шевченко была ещё группа хороших
знакомых на разных должностях и в разных позициях, которые могли ему подыгрывать, оказывая влияние на наших руководителей, которые
рассматривали мои материалы по Шевченко. Поскольку Шевченко проработал в Нью-Йорке большой промежуток времени, мои предшественники,
которые там с ним общались, тоже чувствовали себя немного связанными, боялись получить выговор, если что-то всплывёт, и не поехать
потом заграницу. Это естественные вещи Бывают в жизни, к сожалению, такие истории. (Вздыхает). Трояновский (советский дипломат, следующий,
после Шевченко, представитель СССР в ООН -- авт.) тогда меня прямо спросил:
"А что, разве не может советский человек выбрать себе новую родину?"
Я ему ответил:
"Родина -- одна, можно сменить место жительства".
И нажил ещё одного недруга.
-- Тогда, быть может, одной из внутренних причин гибели Советского Союза было то, что, как Вы выразились "работа наших руководителей
по использованию установленных нами связей в политических интересах государства в какой-то мере была ослаблена", что, говоря простым
языком означает: информацию разведчиков принимали к сведению, но использовать не спешили. Вы ощущали политический или дипломатический
эффект от своей работы?
-- В принципе, ощущал, и даже бывал на приёмах у наших руководителей, которые знакомились с результатами работы нелегальной разведки
и принимали на её основании решения, но, с другой стороны, скажем, в моём личном деле, как мне говорили, есть резолюция ещё самого
Никиты Сергеевича Хрущёва, которого в 1960-х годах я, как резидент советской разведки в Китае, предупреждал о готовящихся столкновениях
на Даманском, а Хрущёв на материале с этой моей информацией написал:
"Не верю".
А ведь мы тогда специально отправили людей в район сосредоточения китайских подразделений напротив Даманского, где тогда жили
бывшие белогвардейцы; эти люди встретились там с нашим древним "источником", который рассказал, что китайцы прогнали его с собственной
пасеки, построили на её месте гигантский ящик с песком, в котором воссоздали всю территорию по ту сторону границы, которая принадлежала
СССР, и проводят там военные учения.
После этой информации мы изучили положение дел на китайских железных дорогах -- какие и куда осуществляются перевозки, поговорили
с иностранцами, а окончательный вывод, к сожалению, оказавшийся верным, нам помогло сделать одно обстоятельство. У меня была встреча
с представителями концерна "Крупп", которым мы поставляли водку и которых по целому ряду вопросов обхаживали китайцы, и один из этих
представителей мне прямо сказал:
"Вы что -- слепые? Не видите, что китайцы делают? А я вижу, потому что я -- "Крупп", я -- сталь, а сталь -- это война!".
Вот и весь разговор, который тем не менее переполнил чашу наших догадок. Мы обобщили информацию и сделали вывод: следует ожидать
вооружённой провокации в районе Даманского. Но Хрущёв нам не поверил.
Заместитель покойного Александра Михайловича Сахаровского (в то время руководитель ПГУ КГБ СССР) генерал-лейтенант Мортин, который
в это время сидел на его месте, когда я приехал в отпуск и с ним встретился, сказал мне: "Слушай, ты меня в инфаркт вгонишь своими
телеграммами!" (Смеётся). Его можно понять, была ведь трудная обстановка. В Китае шла культурная революция, всё больше и больше приобретающая
антисоветский и антирусский характер, в которой, кстати, активно участвовали бывшие троцкисты, которых выкинули из США и почему-то
бросили в Китай; это произошло в разгар маккартизма в конце 1940-х годов. Я с некоторыми из них был знаком. Хорошо знал Анну Луизу
Стронг, Ванштейна. Все они хорошо говорили по-русски.
- Слушаю и не понимаю, за что же Вас тогда было поздравлять с днём рождения самому Мао Цзэдуну?
-- Мао Цзэдун не мог меня поздравить. Это была шутка моих коллег. Когда я справлял в Китае один из своих дней рождения, ребята,
которые входили в состав нашей резидентуры, изготовили "сообщение" сводки "Синьхуа" (китайское информационное агентство -- авт.)
по этому событию. (Смеётся). Спустя много лет после этого случая, когда я приехал на работу в Нью-Йорк, где встречал своё 50-летие,
то застал там несколько моих бывших сотрудников, которые хорошо помнили тот наш китайский период. Они-то и принесли и положили передо
мной рулон телетайпной ленты, где сообщалось, что Юрия Дроздова с юбилеем поздравил Мао Цзэдун. Я говорю:
"Опять сотворили провокацию?"
Тут надо понять, что "американцы" и "китайцы" были в разведке двумя внутренне доброжелательно соперничающими структурами, а эта
шутка дала мне понять, что большая легальная резидентура в США приняла меня за своего.
-- Возвращаясь к Китаю Как я понимаю, в 1960-е годы разглядеть истоки китайского экономического чуда было ещё нельзя? Разведке
не из чего было делать такие далеко идущие выводы?
-- Когда в 1968 году я заканчивал свою работу на посту резидента советской разведки в Китае, мне из центра прислали телеграмму:
"Не смотря на то, что ваша работа в Китае завершена, Юрий Владимирович просит вас задержаться на месяц и написать свои соображения
относительно положения в Китае и перспектив советско-китайских отношений".
В течении этого месяца я написал 103 страницы, где среди прочего было сказано, что ситуация, которая складывается в настоящее
время в Китае изменчива, китайцы решают вопрос создания новой общественной формации, но в этом нет ничего удивительного, к этому
надо относится терпимо и исходить из того, что китайцы будут использовать в интересах своей страны передовые элементы как социалистической,
так и капиталистической систем.
После моего возвращения из Китая прошло больше года, когда мне однажды позвонил Андропов: "Возвращаю тебе твой отчёт по Китаю"
и отдал мне мой материал. И добавил: "На нём есть пометки. Знаешь, чьи?" Пожимаю плечами:
"Нет, не знаю". "Эта пометка такого-то, эта такого-то, а вот эта такого-то -- называет Андропов фамилии высоких политических деятелей.
-- А вообще-то смело написано!"
-- Правда, что в кабинете одного из американских контрразведчиков висел портрет Андропова?
-- Да, правда. Это был начальник отделения ФБР в штате Нью-Джерси. Это было в середине 1970-х. Лично я этого портрета не видел,
его видел наш сотрудник, который поддерживал контакты с ФБР по обмену наших товарищей, которые тогда сидели в центральной нью-йоркской
тюрьме. Энгера и Черняева. Кстати, фактически их выдал как раз Шевченко, хотя, в принципе, их не должны были поймать, однако, во
время одной из операций Черняева и Энгера задержали, потому что мы не учли, что американцы пустят в воздух небольшой спортивный самолётик,
с которого и будут вести наблюдение за нашими разведчиками. Так вот. Когда наш сотрудник был в кабинете у начальника отделения ФБР,
он поднял глаза, увидел на стене портрет Андропова и страшно удивился. Был ответ:
"А чего ты удивляешься? Я что, не могу повесить портрет руководителя лучшей разведки мира?"
-- Было ли с Андроповым у СССР перспектив выжить больше, чем с любым другим советским лидером? Каковы Ваши впечатления об Андропове?
-- Помню, Семичастный (в начале 1960-х руководитель КГБ СССР -- авт.) впервые отправил меня на доклад к Андропову, как к заведующему
отделом социалистических стран ЦК. Я не ожидал, что встречу в ЦК абсолютно другого, нежели остальные партийные руководители человека,
с которым можно разговаривать, интересного; мы просидели с Андроповым тогда больше 4-х часов, он расспрашивал о Китае, а в это время
к нему в кабинет заходили и выходили люди, некоторых Андропов оставлял:
"Сиди, слушай, тебе это нужно".
Андропов, например, читал всё: и приятное, и неприятное, а ведь были и такие руководители, которые читали только приятную информацию.
Андропов никогда никому не мстил. Если видел, что у человека что-то не получается, то просто переводил его на другую работу, а
если, к примеру, он убирал чекиста совершившего какую-то ошибку в другое подразделение, то, получив дополнительное объяснение, почему
человек ошибся, мог и изменить свою точку зрения. Помню, как-то во время нашего доклада Андропову, Юрий Владимирович сказал, что
у него есть другая, отличная от нашей, информация. Я возразил: "Это не так". Андропов говорит:
"Сколько надо дней, чтобы проверить, кто прав: я или ты?" "Дней 40-50. Сложные условия".
Крючков меня потом упрекал, зачем я среагировал так грубо, но я сказал, что Андропов с давних пор просил меня говорить только
правду. Спустя срок меня встречает тот же Крючков:
"Ну как?" "К сожалению, прав оказался я". (Смеётся).
Сейчас ФСБ готовит к выходу книгу "Команда Андропова", куда я написал свои впечатления об отношениях с Юрием Владимировичем, которые
озаглавил "Ю.В.Андропов (на партучёте в нелегальной разведке)". (Улыбается). Он ведь действительно был членом нашей партийной организации.
Приходил. Но не каждый раз, человек он всё-таки был очень занятый.
-- Каковы были максимальные сроки пребывания разведчиков на нелегальном положении? И, кстати, когда нелегала было подготовить
проще: в Ваше время или сейчас?
-- В те годы, когда приходилось работать нам, будущий нелегал зачастую не имел тех качеств, которые имеют сегодня самые обычные
люди; у наших сотрудников, к примеру, изначально не было зубастой хватки людей, занимающихся бизнесом. Поэтому нередко приходилось
смотреть, какие личностные качества присущи конкретному человеку и фактически давать ему второе образование, от средней школы --
до высшего. У нас не было нелегалов, которые знали бы только один иностранный язык, минимум 2-3. То есть мы проделывали огромную
работу.
В одном случае, самый короткий срок подготовки нелегала для конкретной цели у нас составил 7 лет, после чего человек 3 года отработал
за рубежом и украсил свою грудь 2-мя орденами и знаком "Почётный чекист". Естественно, что срок подготовки нелегала зависит от поставленной
перед ним цели. А цель бывает разная: от хорошего места, где он может спокойно жить и работать, до сейфа какого-нибудь зарубежного
руководителя. В этом смысле самый длинный период от начала работы в нелегальных условиях до выполнения поставленного задания составил
17 лет; человек этот, к слову, вернулся Героем Советского Союза.
"... Kotz and Weir's "Russia's Path From Gorbachev to Putin" is decent as an explanation. ..."
"... To sum it up, laws in 1986-87 effectively criminalized the 'command departments' of the Central Committee in planning policy through Gosplan, Gossnab, and Gosbank. A national market was encouraged by individual activity laws, joint stock laws, cooperative laws, and the directive banning the federal monopoly on inter-state trade in 1988. ..."
"... Out of this top-down 'reform,' a minority of Soviet Enterprises began mimicking capitalist infrastructure: managers, directors, and ministers (of companies and banks) granting themselves larger wages or salaries, using the surpluses to buy up and monopolize the stocks and infrastructure of competing companies, using artificial resale of (monopolized) local goods or exclusively selling natural resources to Western clients, tripling the profits for a minority of private households. ..."
"... This nascent middle class used this newfound profit to privatize Soviet media, effectively monopolizing it by the end of the decade, shifting the narratives of Soviet society, bribing politicians to convince the Soviet population that 'market reform' wasn't total privatization of resources, stocks, and companies, and 'Russian autonomy' wasn't succession from the Union (neutral European Polls found clear majorities in the original nine Soviet Republics continued to support democratic socialism, social democracy, and preserving the Union in 1991). Political crisis, like the Moscow coup in August of 1991, was used to manipulate the passive public in accepting fundamental change. ..."
"... The Soviet Union effectively repeated the Yugoslav model: self-governed, democratically managed, or autonomous companies (and later republics) 'fairly competing' in an unregulated or semi-regulated national market. Both models produced middle classes pushing for the acceptance of IMF credits, total privatization of any state companies to repay Western debts, and seceding from a Union of socialist states. ..."
"... Fair competition in a 'socialist' market is a myth. ..."
I remember reading Shahak's translation of Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen
Eighties" and seeing other articles in the Zionist collection arguing nuclear war was the
ideological core of Marxism-Leninism, implying the Soviet Politburo and Soviet society would
never accept reform without it.
Do you think 'ideological readings' of foreign policy are always the best
interpretation?
Gently is the name of the game. The whole "movement" is probably based on a long-term
scenario. The Chinese think along those lines. So OK they won't blow the house down, but they
will move in incremental steps. It might take generations to fully exploit the gap left by
the US loosing influence.
"Save the US"? Maybe, if they can gain something in exchange - but it won't be cash.
Madderhatter67 @59
That was one of them, and another would have been the "rise" of the Nomenklatura (with only
one million card-carrying voters). Which just shows that an "elite", when in power, simply
won't look after anyone but themselves.
I presume that is what you meant by "internal contradictions", - having an unaccountable
elite in a supposedly socialist/egalitarian country. But it was for their egos that they
overspent on the immediately visble - and not on the infrastructure needed to keep the
country going.
(Tut tut, doesn't that remind you of somewhere?)
"Some Marxists, such as Ernest Mandel, have criticised Djilas and the theory of state
capitalism: "The hypothesis that the Soviet bureaucracy is a new ruling class does not
correspond to a serious analysis of the real development and the real contradictions of
Soviet society and economy in the last fifty years."
"The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System is a political theory book by
communist Yugoslav figure and intellectual Milovan Đilas about the concept of the new
class.[1][2] He proposed that the party-state officials formed a class which "uses, enjoys
and disposes of nationalised property".[3]"
It is an apologist work for Khrushchevite and Gorbachevite ideology, but
Kotz and
Weir's "Russia's Path From Gorbachev to Putin" is decent as an explanation.
The rate of Soviet GNP was uneven, but not consistently negative until after the
successions of Russia and the separation of Soviet Republics from the Union.
To sum it up, laws in 1986-87 effectively criminalized the 'command departments' of
the Central Committee in planning policy through Gosplan, Gossnab, and Gosbank. A national
market was encouraged by individual activity laws, joint stock laws, cooperative laws, and
the directive banning the federal monopoly on inter-state trade in 1988.
Out of this top-down 'reform,' a minority of Soviet Enterprises began mimicking
capitalist infrastructure: managers, directors, and ministers (of companies and banks)
granting themselves larger wages or salaries, using the surpluses to buy up and monopolize
the stocks and infrastructure of competing companies, using artificial resale of
(monopolized) local goods or exclusively selling natural resources to Western clients,
tripling the profits for a minority of private households.
This nascent middle class used this newfound profit to privatize Soviet media,
effectively monopolizing it by the end of the decade, shifting the narratives of Soviet
society, bribing politicians to convince the Soviet population that 'market reform' wasn't
total privatization of resources, stocks, and companies, and 'Russian autonomy' wasn't
succession from the Union (neutral European Polls found clear majorities in the original nine
Soviet Republics continued to support democratic socialism, social democracy, and preserving
the Union in 1991). Political crisis, like the Moscow coup in August of 1991, was used to
manipulate the passive public in accepting fundamental change.
While I come from a Yugoslav family, I have far less sympathy for market socialist
ideology. I've never understood the romanticism so many Westerners have always had for the
Old Country. Mind you, I'm not including you in this.
The Soviet Union effectively repeated the Yugoslav model: self-governed,
democratically managed, or autonomous companies (and later republics) 'fairly competing' in
an unregulated or semi-regulated national market. Both models produced middle classes pushing
for the acceptance of IMF credits, total privatization of any state companies to repay
Western debts, and seceding from a Union of socialist states.
Fair competition in a 'socialist' market is a myth.
"... Writing in the Financial Times , former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said that London's AIIB decision and its aftermath "may be remembered as the moment the United States lost its role as the underwriter of the global economic system." ..."
"... Summers was both right and wrong. The U.S. role as the hegemonic power in international politics and economics indeed is being challenged. But this did not start when Britain and the others decided to sign-up with the AIIB. America has been slowly, almost imperceptibly, losing its grip on global leadership for some time, and the Great Recession merely accelerated that process. China's successful launch of the AIIB and its OBOR offspring merely accentuates that process. ..."
"... While President Trump lacks any serious, coherent worldview, there are more than enough Republican members of the foreign policy establishment to ensure that he doesn't break with America's post-1945, bipartisan policy of primacy. And Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again'' certainly puts him in the camp of U.S. global dominance. ..."
"... But Paul Kennedy was correct when he noted in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers that in the history of the modern international system (since around 1500) no state has managed to remain permanently atop the great power pyramid. "American exceptionalism" notwithstanding, the United States will not be an exception. ..."
"... Pax Americana was the product of a unique post-World War II constellation of power. As scholars such as Kennedy and Gilpin have pointed out, when World War II ended the United States accounted for half of the world's manufacturing output and controlled some two-thirds of the world's gold and foreign exchange. Only America could project air and naval power globally. ..."
"... the United States kept the Soviet Union at bay until that artificial regime collapsed of its own weight. ..."
"... today China's AIIB presents a double-barreled challenge to U.S. leadership of the global economy as well as to Pax Americana's institutional (and ideational) foundations. The AIIB aims at enhancing China's role both in managing the international economy and in international development. With AIIB China means to demonstrate its seriousness in demanding a share of decision-making power in the Bretton Woods legacy institutions, the IMF and World Bank, reflecting its current economic and financial clout. The AIIB's impact, however, transcends international economic affairs and reflects the shifting Sino-American balance of power. ..."
"... because of the AIIB, America's "international credibility and influence are being threatened." ..."
"... For their part, the Chinese regarded the U.S. stance as an attempt to counter China's rise and its ambition to become the dominant power in East Asia. As China's former Vice Minister of Finance, Wei Jianguo, put it, "You could think of this as a basketball game in which the U.S. wants to set the duration of the game, size of the court, the height of the basket and everything else to suit itself. In fact, the U.S. just wants to exclude China from the game." ..."
"... China's rise within the post-1945 international order doesn't mean it has any interest in preserving Pax Americana's core. On the contrary, the evidence suggests China wants to reshape the international order to reflect its own interests, norms, and values. As Martin Jacques puts it: ..."
"... The main plan of American soft power is democracy within nation-states; China by way of contrast emphasizes democracy between nation-states!most notably in respect for sovereignty!and democracy in the world system. China's criticism of the Western-dominated international system and its governing institutions strikes a strong chord with the developing world at a time when these institutions are widely recognized to be unrepresentative and seriously flawed. ..."
"... Rules and institutions do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of power in the international system. In global politics, the rules are made by those who rule. ..."
"... As E. H. Carr, the renowned English historian of international politics, once observed, a rules-based international order "cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on which it rests and the political interests which it serves." The post-World War II international order is an American order that, while preserving world stability for a long time, primarily privileged U.S. and Western interests. ..."
"... But Beijing, by all the evidence, does not see it that way. And OBOR and the AIIB prove the point. Instead of living within the geopolitical, economic, and institutional confines imposed by Pax Americana, an increasingly powerful China will seek to revise the international order so that it reflects its own political and economic interests. Thus are OBOR and the AIIB straws in the wind. And, as the great Bob Dylan said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. ..."
"... Paradoxically the acceleration in the decline began with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Incredible hubris followed, and we are reaping the usual results. ..."
No state stays on top of the great power pyramid forever.
August 8, 2017 In mid-May, leaders of 29 nations, and representatives from some 80 others, descended
on Beijing to discuss China's ambitious "One Belt One Road" (OBOR) development initiative!also known
to some as the "New Silk Road." This plan is the follow-on to China's creation several years ago
of the Asia Infrastructure Development Bank (AIIB), a major new international financial institution
to foster economic development in "emerging market" nations.
OBOR, a signature policy of Chinese president Xi Jinping, calls for investing massive amounts
of money ($1 trillion, according to some reports) to promote trade and economic development by constructing
transportation links that will tie together East Asian manufacturing hubs with Southeast Asia, Central
Asia, Africa, and Southwest Asia. These new transportation routes also will connect China with the
participating nations and Europe. China's aim is twofold: to create new markets for the goods and
services it produces, and to extend its geopolitical influence. Some analysts see OBOR as a Chinese
version of the Marshall Plan, the important post-World War II American initiative that helped rebuild
Western Europe and laid the foundation for European economic unity that ultimately culminated in
the European Union.
With OBOR, China is following the example of Great Britain and the United States (as well as pre-World
War I European great powers such as Germany). In the 19th century, the expansion of the British empire,
including what scholars Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher describe as its "informal empire," was
driven by the perceived need to find outlets for the United Kingdom's "surplus" goods and capital!that
is, goods and capital that could not be profitably absorbed by the domestic economy. When the United
States burst onto the world stage as a great power in the late 19th century, acquiring Puerto Rico,
Hawaii, Guam, and the Philippines, it imitated Britain's pursuit of both informal and formal empire
for the same reason: the belief that America's continuing economic growth depended on exporting American
capital and goods. China today faces the problem of insufficient demand for its products and limited
prospects for profitable domestic investment. Beijing is responding to these problems pretty much
as Britain and the United States did in the latter part of the 19th century: by seeking new markets
and attractive investment opportunities abroad.
As both Britain and the United States demonstrated, economic expansion begets geopolitical expansion.
Economic clout can buy a lot of political influence. But the lines of communication linking the home
country to its overseas markets must be protected. And political stability must be maintained where
the home country is investing. For Britain and the United States, economic expansion resulted in
the inexorable expansion of their military power and diplomatic sway. We can expect OBOR to have
a similar effect on China. It is a powerful incentive for China to expand its military projection
capabilities. Beijing will be compelled to assume an increasingly active role in managing regional
security in places affected by OBOR!especially in Central Asia and Pakistan, which are plagued by
political instability and terrorism.
OBOR is a milestone on China's path to great power status and is one of several indicators of
receding American power!not just geopolitically, but also in matters involving the international
economy and international institutions. When discussing the Sino-American rivalry, attention is focused
on the military balance between the United States and China and to flashpoints between the two countries
that could spark a conflict!the South China Sea, the East China Sea, Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula.
But these more intangible economic and diplomatic developments will be no less important in shaping
relations between Washington and Beijing as in determining the fate of the world order built by the
United States following World War II!that is, Pax Americana, or what is sometimes referred to as
"the liberal rules-based international order."
Since the early 2000s there has been an ongoing conversation among scholars, policymakers, and
members of the broader American foreign policy establishment about whether U.S. power is in decline.
The question actually extends back to the 1980s, with the publication of Yale historian Paul Kennedy's
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers and other important books on the subject by scholars
David Calleo and Robert Gilpin. The controversy surrounding decline dissipated, however, when the
Soviet Union imploded and Japan's economic bubble burst. In one fell swoop, America's primary military
and economic competitors fell off the geopolitical chessboard.
The decline issue remained dormant through the "the unipolar moment" of the 1990s but was rekindled
with China's rapid great-power emergence in the early 2000s. China's rise is the flip side of American
decline. The central geopolitical question of the early 21st century is whether Pax Americana can
survive China's rise and the resulting shift of world geopolitical and economic power from west to
east. The U.S. foreign policy establishment is allergic to the word "decline." After all, as Jon
Huntsman declared during his brief presidential run in 2012: "Decline is un-American." Perhaps so,
but that doesn't mean that it's not happening.
Though Huntsman has plenty of company on this issue in the foreign policy establishment, we would
do better to heed the advice of the great Hall of Fame pitcher Satchel Paige. "Don't look back,"
he said, "because something may be gaining on you." A glance at the rear-view mirror shows China
rapidly closing the gaps with the United States in all the dimensions of power upon which the Pax
Americana was built: military, economic, and institutional.
In the last decade, China has displaced the United States as the world's leading manufacturing
power. In 2014, according to the World Bank, China passed America as the world's largest economy
(measured by purchasing power parity). In 1980, the United States accounted for about 25 percent
of gross world product. Today it accounts for around 18 percent. Some analysts have come up with
clever arguments to discount the importance of these economic trends. They are unconvincing. But
the reality of U.S. decline is more than just a matter of numbers; it is also evident in Washington's
diminishing ability to manage the international economy and in the growing challenges to many legacy
institutions of Pax Americana.
A strain of thinking called hegemonic stability theory holds that a liberal, open international
economy requires an overarching power to manage and stabilize the system by creating a political
and security order that permits economic openness. The United States filled this role for half a
century, from 1945 until the Great Recession. The world's economic hegemon must provide public goods
that benefit the international system as a whole, including: making the rules for the international
economic order; opening its domestic market to other states' exports; supplying liquidity to the
global economy; and providing a reserve currency. Having declined to grasp the mantle of leadership
during the 1930s, Washington seized it decisively after World War II. Johns Hopkins professor Michael
Mandelbaum has argued that, following the Cold War, the United States essentially acted as a de facto
government for the international system by providing security and managing the global economy.
The Great Recession impaired the United States' ability to provide leadership for the international
economy. After all, an economic hegemon is supposed to solve global economic crises, not cause them.
But America plunged the world into economic crisis when its financial system seized up with the sub-prime
mortgage crisis. A hegemon is supposed to be the lender of last resort in the international economy,
but the United States became the borrower of first resort!the world's largest debtor. When the global
economy falters, the economic hegemon must assume responsibility for kick-starting recovery by purchasing
other nations' goods. From 1945 to the Great Recession, America's willingness to consume foreign
goods constituted the primary firewall against global economic downturns. During the Great Recession,
however, the U.S. economy proved too infirm to lead the global economy back to health.
At the April 2009 G20 meeting in London, President Barack Obama conceded that, in key respects,
the United States' days as economic hegemon were numbered because America is too deeply in debt to
continue as the world's consumer of last resort. Instead, he said, the world would have to look to
China (and other emerging market states plus Germany) to be the motors of global recovery.
Another example of how the U.S. has lost its grip on global economic leadership is its failure
to prevail over the Europeans (read: Germany) in the transatlantic "austerity versus stimulus" debate
that commenced in late 2009. Reflecting their different historical experiences, the United States
and Europe (more specifically, Germany and the European Central Bank, or ECB) adopted divergent fiscal
policies during the Great Recession. Obama administration economic policymakers were guided by the
Keynesian lessons learned from the 1930s Great Depression: to dig out of a deep economic slump, the
federal government should boost demand by pump-priming the economy through deficit spending, and
the Federal Reserve should add further stimulus through low interest rates and easy money. Obama
administration policymakers and leading American economists were haunted by the "1937 analogy"!FDR's
"recession within the Depression''!demonstrating that if stimulus is withdrawn prematurely, a nascent
recovery may be aborted.
On the other hand, Germany!the EU's economic engine!has long been haunted by the "1923 analogy":
the fear that inflation can become uncontrollable, with disastrous economic, social, and political
consequences. From the founding of post-World War II West Germany until the advent of the European
Monetary Union and eventually the Euro, Germany's central Bundesbank maintained a primary mission
of combatting inflation and preserving the Deutschmark's value. For the German government, assurance
that the new ECB would follow the Bundesbank's sound money policy was a sine qua non for Berlin's
decision to give up the Deutschmark in favor of the Euro.
This U.S.-European divide on austerity versus stimulus was apparent as early as the April 2009
London G20 summit, where the United States wanted to rebalance the international economy by inducing
the Europeans (most particularly, Germany, which, with China, was one of the two large surplus economies)
to lift the Continent out of the Great Recession by emulating Washington's use of deficit spending
to galvanize economic revival. Washington wanted Germany to export less and import more. Berlin flatly
refused. German Chancellor Angela Merkel argued that for states!especially ones already deeply in
debt!to accumulate more debt in an effort to spend themselves out of the Great Recession would only
set the stage for an even greater crisis down the road.
Washington's inability to prevail over Berlin in the stimulus vs. austerity debate highlighted
waning U.S. power in the international economy. Jack Lew, then Treasury secretary, implicitly said
as much at the October 2015 IMF-World Bank annual meeting when he stated that the United States could
not be the "sole engine" of global growth.
But America's inability to get Germany to give up austerity was not the only indicator of America's
decreasing ability to shape the international economic agenda. During the Obama administration's
first term, the United States was unable to persuade China to allow the renminbi to appreciate to
Washington's preferred level (which the United States hoped would reduce China's export surplus to
the United States while simultaneously boosting American exports to China).
U.S. economic and fiscal troubles have contributed significantly to the fraying of Pax Americana's
institutional global framework. The Great Recession spurred calls for a major overhaul of the international
institutional order as evidenced by the emergence of the G20, demands for IMF and World Bank reform,
and a push for expanded membership of the UN Security Council. The past decade or so also has seen
the creation of new international organizations and groupings such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).
As American power wanes, a parallel or "shadow" international order is being constructed as an alternative
to Pax Americana. Perhaps the most dramatic example of his is Beijing's Asian Infrastructure Investment
Bank.
As Beijing rolled out its AIIB plans, the Obama administration kicked into high gear diplomatically
in an attempt to squelch it. As the New York Times reported, Washington "lobbied against the
[AIIB] with unexpected determination and engaged in a vigorous campaign to persuade important allies
to shun the project." Washington's attempt to dissuade its allies from joining the AIIB failed. The
dam burst when, in an Ides of March 2015 decision, Britain announced it was going to become a member
of the AIIB ("Et Tu Britain?"). London's decision to join the AIIB set off a stampede as other states
on the fence rushed to sign up for membership. Those joining included U.S. allies such as France,
Germany, Italy, Australia, South Korea, even Israel and Taiwan. Beijing's diplomatic coup in attracting
widespread support for its AIIB initiative from long-standing U.S. allies was viewed as a direct
challenge to America's global geopolitical and economic leadership.
Writing in the Financial Times , former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said that
London's AIIB decision and its aftermath "may be remembered as the moment the United States lost
its role as the underwriter of the global economic system."
Summers was both right and wrong. The U.S. role as the hegemonic power in international politics
and economics indeed is being challenged. But this did not start when Britain and the others decided
to sign-up with the AIIB. America has been slowly, almost imperceptibly, losing its grip on global
leadership for some time, and the Great Recession merely accelerated that process. China's successful
launch of the AIIB and its OBOR offspring merely accentuates that process.
Not surprisingly, U.S. policymakers and the wider foreign policy establishment brush off any possibility
of diminishing U.S. power. Recent books by leading foreign policy analysts (including Josef Joffe,
Robert Lieber, and Joseph S. Nye Jr.) assert that U.S. power is robust, and that the 21st century,
like the 20th, will be an "American century." Meanwhile, during the Obama administration U.S. foreign
policy officials never missed a chance to assert America's continuing role as a global hegemon (though
President Obama's own views on U.S. primacy seemed more nuanced). For example, the Obama administration's
2015 National Security Strategy, a twenty-nine page document, invoked the term "American leadership"
more than 100 times.
While President Trump lacks any serious, coherent worldview, there are more than enough Republican
members of the foreign policy establishment to ensure that he doesn't break with America's post-1945,
bipartisan policy of primacy. And Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again'' certainly puts him in
the camp of U.S. global dominance.
But Paul Kennedy was correct when he noted in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers
that in the history of the modern international system (since around 1500) no state has managed to
remain permanently atop the great power pyramid. "American exceptionalism" notwithstanding, the United
States will not be an exception.
Pax Americana was the product of a unique post-World War II constellation of power. As scholars
such as Kennedy and Gilpin have pointed out, when World War II ended the United States accounted
for half of the world's manufacturing output and controlled some two-thirds of the world's gold and
foreign exchange. Only America could project air and naval power globally.
And, of course, the United States alone had atomic weapons. America used its commanding economic,
military, and political supremacy to lay the foundations of the post-World War II international order,
reflected in such institutions as the United Nations, NATO, the International Monetary Fund, the
World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (which has morphed into the World Trade
Organization). Additionally, the United States kept the Soviet Union at bay until that artificial
regime collapsed of its own weight.
All this represented a remarkable achievement, ensuring relative peace and prosperity for more
than half a century. But today China's AIIB presents a double-barreled challenge to U.S. leadership
of the global economy as well as to Pax Americana's institutional (and ideational) foundations. The
AIIB aims at enhancing China's role both in managing the international economy and in international
development. With AIIB China means to demonstrate its seriousness in demanding a share of decision-making
power in the Bretton Woods legacy institutions, the IMF and World Bank, reflecting its current economic
and financial clout. The AIIB's impact, however, transcends international economic affairs and reflects
the shifting Sino-American balance of power.
Washington said it opposed AIIB because of doubts that it would adhere to the same environmental,
governance, lending, transparency, labor, and human rights standards practiced by the IMF, World
Bank, and Asian Development Bank. But Treasury's Lew was more candid when he said that, because
of the AIIB, America's "international credibility and influence are being threatened."
For their part, the Chinese regarded the U.S. stance as an attempt to counter China's rise
and its ambition to become the dominant power in East Asia. As China's former Vice Minister of Finance,
Wei Jianguo, put it, "You could think of this as a basketball game in which the U.S. wants to set
the duration of the game, size of the court, the height of the basket and everything else to suit
itself. In fact, the U.S. just wants to exclude China from the game."
The Obama administration's ballyhooed Asian pivot was based on the assumption that, although the
ASEAN nations of Asia, along with Australia and South Korea, are being pulled into China's economic
orbit, they will turn to the United States as a geopolitical counterweight. However, Beijing's ability
to get ASEAN, South Korea, and other neighboring states to jump on the AIIB bandwagon suggests this
assumption may be erroneous. The pull of Beijing's economic power may override security concerns
and draw these states into China's geopolitical orbit. The trajectory of ASEAN's trade flows is revealing.
In 1993, the United States accounted for 18 percent of ASEAN's total trade (imports and exports combined),
and China for only 2 percent. By 2013 the United States' share of ASEAN's total trade had shrunk
to 8.2 percent while China's had jumped to 14 percent. The trend lines indicate that in coming years
China's share of regional trade will continue to rise while that of the U.S. will decline.
Thus while OBOR and the AIIB don't get the same attention from U.S. grand strategists as does
China's military buildup, they are equally important in signaling the ongoing power transition between
the United States and China in East Asia. Among American security studies scholars, even those who
once firmly believed that unipolarity would last far into the future now grudgingly concede that
the era of American hegemony may be drawing to a close. They console themselves, however, with the
thought that the United States can cushion itself against future power declines and the loss of hegemony
by taking advantage of what they see as a still-open window to "lock in" Pax Americana's essential
features!its institutions, rules, and norms!so that they outlive unipolarity. As Princeton's G. John
Ikenberry puts it, the United States should act today to put in place an institutional framework
"that will safeguard our interests in future decades when we will not be a unipolar power."
Ikenberry argues that China, having risen within the post-1945 international system, has no incentive
to overturn it. His argument is superficially attractive because it posits that, even if the material
foundations of U.S. dominance wither, its institutional and ideational essence will live on. This
almost certainly is incorrect. China's rise within the post-1945 international order doesn't
mean it has any interest in preserving Pax Americana's core. On the contrary, the evidence suggests
China wants to reshape the international order to reflect its own interests, norms, and values. As
Martin Jacques puts it:
The main plan of American soft power is democracy within nation-states; China by way of
contrast emphasizes democracy between nation-states!most notably in respect for sovereignty!and
democracy in the world system. China's criticism of the Western-dominated international system
and its governing institutions strikes a strong chord with the developing world at a time when
these institutions are widely recognized to be unrepresentative and seriously flawed.
Thus the "lock-in" concept isn't likely to work because China, along with much of the developing
world, does not accept the foundations upon which the post-World War II liberal international order
rests.
For many American scholars and policy makers the notion of a "liberal, rules-based, international
order" has a talismanic quality. They believe that rules and institutions are politically neutral
and thus ipso facto beneficial for all. Many proponents of "lock-in" have constructed a geopolitically
antiseptic world, one uncontaminated by clashing national interests. In this world, great power competition
and conflict are transcended by rules, norms, and international institutions. The problem is that
this misconstrues how the world works. Great power politics is about power. Rules and institutions
do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of power in the international system.
In global politics, the rules are made by those who rule.
As E. H. Carr, the renowned English historian of international politics, once observed, a
rules-based international order "cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on
which it rests and the political interests which it serves." The post-World War II international
order is an American order that, while preserving world stability for a long time, primarily privileged
U.S. and Western interests.
Proponents of "lock-in" are saying that China will!indeed, must!agree to be a "responsible stakeholder"
(with Washington defining the meaning of "responsibility") in an international order that it did
not construct and that exists primarily to advance the interests of the United States. In plain English,
what those who believe in "lock-in" expect is that an increasingly powerful China will continue to
accept playing second fiddle to the United States.
But Beijing, by all the evidence, does not see it that way. And OBOR and the AIIB prove the
point. Instead of living within the geopolitical, economic, and institutional confines imposed by
Pax Americana, an increasingly powerful China will seek to revise the international order so that
it reflects its own political and economic interests. Thus are OBOR and the AIIB straws in the wind.
And, as the great Bob Dylan said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is
blowing.
Christopher Layne is University Distinguished Professor of International Affairs, and Robert
M. Gates Chair in National Security, at Texas A&M University.
Thank you for a very interesting article. Still, I think there is a large issue not addressed:
Isn't China on the verge of a now unstoppable demographic catastrophe? How do you see that affecting
China's "rise" long term?
Professor Layne: You left out something very significantly causal re: decline of American power.
It is not mysterious or a deeply historic twist of inevitable fate.
Rather, we have spent TRILLIONS in vain military blood and treasure over the past 17 years,
with NOTHING to show for it – besides a destabilized region raining the most refugees since WW2
onto our allies, the Europeans (destabilizing THEM as well.)
This failure is not even being addressed, let alone changed. Policymakers responsible apparently
have clearance to continue this uselessness indefinitely.
A Chinese sage named Sun Tzu said it best, some 2500 years ago, in The Art of War:
" When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will
grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the
strain.
4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure
spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however
wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated
with long delays.
6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. "
No mystery here. America is proving not to be Exceptional enough to survive elite mismanagement.
No. The rest of the world is merely catching up. The wealth that the US enjoyed relative to the
rest of the world in the decades following WWII was unprecedented, and is probably not a repeatable
phenomenon. If we are declining, it is only because we fail to appreciate the multi-latereral
nature of our world, and stick our nose where it doesn't belong.
We're in decline not because of China but because of the decisions we make (or fail to make).
We devote too many resources towards wars and asset appreciation (financial bubbles) and not enough
into investing in ourselves (education and infrastructure). In the short run, the strong military
made us look strong to the world snd ourselves but we never examined whether that was the most
judicious use of our resources for the long run.
This is not anything new. Eisenhower spoke of this 50 some odd years ago.
If we are in decline and there are signs that is the case. It is by our doing. Over expanded strategic
goals and dismantling the very social structure(s) that maintains, sustains and protects longevity.
The abandonment of national identity by our leadership class. They claim in the national interests,
but upon examining their policy agendas, immigration, bailout, lobbying rules, domestic agendas
and management, there's plenty to be concerned about.
" For Britain and the United States, economic expansion resulted in the inexorable expansion of
their military power and diplomatic sway. We can expect OBOR to have a similar effect on China.
It is a powerful incentive for China to expand its military projection capabilities."
The trick here is managing the relational dynamics so that whatever mechanisms one uses in
maintaining that power don't backlash to the point of disruptive violence or using sufficient
force that such backlash doesn't occur.
The British/European model model of colonial rule was unsustainable. It might be wise to examine
Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, maybe Germany but comparing these socialist smaller states would
be a tricky comparison.
The idea that the US would maintain its world standing has been laughable for decades. A nation
cannot excel when you have a population as narcissistic and willfully ignorant like we have now.
The economic downfall is only a symptom of the ever deepening moral failures we find ourselves
fighting over and even clinging to. I am no fan of socialism or communism, but what we have created
here in America is an out of control monster set to destroy all in its path.
"The Obama administration's ballyhooed Asian pivot was based on the assumption that, although
the ASEAN nations of Asia, along with Australia and South Korea, are being pulled into China's
economic orbit, they will turn to the United States as a geopolitical counterweight. However,
Beijing's ability to get ASEAN, South Korea, and other neighboring states to jump on the AIIB
bandwagon suggests this assumption may be erroneous. The pull of Beijing's economic power may
override security concerns and draw these states into China's geopolitical orbit."
It is in this context -- South Korea, Japan, and other south Asian nations being drawn inexorably
into China's geopolitical orbit, thus overturning US post-WW2 hegemony in the region – that current,
much-exaggerated US concerns about North Korean nuclear weapons can best be understood.
The US is using North Korea's nuclear development – undertaken by North Korea as a defensive
measure against regime change by the US – as one of a series of pretexts aimed at preserving its
ever-diminishing post-WW2 hegemony in Asia.
At some point the US will begin to withdraw the 30,000 US troops stationed in South Korea and
the 30,000 US troops stationed in Japan – and will stop conducting military exercises and shows
of force near the Chinese border – and will sit down with China, North Korea, South Korea, and
Japan and begin the long process of negotiating the gradual, peaceful US acceptance of the new
geopolitical reality in east Asia.
The lesson I took from reading Paul Kennedy was, decline is a choice.
China, India and the Middle East could have competed with early modern Europe if centralized
multi-ethnic empires (Manchu, Mughal and Ottoman Empires) hadn't stifled the energy of those civilizations.
The Spanish could have stayed on top if, beginning in 1559, Philip II, III, and IV hadn't stubbornly
clung to ethnically dissimilar European territories such as the Netherlands, and if they hadn't
wasted their nation's strength in the wars of the Counter Reformation.
Beginning with the 1670 Treaty of Dover, the French under Louis XIV and XV fell into the same
trap, wasting their strength in the service of the Counter Reformation and territorial ambitions
in the Netherlands.
The British could have stayed on top if they hadn't alienated the Americans, wasted their strength
on tropical imperialism and balance of power wars, and then surrendered their industrial lead
to Germany and America via the dogmatic embrace of free trade.
Germany might have replaced Britain as the new leading power if they had maintained the peace
with a simply foreign policy based on a strong alliance with Russia, instead of the Byzantine
complexity of Bismark's diplomacy followed by the belligerent buffoonery of Kaiser Wilhelm.
Prior to the Cold War, Americans did everything right. We grew from a tiny settlement in 1607
to a colossas possessing half (!) the world's GDP in 1947. We maintained the homogeneity, without
stifling the energy, of our people. Most of our wars were fought to obtain sparsely populated
temperate zone land for the colonization of our people – not for tropical imperialism, balance
of power, or international ideological crusades. Pragmatism, not ideology, guided our economic
policy. During the Cold War, we began sacrificing the interests of the American nation to the
newfangled ideology of "Americanism". Tentatively under Truman, and definitively beginning with
Kennedy, we undermined the homogeneity of our people with mass immigration from the whole world,
undermined our traditional morality with liberal social engineering, became the policeman of the
world intent on exporting "Americanism", and assumed an attitude of lofty contempt for our own
trade interests.
The Chinese, on the other hand, chose ascent when they purged The Gang of Four and substituted
Chinese ethno-nationalism for feverish Maoism as their guiding principle.
It is obvious that we are now in the decline phase of the life cycle of empires. See the British
general Sir John Bagot Glubb's book "The Course of Empire" and other writings.
Blue chip stocks yield to blue chopsticks! Human civilisation is a forward-moving perpetual motion
machine. It never stops and it never goes back. There is no "end of history". There is no point
at which human civilisation just stops dead in its tracks and never moves again until the sun
implodes in 10 million years and roasts us all. The world has always had its revisionists and
reactionaries who want to take their countries back to some real or imagined golden age. If we're
lucky, such people eventually disappear into Trotsky's famous "dustbin of history". If we're not
lucky, they start a war, lose it and then disappear into said dustbin, destroying their country
in the process and opening up the way for a new dominant power to emerge. Just as Britain dominated
the world by 1850 and the US by 1950, China will dominate the world by 2050. I don't really see
what disadvantage there is in that for Americans and for us in Europe, it looks very positive.
Machiavelli said that as between two tyrants, always choose the most distant. China is Europe's
distant tyrant. OBOR seems to be very much to Europe's advantage, displacing American hegemony
and undermining US hegemonists' attempts to use Putin's Russia as an instrument to keep Europe
under their control.
Being a confirmed Realist and having researched Realism what is going on today between ourselves,
the Chinese Reds, and Russia is quite understandably. Few share our Democracy model, it is too
messy.
Let's not be obtuse. This order was put in place by individuals in the USA because it was to
their economic benefit to do so. That in no way means that this order benefits all Americans or
even a majority. And to the tens of thousands of American soldiers who have died maintaining this
order it was to their great detriment.
I personally have no allegiance to "the liberal rules-based international order". If the Chinese
can do better, let them have at it.
The important question is not whether America is in decline. It is whether the American people's
living standards are in decline.
Empire is not cost effective or beneficial to the general welfare of a country. It only serves
to enrich a few, while creating domestic corruption and inequality.
The post-WW2 American empire, allegedly to contain Communism, really didn't benefit America.
And the costs have been enormous.
It did benefit bankers, defense contractors, scoundrels, and the Wall Street Washington cabal
centered on the CFR.
We wasted the post Cold War era believing there was an "End to History". Anyone with decent
understanding would have considered that trying for a unipolar moment was a huge mistake and a
world with various Great Powers was a more likely outcome.
Unipolar attempts don't work. Acknowledging the US as the greatest Great Power, among many,
is a much better idea than trying to keep the US as the sole Superpower. That isn't decline but
breaking through illusion.
The Soviet Union sustained 20 Million causalities in the Second World War while it moved its factories
east to keep them out of German hands. Contrast this with the US imperial elite who simply handed
over our industrial base to China. The result is that China's economy is growing a rate three
times that of the United States.
What goes up must come down
Spinnin' wheel got to go 'round
Talkin' 'bout your troubles it's a cryin' sin
Ride a painted pony let the spinnin' wheel spin
This thoughtful article is followed by thoughtful comments. One commenter already mentioned demographics.
Due to immigration, America is the only advanced country not facing a population implosion.
Another ace-in-the-whole is geography. We are protected by two oceans with weak friendly neighbors
on our land borders.We are blessed with rich resources. This includes rich agricultural land reachable
by navigable rivers and mineral wealth.
We have rich political and social institutions that hopefully can survive Trump.
While we are doing our best to squander these they give us a cushion.
The U.S. is in an inevitable decline. The only question is the extent of the economic sabotage
and outright wars that the Deep State will instigate to try to forestall the collapse.
Washington will not tolerate a second axis of power arising even if it is strictly economic.
Consider how American Elites used subversion to catalyze the coup in Ukraine. They will stop at
nothing to sustain U.S. hegemony in the larger global sphere.
Should China, Russia and Europe seek to integrate into a huge, contiguous Eurasian economic
marketplace independent of United States hegemonic interference, the Deep State will use all of
its military power to prevent it. (Especially ironic since death and destruction are becoming
America's primary exports.)
The current rumblings of American power projection in the South China Sea and Russian borders
are a set up for future conflicts. The United States regime deluded by arrogance and stupidity
and saturated by the cult of military exceptionalism can't say no to military coercion and war
as its primary foreign policy instrument.
With the Neocon/Neoliberal militarists now running the show, it's only going to get worse
We are in decline because the decisions we made during and after the cold war.
– we tried to buy goodwill ("allies") by using the "most favored nation" clause – outsourcing
manufacturing jobs, starting at the bottom of the sophistication scale (apparel, appliances ).
And all we have left is defense manufacturing jobs. We have no more jobs to give away to buy goodwill.
– while reducing taxes, we kept increasing defense related spending by borrowing money.
With all the senseless wars, we have a huge debt, not exactly something which gives you clout.
– we wasted brainpower on financial gimmicks which have zero contribution to economic strength.
Such gimmicks might mess up the economy – and we did this, too – for the whole world.
China took the market driven part of communist economy which was viciously stamped out by Stalin
– the New Economic Policy (NEP) – and built an economic powerhouse, with money to spend.
The decline of the United States can be directly correlated to the decline in our spiritual fervor
and the absence of the fear of God. Falling morals precipitate the fall of the nation. It's not
a question of if at this point, but when. You can argue whatever other factors you wish, but there
is a direct correlation between strength of a nation and God throughout human civilization.
Lots to chew on as they say, but a couple key points from the article. A US President represents
how the world view's we Americans. From all the so called turmoil, with both political parties
sent packing, Trump may in fact represent real America. The fantasy the left markets, of a social
democratic welfare state is a myth. Next, we have grown up on a diet of our President elect, being
Commander in Chief, of the worlds most powerful military. So I ask, did Bill Clinton or Barack
Obama seem to Americans, like a commander in chief. Bush wasn't capable of responding to 9-11,
he tried and failed. Last Commander in Chief we had in our image was Ronald Reagan. Any wonder
our enemies are making hay while the sunshines. So now we have two very very admirable foes. China
and Russia neither with western values. How we now fit is up in the air. Getting Trump impeached
or forced to resign replaced with whoever won't change millions of Americans.
I would take exception to some of these comments about inevitable decline. The word decline suggests
to some end. That is very different than retraction or change.
When one examines China, Russia, Europe, these nations have been in play as states for 1500
years. And despite periods of retraction have maintained some semblance of their origins, more
than some. Their cores remain intact as to culture and practice despite differing polities What
is key for the US is her youth. We are unable to match the strategic long term strategies as the
states mentions because we have not been around long enough to seal our core existence as a nation.
Mistaking youthful exuberance for wisdom of age is where we are. There is no mistaking that
the US can remain a major player in world events and we should. But that process need not be at
the expense of who we are are becoming or in lieu of it.
I will have to dig out my Zsun Tsu. It is easy to apply those admonitions out of their intended
context. Because so many different environmental war scenarios are addressed. For example, Asia
plays the long game. They are not thinking merely about this century, this decade, this year,
month . . . but the next century. Hence the idea of long war. Consider how long they have been
on the Continent of Africa.
They are in a sense just waiting everyone else out. Iraq, blood in the water. Afghanistan,
blood in the water. They are not the least troubled that we are embroiled in the ME.
The size of our debt is troubling and the size of how much of that debt is owned by other states
is disturbing. China, some ten years ago, indicated that they are seeking a way around the power
of the dollar.
I am fully confident that we can survive the rise of any nation on earth. I believe we are
special unique, and endowed with an energy, ingenuity, vibrancy and psyche today's world. But
we are so inundated with a kind of can't do -- must accept attitude in social polity that undermines
sense of self. and that is where I think the force of a Pres Trump is helpful, reinvigorating.
Conserving a sense of self, identity is mandatory for survival.
And while I have opposed out latest military interventions as unnecessary, if we decide to
make war -- we had better do it to the full and be done with. This is more in line with what I
think Tzun Tzu -- destabilize the opponents psychology.
Here the importation of Doaist, Hindu, and other existentialist philosophies are upending western
thought. The humanities are tearing asunder our social and psychological meaning of self. Whether
it is soulmates, no anchored truth or reality or the notion of that human sexuality is malleable
and no right no wrong save as to individual minding and social circumstance . . . the system of
concreteness is being chiseled to nothingness.
"Such gimmicks might mess up the economy – and we did this, too – for the whole world."
Actually we did something else, we embraced the world's standards – Basel I and Basel II. Which
are major contributors to our economic system. When Pres Nixon pressed to go off the gold standard
. . . huge error.
Last week one of the toughest hurdles was to avoid getting into that ambulance I knew the minute
I did, I would be entering a system bent on bending me to its will.
Before we go about making the world -- we need a clear and clean sense of self and resist change,
regardless of the pressure by friend or foe.
" The United States filled this role for half a century, from 1945 until the Great Recession.
The world's economic hegemon must provide public goods that benefit the international system as
a whole, including: making the rules for the international economic order; opening its domestic
market to other states' exports; supplying liquidity to the global economy; and providing a reserve
currency."
Uhh you are playing fast and loose here with one overarching reality -- there really was no
one else left who could do so. And that lasted a good while. As those regions recovered, we continued
to provide without ever adjusting to the their own ability to provide. Prime example, our presence
in Europe, I would be interested in the ROI of defending the Europeans even as they make war on
others or encourage conflicts they themselves ave no intention of supporting, but are more than
happy that the US do so.
Paradoxically the acceleration in the decline began with the disintegration of the Soviet
Union. Incredible hubris followed, and we are reaping the usual results.
I think just the opposite. OBOR, AIIB and the Shanghai Group show China playing precisely by the
rules of the international, rules-based liberal order set up by the Western powers generally over
the last few centuries and particularly by the USA after WWII. China actually follows the international
rules. It hasn't invaded anyone since 1979. How many wars not authorized by the UNSC, and generally
either dubious or flat out in violation of international law, has the US engaged in since that
date? China does not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. As the article states,
China follows the rules of Westphalian sovereignty. But it also follows the rules of international
law. China does not abuse its veto power in the UNSC, the way the Western powers, particularly
the USA, does. China is not looking to impose its way of life on other countries. And its international
initiatives, including the international organizations it has created and sponsored, are all about
trade, tourism, and co operation and development, as opposed to the USA's, which are all about
domination, ever expanding "defensive" military alliances, military bases everywhere, demeaning
and degrading, not to mention hypocritical, "human rights report cards," endless "sanctions" and
"embargoes" on everyone who does not do its bidding, covering up for the sins of its aggressive,
horrible client states, particularly Israel and the KSA, handing out cookies to coupsters in the
process of overthrowing legitimate, and even democratically elected, governments, and generally
sticking its nose into the elections of other countries, and now, with Trump, threatening to upset
the apple cart when it comes to international trade and tourism and cultural exchange.
The USA is the rogue state, in regard to the very international order that it played a huge
role in establishing. The USA can't even seem to go through an Olympic Games without making a
fuss about something or another.
"Rules and institutions do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of
power in the international system. In global politics, the rules are made by those who rule international
politics 'cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on which it rests and
the political interests which it serves.' The post-World War II international order is an American
order that, while preserving world stability for a long time, primarily privileged U.S. and Western
interests. Proponents of 'lock-in' are saying that China will!indeed, must!agree to be a 'responsible
stakeholder' (with Washington defining the meaning of 'responsibility') in an international order
that it did not construct and that exists primarily to advance the interests of the United States.
In plain English, what those who believe in 'lock-in' expect is that an increasingly powerful
China will continue to accept playing second fiddle to the United States. But Beijing, by all
the evidence, does not see it that way. And OBOR and the AIIB prove the point. Instead of living
within the geopolitical, economic, and institutional confines imposed by Pax Americana, an increasingly
powerful China will seek to revise the international order so that it reflects its own political
and economic interests. Thus are OBOR and the AIIB straws in the wind. And, as the great Bob Dylan
said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing."
Of course the distribution of power matters. But China is using its power within the liberal,
rules-based framework established by the West. It actually already behaves in a "responsible"
manner. It didn't invade Hong Kong or Macao, rather it made deals with the declining colonial
powers which controlled them. It doesn't invade Taiwan. Rather it uses diplomacy to slowly advance
its cause with respect to "One China." It uses its economic clout to develop trading partners,
not to try to bully them into political submission, a la the USA. It is patient with regard to
North Korea. It is patient with regard to US sabre rattling and blustering right at its borders.
It is patient and rule-abiding in just about everything. Its organization are bypassing the USA.
Not confronting it. If China eventually eclipses the USA, it will be because China has beaten
it at its own game.
Our moral decline leads to the other decline mentioned in the article. There's a statement
that says :"America is great because she is good But, she will cease to be great because she ceased
to be good" We've been in decline since the '60's and are coming to our "bottom" ( and end ) ever
more quickly
One thing not mentioned in the article is how we lost our technological lead. This in large part
due to our H1B program, which is a conveyor belt to transfer tech and organizational knowhow abroad.
Most R&D operations seem to be staffed largely by guest workers from China and India. Yes, there
is a saving on salaries, leading to profits. But in addition to the knowledge transfer, there
is the discouragement to US natives from entering tech fields.
Margnistsky was an accountant. He never has been a laywer.
Notable quotes:
"... "Foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups" means absolutely different things than it is stated. We must read "foreign" as "American", "non-governmental" as "uncontroled by the Russian government, but sponsored by the US government", and "pro-democracy" as "pro-US". ..."
"... There is nothing democratic in these groups. Everything they say is a lie. They do not want at all democracy for Russians. Because if there were democracy in Russia, then Browder and other foreign carpetbaggers were shot dead by popular vote. Or at least they could never come to Russia and rob it as they have been doing. And they all know it. They do not want freedom and human right for Russians. By "freedom" these groups understand the freedom for THEM and THEIR friends, and by "human right" they understand the rights for THEM and THEIR friends. ..."
"... I've been reading the Western press for many years now, and when they write about Russia or the above-mentioned holy things, I constantly read only less than a dozen of names. Namely: Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky and a couple of others. Everything that concerns the human rights violations in Russia is just about that privileged dozen of people. Nothing else bad happens in Russia with anybody else. Believe me if all the problems with human rights in Russia were only with that dozen of people I would be really happy. ..."
"... The yankee imperium has evolved into the inverted totalitarianism structure. The mainstream press and those inside the beltway are no more free agents than politburo members were during the Soviet era. Why would Nekrasov, prior to this film a known enemy of the Russian state, change his views unless he was an honourable man convinced by the evidence? The treatment of this film reveals the true nature of the contemporary yankee power structure. ..."
"... The latest neocon line is to use Brexit as an excuse to (a) blame Putin even more (b) expand NATO. Today's Washington Post had an editorial demanding that NATO be strengthened to ward off the enhanced Russian threat now that Britain will be leaving the EU. ..."
"... Here is the perfect moment to remember that it was antisemitism to question the western narrative on Iran nuclear program. David Brooks will conform if his mind is still sharp enough that he once suggested attacking George Bush war of 2003 was a also antisemitic . ..."
"... Dr. Giraldi, do you know there is a Jewish organization in UK, which gives "Sergei Magnitsky Human Rights Awards"? Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008). ..."
"... A famous quote springs to mind: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believe is false." CIA director William Casey (CIA director, 1981-1987) ..."
"... According to Israel Shamir, both Browder himself and the Jewish community consider him to be Jewish. http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-good-fortune-of-mr-browder/ ..."
"... Putin said 'enough!' And has stopped them in Syria (for now) when everyone else was wringing their hands, Putin showed them all how a man with integrity must act, when faced with a thug and a bully. You stand up to them. Or you cower, and place your fate in their hands, as Gadhafi had done. ..."
"... And from that you all have a problem. You get information about Russia either from the Washington-centric quasi-independent ("independent" in the American political doublespeak always means independent from everyone but Washington) outlets, like NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, you name it, and their view of Russia for the past 90 years is quite predictable if not annoying, and I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something is white. ..."
"... On the other hand you have the Kremlin propaganda state machine like RT who obviously do the same thing as the Washington propaganda machine, but in the opposite direction; or Russophilic individuals (usually emigres with nostalgia), lone wolf voices like the Saker or Karlin, but whose voice anyway is irrelevant and illusional because, as I've said, they are outsiders and know little about the actual Russian life, but they rather might be characterized as positive interpreters of open sources (and neither the sources nor their interpretations ought to be true). ..."
"... Also we have local "opposition" outlets either in Russian like the radio station "Ekho Moskvy", the TV station "Dozhd", "Novaya Gazeta" and so on, or in English like "The Moscow Times", but I do not even take them seriously, I consider them as virtually subsidiaries of the Western MSM (though there is one irony that furiously anti-government "Ekho Moskvy" is owned by Gazprom). ..."
"... What I wanted to say, that even if many who are not hopelessly brainwashed understand that the demonizing of Russia is a lie, it does not make the opposite view automatically right, and your over-positive opinion is generally illusional. I tried to bring you around, but seemed to fail, though to change anybody's opinion was not my goal, I was just trying to say my opinion, be it right or wrong. ..."
"... It works in the opposite direction as well. When people have not enough means, they have no much time left to think about and to follow good moral, they are simply surviving as they can, often doing very ugly things. In most cases a society in strong need ends up in a chaos as we can see it in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. ..."
"... And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her hope, (and an ascendant middle class and pride in Russia's heritage). For the Fiend, this was an abomination, and ironically enough; Putin was now a new Hitler – especially when he jailed on of their own (and for hard labor -- It was another Holocaust!). But as long as he played ball with the West by letting most of the Jewish oligarchs keep their ill-gotten billions, and went along with atrocities like the savage rape of Iraq, the oligarchs were willing to ignore what Putin had done to their designs and fun up to a degree. ..."
"... I would say that Putin certainly does care about Iran. It doesn't take a genius to know which nations have been declared evil and targeted by the US, they are frequently named by traitorous whores like Hillary, Obuma, Biden etc, along with the treacherous neo-cons who bear responsibility for fomenting wars in the ME. ..."
"... Putin is smart enough to know that if any nation sits back and waits its turn to be attacked it will surely be destroyed. He went out on a limb to arrest the destruction of Syria and it has paid off. He appears to have played his cards remarkably well to date. I can't imagine that the stratospheric level of approval and support that he receives in Russia is fictional. ..."
"... I would believe RT News before I would the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, DW, Fox and all the other discredited western "news" outlets. ..."
"... To like/dislike Putin is not a political stance but rather a personal opinion. But it does not explain nor imply any other view. To be precise, several persons can dislike Putin, but one may be a pro-Western ultra-liberal, another a Stalinist, other a National-Bolshevik, other a Christian Monarchist, other a racist Nazi, other a pro-Ukrainian Nazi, and so on. It is difficult to list them all. And they all may have totally different views on many subjects, but just one thing in common, as you said, a dislike to Putin. ..."
"... Russia is on the fall . The crisis of the past two years has just nullified any achievements of the previous 2004-2014 decade. Russia has practically returned to its starting position. And nothing says about its rise, everything says the contrary . Russians have entered a difficult time. They will be remembering 2000-2014 with bitter nostalgia. ..."
"... Actually, for the past 25 years Russia is becoming "a multi-culture, failing state, with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them" . I will add that that elite is in the West in their minds, and they have to be physically located in Russia just for the sake of "earning" money. ..."
The documentary began with the full participation of American born UK citizen William Browder,
who virtually served as narrator for the first section that portrayed the widely accepted story
on Magnitsky. Browder portrays himself as a human rights campaigner dedicated to promoting the
legacy of Sergei Magnitsky, but he is inevitably much more complicated than that. The grandson
of Earl Browder the former General Secretary of the American Communist Party,
William Browder studied
economics at the University of Chicago, and obtained an MBA from Stanford.
From the beginning, Browder concentrated on Eastern Europe, which was beginning to open up
to the west. In 1989 he took a position at highly respected Boston Consulting Group dealing with
reviving failing Polish socialist enterprises. He then worked as an Eastern Europe analyst for
Robert Maxwell, the unsavory British press magnate and Mossad spy, before joining the Russia team
at Wall Street's Salomon Brothers in 1992.
He left Salomons in 1996 and partnered with the controversial Edmond Safra, the Lebanese-Brazilian-Jewish
banker who died in a mysterious fire in 1999, to set up Hermitage Capital Management Fund. Hermitage
is registered in tax havens Guernsey and the Cayman Islands. It is a hedge fund that was focused
on "investing" in Russia, taking advantage initially of the
loans-for-shares
scheme under Boris Yeltsin, and then continuing to profit greatly during the early years of Vladimir
Putin's ascendancy. By 2005 Hermitage was the largest foreign investor in Russia.
Browder had renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1997 and became a British citizen apparently
to avoid American taxes, which are levied on worldwide income. In
his bookRed Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder and One Man's Fight for Justice
he depicts himself as an honest and honorable Western businessman attempting to function in a
corrupt Russian business world. That may or may not be true, but the loans-for-shares scheme that
made him his initial fortune has been correctly characterized as the epitome of corruption, an
arrangement whereby foreign investors worked with local oligarchs to strip the former Soviet economy
of its assets paying pennies on each dollar of value. Along the way, Browder
was reportedly involved in making false representations on official documents and bribery.
As a consequence of what came to be known as the Magnitsky scandal, Browder was eventually
charged by the Russian authorities for fraud and tax evasion. He was banned from re-entering Russia
in 2005, even before Magnitsky died, and began to withdraw his assets from the country. Three
companies controlled by Hermitage were eventually seized by the authorities, though it is not
clear if any assets remained in Russia. Browder himself was convicted of tax evasion in absentia
in 2013 and sentenced to nine years in prison.
Browder has assiduously, and mostly successfully,
made his case that he and Magnitsky have been the victims of Russian corruption both during
and since that time, though there have been
skeptics regarding many details of his personal narrative. He has been able to sell his tale
to leading American politicians like Senators John McCain, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman,
always receptive when criticizing Russia, as well as to a number of European parliamentarians
and media outlets. But there is, inevitably, another side to the story, something quite different,
which Andrei Nekrasov presents to the viewer.
Nekrasov has discovered what he believes to be holes in the narrative that has been carefully
constructed and nurtured by Browder. He provides documents and also an interview with Magnitsky's
mother maintaining that there is no clear evidence that he was beaten or tortured and that he
died instead due to the failure to provide him with medicine while in prison or treatment shortly
after he had a heart attack. A
subsequent investigation
ordered by then Russian President Dimitri Medvedev in 2011 confirmed that Magnitsky had not received
medical treatment, contributing to this death, but could not confirm that he had been beaten even
though there was suspicion that that might have been the case.
Nekrasov also claims that much of the case against the Russian authorities is derived from
English language translations of relevant documents provided by Browder himself. The actual documents
sometimes say something quite different. Magnitsky is referred to as an accountant, not a lawyer,
which would make sense as a document of his deposition is apparently part of a criminal investigation
of possible tax fraud, meaning that he was no whistleblower and was instead a suspected criminal.
Other discrepancies cited by Nekrasov include documents demonstrating that Magnitsky did not
file any complaint about police and other government officials who were subsequently cited by
Browder as participants in the plot, that the documents allegedly stolen from Magnitsky to enable
the plotters to transfer possession of three Hermitage controlled companies were irrelevant to
how the companies eventually were transferred and that someone else employed by Hermitage other
than Magnitsky actually initiated investigation of the fraud.
In conclusion, Nekrasov believes there was indeed a huge fraud related to Russian taxes but
that it was not carried out by corrupt officials. Instead, it was deliberately ordered and engineered
by Browder with Magnitsky, the accountant, personally developing and implementing the scheme used
to carry out the deception.
To be sure, Browder and his international legal team have presented documents in the case that
contradict much of what Nekrasov has presented in his film. But in my experience as an intelligence
officer I have learned that documents are easily forged, altered, or destroyed so considerable
care must be exercised in discovering the provenance and authenticity of the evidence being provided.
It is not clear that that has been the case. It might be that Browder and Magnitsky have been
the victims of a corrupt and venal state, but it just might be the other way around. In my experience
perceived wisdom on any given subject usually turns out to be incorrect.
Given the adversarial positions staked out, either Browder or Nekrasov is essentially right,
though one should not rule out a combination of greater or lesser malfeasance coming from both
sides. But certainly Browder should be confronted more intensively on the nature of his business
activities while in Russia and not given a free pass because he is saying things about Russia
and Putin that fit neatly into a Washington establishment profile. As soon as folks named McCain,
Cardin and Lieberman jump on a cause it should be time to step back a bit and reflect on what
the consequences of proposed action might be.
One should ask why anyone who has a great deal to gain by having a certain narrative accepted
should be completely and unquestionably trusted, the venerable Cui bono? standard. And
then there is a certain evasiveness on the part of Browder. The film shows him huffing and puffing
to explain himself at times and he has
avoided being served with subpoenas on allegations connected to the Magnitsky fraud that are
making their way through American courts. In one case he can be seen on YouTube
running away from a
server, somewhat unusual behavior if he has nothing to hide.
A number of Congressmen and staffers were invited to the showing of the Nekrasov
Magnitsky was a sleazy accountant, not a lawyer and among his activities one was about getting
tax breaks for Browder, using fictitious hiring of disabled people to get a tax break.
Browder was one of the very bold and very suspicious "gold-diggers" in xUSSR space, who
tried to participate in the "economic rape of Russia".
During this time of gangster capitalism in Russia under drunk Yeltsin such a person, especially
a foreign one, could easily get a six grams of led if he stepped on some oligarchs foot, but
this did not stopped him. He was really reckless. I wonder why. Who protected him in Russia?
Here is pretty interesting and educational reading
"Ties with Russia run deep in his family; his grandfather was General Secretary of the US
Communist Party and, according to documents released in 1995, worked for the NKVD, running
a spy ring. Bill himself specialized in Eastern European markets, and when he felt the time
was right, he founded Hermitage Capital Management in 1996, along with the main investor, Edmond
Safra."
His real connection and why he renounced US citizenship and is hiding in UK suggest that
some influential British structures were behind his activities.
In a way Browder was very interested in Magnitsky death as dead Magnitsky was much more
useful for him that alive. Magnitsky knew way too much about Brower activities in Russia and
already started talking.
It's a pity that doublespeak and doublethink rule the world. Every time you read something
you now must decipher.
"Foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups" means absolutely different things than
it is stated. We must read "foreign" as "American", "non-governmental" as "uncontroled by the
Russian government, but sponsored by the US government", and "pro-democracy" as "pro-US".
There is nothing democratic in these groups. Everything they say is a lie. They do not
want at all democracy for Russians. Because if there were democracy in Russia, then Browder
and other foreign carpetbaggers were shot dead by popular vote. Or at least they could never
come to Russia and rob it as they have been doing. And they all know it. They do not want freedom
and human right for Russians. By "freedom" these groups understand the freedom for THEM and
THEIR friends, and by "human right" they understand the rights for THEM and THEIR friends.
But the real problem is the Russian government do not want good for Russians as well. This
entire conflict is between the native colonial administration and the foreign carpetbaggers.
And the main point is who'll get the cash, either Browder and his friends or some unknown Russian
oligarchs and corrupt officials. But both the results are bad for Russians.
the Short Version: Putin's Russia is a large White pebble in the open-borders Judeo-globalist
shoe. The Zionists/neo-conz/cucks will do anything – even upbrink to a nuclear WW III – to
destroy Nationalist Russia
And something else about democracy, freedom, human rights and so on hypocritical demagogy
of the West.
I've been reading the Western press for many years now, and when they write about Russia
or the above-mentioned holy things, I constantly read only less than a dozen of names. Namely:
Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky and a couple of others. Everything that
concerns the human rights violations in Russia is just about that privileged dozen of people.
Nothing else bad happens in Russia with anybody else. Believe me if all the problems with human
rights in Russia were only with that dozen of people I would be really happy.
But the fact is that everyday for the last 25 years thousands of common Russians are faced
with the violations of their rights. But nobody in the West worry about them, nobody mention
them, they simply do not exist for the West. The only people that exist are those who are directly
or indirectly connected with the Western establishment. That is the Western establishment and
their tame press are concerned only about their personal interests.
And when another Western (or Russian) journalist or human rights "activist", while writing
another article about Russia, mention again and again just only that half a dozen of the names,
I just cannot help but despise those hypocrites.
The yankee imperium has evolved into the inverted totalitarianism structure. The mainstream
press and those inside the beltway are no more free agents than politburo members were during
the Soviet era. Why would Nekrasov, prior to this film a known enemy of the Russian state,
change his views unless he was an honourable man convinced by the evidence? The treatment of
this film reveals the true nature of the contemporary yankee power structure.
Sergei Magnitsky like the US and EU was a Zionist clown whose strings were held by the Organized
Jewry.
In November 2015, in an interview with UK's No.1 Israeli propaganda media outlet, 'Jewish
Chronicle', William Browder, the American-born Jewish tycoon who describes himself as Putin's
"number one enemy" in his book: Red Notice, claimed that though Putin had met Netanyahu, Avigdor
Lieberman, and local Jewish leaders; supports Israel and donated $1 million to Moscow's Holocaust
Museum – his heart is filled with hatred towards Jews. Why? Because he tortured and killed
Magnitsky and supports Iran's ally Assad.
Madeleine Albright, who found her Jewish family roots while holding post of US secretary
of state, in a recent interview she gave to Austrian newspaper DiePress.com called Russian
president Vladimir Putin "a smart but a truly evil man." She claimed that Putin is trying his
best to destroy European Union and NATO, two of Israel's allies.
"He is smart but truly an evil man. An officer of KGB, who wants to exercise power and believes
that every body has come together to conspire against Russia. This is not true. Putin is playing
bad cards well, for the time being at least. I believe his goal is to undermine and split EU.
He want NATO to disappear from his sphere of influence," She said.
Thanks. The latest neocon line is to use Brexit as an excuse to (a) blame Putin even
more (b) expand NATO. Today's Washington Post had an editorial demanding that NATO be strengthened
to ward off the enhanced Russian threat now that Britain will be leaving the EU.
You omit taking notice of the author's shrewd observation that there might still be available
some large amount of money that even Nekrasov might find irresistable as way to quickly achieved
financial independence. Even if he is basically an honest man he might be able to rationalise
selling out if he knows that Browder is, anyway, a crook.
But the real problem is the Russian government do not want good for Russians as well.
in your opinion, is the Putin government just as corrupt as the Zio-West? From here in the
(dying and looted) West, it looks like Russia's middle class is ascendant, while ours is being
systematically murdered off
Personally, for me, what it feels like is that the worst elements in the population that
were in Russia (and Eastern Europe) during the 20th century have now emigrated over to the
West. And that just as Russia and Eastern Europe suffered unimaginable horrors during the last
century, under cruel and sadistic Bolsheviks (and the Cheka and NKVD), they are now over here,
fomenting genocide and looting the place blind.
It's as if when Putin came to power, the Fiend slithered over the Berlin wall into the West,
where it now molders in the assorted banking houses and think tanks plotting its next iniquitous
atrocity, whether financial or military or social/cultural.
That's how it seems to me anyways.
(thank you PG for your superlative and informative articles. They're very much appreciated)
I guess he doesn't have to be anti Jewish ,but being a proponent of prosperity at home and
peace abroad does create a monster out of a decent man in today's garbage land which defines
the western minds . It sure doesn't help the warmongering war readiness war friendly Zio
In some way Zio are doing what they did to other peace makers through the ages. Being against
war and being for peace automatically ensures extended definition of antisemitism will be attached
Here is the perfect moment to remember that it was antisemitism to question the western
narrative on Iran nuclear program. David Brooks will conform if his mind is still sharp enough
that he once suggested attacking George Bush war of 2003 was a also antisemitic .
Dr. Giraldi, do you know there is a Jewish organization in UK, which gives "Sergei Magnitsky
Human Rights Awards"? Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim
McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named
after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008).
During his acceptance speech Jim McGovern said that he was a staunch supporter of Israel
and supported the US-Iran nuclear agreement because it would be good for Israel in long-term.
During his stay in London, Jim McGovern was interviewed by Israeli mouthpiece, Jewish Chronicle
– published on November 27.
"I understand the security concerns, but I also believe that ultimately, the way forward
in Israel is for there to be real negotiations with the Palestinians -- a two-state solution.
People need to learn to live with each other -- that's the solution all over the world," McGovern
said.
When asked does that include Hamas? McGovern replied: "I don't need to negotiate with my
friends. I need to negotiate with the people I consider my adversaries and my enemies."
He also criticized Israel's human rights abuses and warned such actions are isolating Israel
from the international community. "I think Israel does not have a perfect human rights record.
I think the settlement policies are very troublesome," he said.
@Anonymous
As Anonymous says,"
Q: Who is guilty of lying, Nekrasov or Browder?
A: Which one is the Jew?"
Agreed. Frequently you will find that to find the truth just see what the Jew is saying
and the opposite will be the truth or what they say will be so convoluted as to twist the truth
into a blaspheme of some sort.
Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a
Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named after
Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008).
God help us, that Jew jerk Lantos is still screwing over America. Wonder how many Palestinians
he is responsible for murdering?
@Anonymous
Are you just idly polluting UR with your prejudices or do you have some faintly relevant information?
The Browders who are descended from (non-Jewish) Communist Earl Browder seem to have good
mathematical brains which may be inherited from Earl Browder's Russian Jewish wife. But it
appears the Jewishness ended with her. The younger Bill Browder (who has a mathematician uncle
also called Bill) is the son of mathematician Felix who doesn't appear to have married a Jew.
Over to you to research Nekrasov. Will your brain suffer spasms or paraysis if you find that
neither of them are Jews.
A famous quote springs to mind: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when
everything the American people believe is false." CIA director William Casey (CIA director,
1981-1987)
If this is an accurate quote, and I assume that it is, .what is the point of it? I mean
what goals should the CIA have ? Shouldn't OUR CIA be doing everything in its power, (like
every other government agency which we employ) to shore up the health ,wealth and security
of our nation.? Every action it takes, clandestine or otherwise, should be designed to ensure
the safety, freedom , and prosperity of our nation and its citizens .
Period. End of story. If they are not doing that .Fire the bums.
I still don't get what the cute girl in the pic is all about? She doesn't look Jewish
or anything.
That cute girl is Elena Servettaz who edited the book, the cover of which is behind her.
Here's a lot more photos of her for your viewing pleasure. Including one with her and Crazy
John McCain, which probably tells you all you need to know.
@Greasy
William Without going into a lot of unnecessary detail, Elena Servettaz is a Russian Jew
who serves basically the same role in the international journalistic world as Pamela Gellar
serves in the right-wing talk-show host/U-tube world based in Jew York City.
@Wizard
of Oz Don't be ridiculous, Bill Browder is Jewish and has always strongly identified as
such. He has a mezuzah on his office door and only hires Jewish employees. I knew him personally
back in the 90s and 00s.
@Boris
N I agree with you wholeheartedly, Boris, with the comments you made on democracy in Russia,
as well as the role the foreign (US) carpetbaggers had played in Russian society.
However, you failed to mention Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had succeeded the drunken,
incompetent Boris Yeltsin, who had been installed by the Jewish Oligarchs, who were – during
his Presidency – looting the Russian Treasury and bleeding the nation dry. It was Putin who
salvaged the Russian economy by imprisoning and/or exiling these Oligarchs and seizing all
of their assets. He also restored Orthodox Christianity in Russia after 70 years of it being
underground under Bolshevik Communism. The magnificent Cathedral of Christ the Redeemer, which
had been built in the 19th Century, then demolished by Lazar Kaganovich under Josef Stalin's
orders, was restored (rebuilt) after Yeltsin became President in the 1990′s.
Democracy also came to Russia under Putin, along with the revival of Orthodox Christianity.
As a result, the Russian people are experiencing more freedom than people are in Western countries,
including the US. In a way, these two nations – Russia and the US – have switched ideologies.
Even as I type this reply, Boris, Christianity in the US has just come under attack by the
Federal Courts which, btw, is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution,
which guarantees, along with freedoms of speech, press and peaceable assemply, freedom of religion.
@Wizard
of Oz "as amongst the Jews what anti-Semites (and some Jews) would regard as "typically
Jewish"."
Don't be ridiculous. Jewish people define themselves as an ethnic group. The
fact that the ethnic group has considerably admixed is not the fault of those who merely observe
that fact.
@Eileen
Kuch A friend who ran a very big charity funded by Khodorkovsky told me that he is not
Jewish but Russian Orthodox and, indeed, his mother Marins seems to be Orthodox Christian,
so why would the Jerusalem Post online refer to him as Jewish? Did he convert?
I guess its just that, on balance, any group likes to claim the rich unless they are too
disreputable.
A related question is whether people with Jewish fathers, like K, got into the habit of
associating with others who were at least part Jewish because of the viciousness or at least
weight of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. After all one can get an idea of what it was like
from the mad snti-Semitism in UR comments where even Rupert Murdoch can be called Jewish out
of spite and envy even though he doesn't have a drop of known Jewish ancestry – pure Anglo-Celt
it seems in case some twisted mind picks on that "known".
in your opinion, is the Putin government just as corrupt as the Zio-West?
Yes, absolutely. It is not just my mere assumption, and it is not a conspiracy either, but
clear open facts that anybody can see if one wants to see. It is not "as corrupt as", it IS
controled by the West. We must not be deceived by the trickery red herring play of the official
Kremlin (I do not like the cliche "Kremlin propaganda", but this is exactly it; unfortunately
the Western MSM use this term for absolutely different things; the Western MSM play in the
same duo, by the way).
Who is Putin and where has he come from in the first place? Apart from that he is a former
KGB officer, and, as they say, "there aren't former KGB officers" (and this is important as
a great deal of Russian oligarchs came from that organization), he has not come from anywhere
and suddenly but fairly won the presidential campaign in 2000. During the 1990s he was moving
around in the Russian oligarchic and Kremlin circles, in fact he once was the right hand of
the first mayor of St.-Petersburg Sobchak, which in turn was a friend of Yeltsin. You think
Putin is different, but he is the same, he is from the same circles, you has been tricked by
the made-up image of Putin, a fiend for oligarchs and a friend of people, whereas he is, in
fact, a friend of oligarchs, literally.
Then, what is more important. Even if we know little about Putin's life in the 1990s (everything
is deliberately hidden), we know, hey, the entire world knows, how Putin has come to power.
Putin was a protege of Yeltsin, and this Yeltsin's protectionism was not hidden, but absolutely
public and official. Putin is the successor of Yeltsin, directly appointed by Yeltsin, a "legacy
president" whose main goal is to maintain the status quo from the 1990s. I would rater call
him a CEO under the control of the real masters, than an independent leader of the state. How
can one at all believe "Putin is not Yeltsin", when it is contrary to the facts. And again
we know which circles Yeltsin represented, and we know that those circles have had close connections
with the West if not controled by the West, and here we've come to the most interesting part.
The entire post-Soviet Russian elite (oligarchs and government officials) has come come
from the Communist nomenklatura, from the KGB and from the Soviet black market mafia structures
(usually run by Jews, Ukrainians and Asiatics like Georgians, Armenians, Azeris and Uzbeks).
And everybody of them have had many connections with the West, particularly with London, thousands
of Russian oligarchs, higher officials or at least their families live in London, London is
a second (true?) capital of Russia.
So there is no reason, why we must take the Kremlin and the West at face value. Why must
we believe there is a conflict of the planetary scale, when there is none.
Well, I've said much enough (I hope MI6 will not find me; joke), but you can dig further
yourself, everything is in open, the Russian ruling clique does not much hide itself, you do
not need to be a secret agent trying to acquire the secret Kremlin (or rather Westminster?)
documents, you just need to know the right directions of your searches. Just don't allow them
to confuse yourself with the information noise, both from the Kremlin and the West. Sift attentively
thousands of articles about a good Putin and a bad Putin from both the direction, because their
real goal is just to hide the real truth.
from here in the (dying and looted) West, it looks like Russia's middle class is ascendant,
while ours is being systematically murdered off
As for the Russian middle class. Of course, since 2000 the living standards of Russians
have improved greatly. We could argue if it is due magical Putin or high prices of natural
resources. But this only if we compare it with the Sovet pitiful existence and the extreme
poverty of the 1990s. But Even if Russians have now more money, cars, things and all, Russia
outside of Moscow and St.-Petersburg is still and will be for many decades a Second Word country,
in many places even a Third World one. I lived in Western Europe and I can tell the difference.
This is absolutely another different planet. Every bit there is better than in Russia, so Russia
seems quite backward. It is just simply pleasant to live in a First World country. You constantly
complain how bad the life in the West is, but you do not understand your luck that you were
born or live there.
And nothing much have changed since the 1990s, if not since the Soviet times. The entire
country is still ruled by the former Soviet nomenklature, the oligarchs of the 1990s and Western
companies still own and pwn Russia, gigantic bulks of the Russian wealth flow to off-shore
havens, the state budget still consist of >60% of the "natural rent", the high level corruption
is flourishing, a great deal of the budget is embezzled by officials. Maybe the reason why
the average Russians still live decent lives is Russia's wealth so immense, that even if half
of it is stolen by the upper 5-10%, the remaining half is enough for the well-being of the
other 90%. But imagine how well the Russians would live without the robbery by the Kremlin
oligarchic clique.
And don't take official Russian statistics at face value. The Russian middle class hardly
exists. And after 2014 the income of people has been dropping steadily. For the most provincial
cities the picture is following (at 70 roubles per USD):
Lowest 30% earn below $200 per month
Low Middle 40% – $200-$400
High Middle 20% – $400-$600
Upper 5% – $600-$1200
In Moscow, St.-Petersburg and some northern regions these number are 2 times higher, but
they comprise barely 15% of the population.
And we're left with 5%, the clique and their servants.
I can hardly name the people who earns under $400 the "middle class", and the country where
70% earns below that can hardly be called rich (though it is quite developed, comparing with
the Third World). So there are just 5%, max 25%, of the real middle class. And the average
pensions are around $200/month, so no less than 40 mln of senior Russians live for that small
amount of money, and with constantly rising prices it is very difficult to make both ends meet.
And the last. You will complain that Europe is being flooded with immigrants, but Russia
is a last stronghold. But I'll tell you what. Russia is on the second place by immigrant population
after the USA! And they are coming in. Russia has officially 10 mln and unofficially close
to 25 mln of immigrants from Asia. Moscow, in fact, must compete with London by the percentage
of Asiatic immigrants. The Muslim population is rising and the Kremlin openly favours Muslims
and Muslim immigrants.
@Eileen
Kuch You just reproduce the idealized image (either good or bad) of Putin that has been
created by the propaganda machine from both the sides during the past 15 years. As I said above,
Putin is hardly a threat to the oligarchs. Putin hardly persecute any oligarch. There are up
to 100 Russian billionaires, and some thousands of millionaires, but only Khodorkovsky, Lebedev
and maybe a couple of others were really imprisoned. No any other oligarchs have been persecuted.
Never the privatisation of the 1990s was questioned. Never the legacy of Yeltsin was questioned,
rather he is a "hero", an entire Yeltsin museum has been built. The very same oligarchs from
the 1990s, except for maybe some outcasts, are continuing to loot and rob Russian wealth. They
buy entire castles somewhere in England or France, they buy enormous luxury yachts, they have
bought a great deal of the London luxury realty, etc., etc. They roll in money, Russian money.
The only reason the average Russians still live decent is the enormous size of the Russian
wealth, that even scraps are enough for the entire nation to live.
And I'm not that religious, I do not think that the renaissance of religiosity in Russia
is any good, I rather agree with (a rare case) the Marx's opinion about "opium for the people".
It just makes Russian people stupid, superstitious and easy to manipulate. We live in the 21th
century, we do not need 2000-year old fairy tales to be good. Anyway, I have a great respect
for the PAST Russian Christian tradition, I think it is an important part of the Russian culture
and mentality, so I'm strongly against any destruction of it.
However, with both the economics and the culture you seem to present a false dilemma. You
imply that the only alternative to Yeltsin and Putin are Kaganovich and Stalin, whereas I strongly
believe there are many better alternatives.
@Boris
N The overall quality of life in any country and in any generation depends on much more
than annual income, reflected in the amount of money people have at their disposal. In fact,
it's becoming increasingly evident that the more money people have to spend on "toys" and other
unnecessary items, leads to major social problems including atomized families, wide-spread
drug addiction, high suicide rates, mental problems, obesity, and homelessness. Not to speak
of a lowering of moral standards that's simply off the charts – in the wrong direction. It's
obvious that rural Americans (in particular) in the 1920s and 30s, although having little money
at their disposal, enjoyed a much higher quality of life including extended and close knit
families, than the majority of Americans today. I could be mistaken, but I suspect the same
would be true for the average Russian today.
We all know Putin plays footsie with the oligarchs. We all know he pretends to like Bibi
and is a master at realpolitik. But the impression I get is of a man who wrested control of
Russia away from the worst of the oligarchs, while playing nice with the rest of them. That's
how it looked to us from thousands of miles away in the dying West, and firmly under the Zio/Rothschild
boot, that this was/is a great man. A world-class statesman and nationalist who crushed the
fanatical terrorists in Chechnya and mollified the moderate ones with reasonable policies,
and he returned the resources of Russia back the Russian state.
Sure there is massive corruption, and other problems, but considering what the Russian people
have endured with decades of (Jewish imposed) genocidal commie slavery, and then having it
all do a 180 and then being impoverished even worse under the cruel destitution of crony Jewish
'capitalism' that simply handed Russia over to a few Jewish and Russian minions of Rothschild-
to lord it over the dying and starving Russian people- for Putin to have turned this around
is incomprehensible. It's nothing less than an historic accomplishment of a truly great man.
A giant on the world's stage.
He has, it seems to me, nearly single handedly reined in the drooling, frothing Fiend, ripping
to shreds everything it could get its blood dripping teeth on. Libya was the final straw for
Putin, and he alone stood up to the beast when all of Europe were counting their shekels and
tossing their citizens and their nation's dignity onto the Moloch's pyres of war and slaughter
and cowardly appeasement of the Fiend.
Putin said 'enough!' And has stopped them in Syria (for now) when everyone else was
wringing their hands, Putin showed them all how a man with integrity must act, when faced with
a thug and a bully. You stand up to them. Or you cower, and place your fate in their hands,
as Gadhafi had done.
That's sort of how I see it. Yes, he plays ball with some very unsavory types, and corruption
is rampant. But he has done something wonderful Boris.. he has given the Russian people back
their dignity. They have something today that I don't think they've had for generations..
Hope. A shred of pride at being who and what they are; Russians.
How do you put a price on that? How do you quantify that kind of thing. Sure, Americans
may be able to afford more flat screen TVs, with which to watch their culture and heritage
being relentlessly maligned, their identities excoriated as evil, and their culture turned
into a sewer. Oh joy. But how do you put a value on giving to your people a quiet sense of
personal dignity? Vs. pitting them endlessly against each other with raging identity politics
and a race down to the moral abyss of spiritual feculence, writ large.
That is our lot over here in the West Boris, and the SUVs and flat screen TVs just aren't
all that, when you consider the soul and the doomed future of your people.
I will strongly disagree. We have a lot of examples all around the world where the lack
of money and low living standards lead to the same bad things that you have listed. You do
not need to go far, just look at your neighbour countries in Central America, or else you even
might go to your own American poor minority (Black or Hispanic) neighbourhood, where the people
will strongly disagree with you that their living on $10,000/year gives them a great virtue,
like if they have no money to buy "toys" (in fact, first-necessity goods) then they live better
"spiritual" lives. When the poor speak about the spirituality of poverty, this usually means
a getaway from the harsh reality with the help of self-illusion. When the rich speak about
the spirituality of poverty, this usually means they try to cheat the poor.
We all know he pretends to like Bibi and is a master at realpolitik .
1. He's not pretending. There is a reason that Russian nationalists absolutely despise him.
He completely betrayed Iran when he refused to sell them the s-300 until they accepted Obama's
deal.
2. He is extremely conscious of Russian public opinion, and yet still has no problem having
publicly good relations with Netanyahu. That tells you all you need to know about how indifferent
the Russian people are towards the Palestinians. Contrary to your delusions, Russia is not
some sort of alt right paradise as any of the nationalists who actually live in Russia would
be quick to tell you.
He completely betrayed Iran when he refused to sell them the s-300 until they accepted
Obama's deal.
Jesus Greasy, that the realpolitik I was talking about that you even highlighted
in your quote! What he doesn't want is an all out war with the Zio-West!
2. He is extremely conscious of Russian public opinion, and yet still has no problem
having publicly good relations with Netanyahu.
again, he's pretending to like Bibi because Bibi is the king of the Jews and therefore the
default king of the West today. He's Rothschild's number one stooge. Of course Putin has to
play nice with him. But be honest Greasy, no one on this planet actually likes Bibi. That's
like saying you like hemorrhoids. You deal with things like hemorrhoids or Bibi, as the case
may be, but sure as shit don't like them.
Russia is not some sort of alt right paradise as any of the nationalists
no, certainly not. But it's also not a cultural sewer of the Jewish id, that we in the West
all have to marinate in, thankyouverymuch.. not
Bibi rules purely by default. He's not the king of anything. Nasrallah knew what he was
talking about when he said that Sharon was the last King of Israel.
Jesus Greasy, that the realpolitik I was talking about that you even highlighted in your
quote!
But Putin is democratically elected. The only reason he can engaged in realpolitik in the
middle east is because the Russia public doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the Iranians
or Palestinians. The only people in Russia who care about those groups are the nationalists,
who, as I have said, hate Putin's guts.
@Boris
N Moral always come first, with money being secondary. Of course It takes a certain amount
of money for people to live, but in practically every case, the more money immoral people have
at their disposal the lower they sink and the sorrier they get. With Hollywood pukes being
living examples of what money without morals produces. I'm surprised you haven't figured this
out.
@Rurik
I can understand why you have a distorted view of Putin and the Russian life. Because Westerners
simply lack important sources of information about the reality in Russia, you simply do not
live in Russia, do not meet and hear the people everyday, you are not insiders. This is why
I always say that the voice for Russia in the Western media (at least in the non-mainstream
one, because I have no illusion about the MSM) must be given not to West-based either Russophobes
or Russophiles, who practically know nothing, but to middle-aged, middle-class Russians, who
love and understand best their own home. But even in such a case we must have many voices because
no two Russians have a similar point of view, for example, even if I become one of the voices
(I've written quite much here, that many of my comments deserve to become articles on their
own, ha-ha) many Russians will agree with me, many will disagree, and many may have totally
different third, forth, and so on views. The Russian political spectrum is much diverse, there
is no false dichotomy like in the West.
And from that you all have a problem. You get information about Russia either from the
Washington-centric quasi-independent ("independent" in the American political doublespeak always
means independent from everyone but Washington) outlets, like NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, you name it,
and their view of Russia for the past 90 years is quite predictable if not annoying, and I
understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way,
so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something
is white.
On the other hand you have the Kremlin propaganda state machine like RT who obviously
do the same thing as the Washington propaganda machine, but in the opposite direction; or Russophilic
individuals (usually emigres with nostalgia), lone wolf voices like the Saker or Karlin, but
whose voice anyway is irrelevant and illusional because, as I've said, they are outsiders and
know little about the actual Russian life, but they rather might be characterized as positive
interpreters of open sources (and neither the sources nor their interpretations ought to be
true).
Also we have local "opposition" outlets either in Russian like the radio station "Ekho
Moskvy", the TV station "Dozhd", "Novaya Gazeta" and so on, or in English like "The Moscow
Times", but I do not even take them seriously, I consider them as virtually subsidiaries of
the Western MSM (though there is one irony that furiously anti-government "Ekho Moskvy" is
owned by Gazprom).
What I wanted to say, that even if many who are not hopelessly brainwashed understand
that the demonizing of Russia is a lie, it does not make the opposite view automatically right,
and your over-positive opinion is generally illusional. I tried to bring you around, but seemed
to fail, though to change anybody's opinion was not my goal, I was just trying to say my opinion,
be it right or wrong.
Maybe our opinions are heavily influenced by our lives, both you and I may have been disappointed
by our lives in our respective countries, but you believe that there is somewhere a better
land, and it's Russia, while I, in turn, believe the life in the West is better. But there
is one distinction. I've been in both the places and I can compare, but I bet if you come to
Russia and do not become one of the high-paid Western expats who live luxury lives in Moscow,
you'll very soon run off home and your Putinism will fade immediately (though your love to
Russia itself may strengthen, as it has been with many Westerners).
@Greasy
William I do not know what sort of Russian nationalists you are speaking about, simply
because there are not THE Russian nationalists, but one or two dozens of diffused different
small groups with different if not opposite views, who may call themselves or other may call
them "Russian nationalists". Not to mention thousands of common non-partisan Russians who may
call themselves nationalists as well but as well may have thousands of different personal opinions
about the past and the current affairs.
Among those nationalists I know personally, most of them absolutely do not care about Iran,
Israel and Palestine and about the Middle East in general. The interest has only aroused since
the Syrian intervention, but the general opinion about it is negative, because many think that
the war in Syria is utterly inappropriate, when just at the border there is an ongoing unfinished
war with Ukraine. And some nationalists even have a positive view of both Israel and Iran as
good examples of national states, of what Russia must become. And unlike many commenters here,
most (with some exemptions) are not so much obsessed with Israel and Jews, and they do not
care if Putin loves either Israel or Iran, they dislike Putin not for that, but for other mostly
internal problems.
I do not deny the need and the role of good moral, but I have a more materialistic
view of the world, an important if not the fundamental condition for good moral is the full
stomach. Again no need to go far for examples, there is Latin America where people theoretically
have good moral, they all are devoted Catholics, but they live in a chaotic criminal frenzy,
when Detroit would look like a safe haven compared to San Salvador. Do you really think that
if the USA will be as poor as but as "spiritual" as Latin America, the US life will improve?
It works in the opposite direction as well. When people have not enough means,
they have no much time left to think about and to follow good moral, they are simply surviving
as they can, often doing very ugly things. In most cases a society in strong need ends up in
a chaos as we can see it in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.
In both the cases wealth does not guarantee good moral, but good moral is not an inevitable
result of poverty. Where do you choose to live, in wealthy but "immoral" Geneva or in poor
but "spiritual" San Salvador?
Where do you choose to live, in wealthy but "immoral" Geneva or in poor but "spiritual"
San Salvador?
But San Salvador is just as spiritually sick as the West, just in a different way. A spiritually
healthy society will have low corruption, low violence, respect for women's rights and concern
for the welfare of the weak (the poor, the disabled, the sick). Poverty *can* breed evil, but evil always ultimately breeds poverty.
I do not know what sort of Russian nationalists you are speaking about
The one's who show off their gorgeous girlfriends who have "88″ and bladed swastikas tattooed
on their asses.
And some nationalists even have a positive view of both Israel and Iran as good examples
of national states, of what Russia must become.
They want Russia to become multi culture, failing states, with grinding poverty where the
different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite
rules over them? That is what they want Russia to become?
Have you ever read the Kreutzer Sonata? It is the only piece of Russian literature I have
ever read and I really liked it a lot.
The Russian political spectrum is much diverse, there is no false dichotomy like in the
West.
well from what I can glimmer, the 'dichotomy' in Russia seems to go something like either
'we/I like Putin', or 'we/I don't like Putin'.
Perhaps it has something to do with hard politics on the ground, and the reality that it's
this guy that is running things today in Russia, for better or worse.
I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite
way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it
as something is white.
I wouldn't quite characterize it in this way. It's true I never believe them, but that doesn't
mean they never tell the truth. Sometimes they mix a little truth in with the lies,
and sometimes they say what's really going on, because by doing so it suits their agenda(s).
When they say the Olympics are happening in Sochi, I believe them. When they say Putin shot
down MH17, I think they're lying. And then with most things in between, I think it's a combination
of lies and truth, always with an agenda in mind. If Putin were assisting with the destruction
of Syria today, like they (the occupied West) did to Iraq and Libya, I think they'd be calling
him a great statesman, and partner in freedom and democracy. It all depends on if he toes the
line.
but you believe that there is somewhere a better land, and it's Russia, while I, in turn,
believe the life in the West is better. But there is one distinction. I've been in both
the places and I can compare
It's true I've never been to Russia, at least not yet. The closest I've came is Slovakia
and Hungary, (but I did meet a beautiful Russian girl when I visited Cuba a few years ago!)
I've never thought life was better in Russia. We do have many blessings in the West. But
today I consider the government of Russia (with all of it's well known corruption and
chicanery) as hands down a thousand times better than what we now have in the West. And the
trajectory of Putin's Russia vs. the US or Germany for instance, I consider as like a country
on the rise, vs. a civilization in rapid (free-fall) decline.
My short take is that after the revolution and the murder of the Tsar and his family, the
Fiend took control of Russia, and set about slaughtering the best of the Russians (and everyone
else they could get their feculent hands on), and imposing a genocidal slavery on those people
for generations. And then one day when they (Rothschild) decided that commie slavery was too
expensive (you had to feed and house the people), they decided to impose a system even more
cruel and fiendish. They'd simply use their puppet, quisling government in Moscow to loot the
wealth and resources of Russia outright, and make Rothschild's minions some of the richest
men in the world overnight, while impoverishing the Russian people to the point of near starvation.
(it's what the do ; )
And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her
hope, (and an ascendant middle class and pride in Russia's heritage). For the Fiend, this was
an abomination, and ironically enough; Putin was now a new Hitler – especially when he jailed
on of their own (and for hard labor -- It was another Holocaust!). But as long as he
played ball with the West by letting most of the Jewish oligarchs keep their ill-gotten
billions, and went along with atrocities like the savage rape of Iraq, the oligarchs were willing
to ignore what Putin had done to their designs and fun up to a degree.
But then came Libya, and Putin saw that the Fiend was in absolute control of the
West, and must not be fed anymore, lest the Fiend grow and fester and become a dire threat
to Russia itself, (again). So Putin put the kibosh on Syria, and now he's locked in a death
struggle with the Fiend, who is insane with power-lust.
It's a difficult situation to be sure. And that's how I see the West vs. Putin's Russia,
and why I like Putin even with all his warts and faults. At least he's trying to make Russia
great again, and that's why there are many of us in the West who pine for a man like him to
take on the Fiend that has its fangs locked deeply into the jugular of the West.
The only reason he can engaged in realpolitik in the middle east is because the Russia
public doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the Iranians or Palestinians.
I think they do care what happens to Iran, since it's a close trading partner. And the Palestinians
are just a distant, tragic people to the Russians. Why should they wring their hands, it isn't
them who're foisting the evils upon the Pals, it's us Americans that are doing that.
The only people in Russia who care about those groups are the nationalists, who, as I
have said, hate Putin's guts.
how many Russian nationalists do you know or speak to who are not Jewish, Greasy?
From what I understand, the IDF is chock full of Russian émigrés, and their take on things
must be skewed by Putin's thwarting of Israel's designs on the Golan.
here's a forum run by an ultra-Russian nationalist
Without spiritual health, economic health is not only meaningless, it's unsustainable.
As we here in America are about to learn the hard way.
having linked to the Pravda forum, I just took a moment to peruse the Pravda front page.
This from an article on Russia today:
Putin has saved the country before and he is saving the country now. We despise all the
fifth column "dissent" that is based on your taxpayer money. Russia will never behave like
Soros, who maintains institutions to overthrow governments, because our leaders are Orthodox
Christians. Capitalism is not our religion. You are addicted to a beautiful body, and we
are addicted to a beautiful soul.
more:
Our aggressiveness exists only in your imagination. The reunification of the Russian
people with the Crimea passed without one single shot, because Russia is more than just a country.
Russia is a territory, which shares a common language, history and culture. We see any attempt
to "reprogram" Russians in Ukraine as a hybrid warfare against us. One can welcome the Scottish
Premier and discuss the likelihood for the UK to fall apart, but one can not support the population
of southern lands of the former Russian Empire in their aspiration to withdraw from Ukraine?
Is this not a double standard?
.. we do not like your determination to make us be like you. We change. Moscow has become
one of the most beautiful capitals in Europe. We do not live up to Western lifestyles, and
we do not "give a damn" if you do not like our way.
I would say that Putin certainly does care about Iran. It doesn't take a genius
to know which nations have been declared evil and targeted by the US, they are frequently named
by traitorous whores like Hillary, Obuma, Biden etc, along with the treacherous neo-cons who
bear responsibility for fomenting wars in the ME.
Putin is smart enough to know that if any nation sits back and waits its turn to be attacked
it will surely be destroyed. He went out on a limb to arrest the destruction of Syria and it
has paid off. He appears to have played his cards remarkably well to date. I can't imagine
that the stratospheric level of approval and support that he receives in Russia is fictional.
I would believe RT News before I would the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, DW, Fox and all the
other discredited western "news" outlets.
the 'dichotomy' in Russia seems to go something like either 'we/I like Putin', or 'we/I
don't like Putin'.
To like/dislike Putin is not a political stance but rather a personal opinion. But it does
not explain nor imply any other view. To be precise, several persons can dislike Putin, but
one may be a pro-Western ultra-liberal, another a Stalinist, other a National-Bolshevik, other
a Christian Monarchist, other a racist Nazi, other a pro-Ukrainian Nazi, and so on. It is difficult
to list them all. And they all may have totally different views on many subjects, but just
one thing in common, as you said, a dislike to Putin.
I cannot say for sure for the Western public but I hardly saw such a variety of views. Maybe
the reason why Russians cannot unite and change something, because they are so disintegrated
on many issues.
It's true I never believe them, but that doesn't mean they never tell the truth.
OK, I did not mean that. Of course, when they say that somewhere there has been a tornado,
or, as in your example, a sporting event, or some other trivial factual thing they simply cannot
not to say truth. But when they are trying to create some sort of analysis about hot global
political affairs they usually back up the agenda of their Washington-Brussels masters.
But the agenda of the Kremlin is hardly better . The best option is not to listen them
both.
But today I consider the government of Russia (with all of it's well known corruption
and chicanery) as hands down a thousand times better than what we now have in the West.
Again, you say this because you simply has a very limited range of sources of information.
You just repeat a made-up image of the Russian government or, precisely, of just one person,
Putin. But this is just an image for the outside (non-Russian) public . You need know
more, much more, form a variety of Russian sources, for a long period of time, and then you
might have not the right, but at least a less distorted view. The actual Russian government,
if we put Putin (pun) aside, is comprised of very ugly, greedy, treacherous, hypocritical people,
I simply cannot find the right words for those bastards. They are utterly disgusting. They
have been ruining the country for the past 25 years.
And the trajectory of Putin's Russia vs. the US or Germany for instance, I consider as
like a country on the rise, vs. a civilization in rapid (free-fall) decline.
Russia is on the fall . The crisis of the past two years has just nullified any achievements
of the previous 2004-2014 decade. Russia has practically returned to its starting position.
And nothing says about its rise, everything says the contrary . Russians have entered
a difficult time. They will be remembering 2000-2014 with bitter nostalgia.
And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave
her hope,
Putin did not turn out of blue, he was a member of the 1990s robbing elite, he is a continuation
of Yeltsin, I explained it in my other comments colorfully. Not to mention Putin's "team"
are the very same people from the 1990s. Take anybody and they all were doing some ugly things
in the 1990s, but now they are "respected" officials and "businessmen". The only thing he has
done is to hide this ugly truth under the cover. And millions around the world believe his
deceit, how naive.
The one's who show off their gorgeous girlfriends who have "88″ and bladed swastikas
tattooed on their asses.
If you speaking seriously, what I doubt, then they are a very small, marginal minority.
Since the 2000s being 1488 is a mauvais ton in the Russian national circles, nobody take those
Racial Holy Warriors and fans of Hitler seriously, they are just nutheads.
They want Russia to become multi culture, failing states, with grinding poverty where
the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent
elite rules over them? That is what they want Russia to become?
Actually, for the past 25 years Russia is becoming "a multi-culture, failing state,
with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while
a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them" . I will add that that elite is in the
West in their minds, and they have to be physically located in Russia just for the sake
of "earning" money.
Of course, no Russian nationalists want this, even the Nazi nuthead minority. When I said
Israel was taken as an example I meant something like
that .
lot's of chafe on that one but you can at least glimmer a nuanced inkling of what the
Russian nationalists are on about
(they love Putin ; )
No, you cannot accidentally pick up some obscure bulletin boards, hosted on a free-hosting
site, which boards nobody knows and cares about.
The actual whole Russian national movement has been being thought through, discussed and
constructed for many years entirely in Russian, in the Russian part of the internet, and not
in English by some pro-Russian foreigners or Russian emigres.
"... The problems that the Communist bloc countries developed in the 80ies were problems of growth. Liberalization of the regime was under way and clearly understood as necessary by the leadership – but that process failed – because it was taken advantage of, both internally and externally. ..."
"... "In what circumstances would you want the economy to be planned, and what sort of planning do you have in mind?" ..."
"... intellectual ..."
"... Aron was in some sense a "Marxian" ..."
"... the theorists of colonialism ..."
"... "were convinced that the USSR was a genuine incarnation of Left values." ..."
"... Roma Città Aperta ..."
"... would have thought ..."
"... Quaderni del carcere ..."
"... "understand the world" ..."
"... "to change the world" ..."
"... America's Protectionist Takeoff 1815-1914: The Neglected American School of Political Economy ..."
"... Securing the Fruits of Labor: The American Concept of Wealth Distribution, 1765-1900 ..."
"... Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America ..."
"... society in the process of formation ..."
"... A Hard Rain Fell: SDS and Why It Failed ..."
"... War In the Shadows, the Guerilla in History, Vol II ..."
It is awkward when – as has happened with me – a Russian comes to the West – fleeing our beneficient
"Shock Treatment" – and then shocks one by saying in anger at my casual derogatory comment about
Stalin, "Listen, Stalin wasn't all bad!"
And then goes on to bemoan the horrors of the West. He finished, in the corridor of the Department,
by insisting that contemporary Westen University Education Administration was "Worse than under
Brezhnev", and to accuse us – the West – of having sold them, the Soviets, a bag of ideological
nonsense about capitalism and freedom.
And then invited me to his home for borsch and table tennis.
Vlade would set him straight, but I went and had the borscht and played – and lost – the table
tennis.
I grew up in the Communist block in the 70-ies and 80-ies. I've now lived in the US for about
20 years. Comparing the lives of the people on minimum or low wages in the US with those similarly
placed in the Communist block economies is in my view indisputably in favor of the Communist bloc.
Free child care, education, provided at decent quality, and practically EVERYONE owned a home
– a small one, but nonetheless a normal home, that you paid off over 30 years with your state
guaranteed job. No interest loans from simple savings pools managed on rotational principle at
work (my parents used them extensively). Nearly everyone in the cities had a small summer cottage
and a small garden that produced vegetables – for recreation and added self-sufficiency, and not
to mention a boost to communities. Yeah, our family car was a Trabant – a laughable vehicle for
the US consumer, even absurd by today's standards. But we didn't have and didn't need 6-lane highways
either, so the Trabi was adequate. And yeah, many personal freedoms were severely limited, and
there was a lack of culture of law – but that was more attributable to historic backwardness,
because that culture of law is even more absent today.
As a middle class professional today in Silicon Valley earning way beyond the median income
in the US, I am struggling to provide a similar level or security for my family and a similar
quality of community life and good education. Bottom line, this level of security is probably
only achievable for under 5% of the US households.
So yeah, I agree with the statement.
So for all those focused on the committed atrocities, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
There were good things and we have lost them. Probably forever.
Thanks for your comment – can you tell us a little more about which countries you lived in
(and, if possible, which ones you thought worked better than others)? As I said in my post, I'm
interested in learning more about the specificities of particular countries.
I grew up in Bulgaria. I also have memories from a summer camp and middle school exchange program
in Czechoslovakia in the 80ies, and the standard of living and the culture of people there seemed
much higher. For example, my Czech host family (the parents worked in an electronic watch factory,
in a small town east of Prague – they could have been engineers possibly and not line workers
as they seemed well educated) had a small two-story single family concrete house, with a small
rye-grass lawn and a barbeque – luxuries that we in Bulgaria did not have. They also had a bathtub
– again a luxury I was not familiar with in Bulgarian homes. I remember that the stores and pastry
shops in my hosts' town looked nicer and had more and better quality items.
One other thing I remember: the bread and tap water were not as good as in Bulgaria. I guess
not everything is explainable by the economic system alone :)
Nowadays reliable info about the standard of living of those times is harder and harder to
find – and it seems that any info is used to ridicule it rather than try to genuinely understand
how it was achieved. My relatives like to talk about it, and what they share is not all rosy.
But all of the baby boomer generation who came of age in the 60ies, 70ies and 80ies managed to
raise and educate 2 kids on average, and acquire a modest but adequate home – ALL. Note that people
needed a special permission to acquire a second home. Homelessness and crime virtually did not
exist. I think it can safely be said that 90% of society had a solid basic standard of living
– no vacations on the Bahamas, no diamonds on your wife's finger and no latest model BMW in your
garage, but you knew the big items were taken care of.
The problems that the Communist bloc countries developed in the 80ies were problems of
growth. Liberalization of the regime was under way and clearly understood as necessary by the
leadership – but that process failed – because it was taken advantage of, both internally and
externally.
I want to add one more thing: today, in my observation, the generation X and millennials in
Bulgaria can only afford to live on the meager incomes their jobs provide because they have a
free flat or house from their parents or grandparents. Gradually home ownership levels are eroding
and more and more people have to rent, just like in the mature "developed" economies. That is
a time bomb that will enslave all but few.
This is one factor that I see mentioned nowhere – how Communism, given its objections to private
property, actually allowed the vast majority of working people to build a base of wealth in their
homes – that is to this day supporting the economic balance of the country.
There is a program under way currently in Bulgaria to upgrade the insulation of Communist era
apartment blocs. There are discussions on TV and press about how many billions of euros this costs.
Well, I would say – then how about putting this in perspective to the cost of actually BUILDING
all of this housing fund which was done in the prior era?? Imagine the billions upon billions
that were spent by this society to build 100s of thousands of units, affordable units, with green
spaces around them, schools etc. Can you imagine a program of that magnitude anywhere today?
So these are the contrasts that emerge, and I would much rather have the discussion be about
that – and not about the horrors of Stalinism or other Communist totalitarianism. Those should
not be ever forgotten or concealed, but what would be really useful today in our Western society
is the good things that Communist regimes managed to achieve – because they are very illuminating
about what is economically possible to achieve.
kukuzel, thanks so much for all of this highly detailed information.
On your last point, what I actually think we should strive for is the ability not to have to
choose between the two kinds of discourses you indicate. It shouldn't be a playground contest
over "Well, your system's more horrible." It should be about us being able to say – for example
– I want to be able to have these positive aspects from the Bulgarian communist years
without having to have these negative ones.
Or to put it another way, not having to take societies as blocs.
That means having to tease apart the extent to which positive aspects were or were not achieved
through means that also led to the negative aspects. But this kind of analysis has to be done
anyway – even if the idea were to return to something like this or this other particular society,
it would still not work without adapting the earlier model to changed circumstances.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was a disaster for many Russians. The one Russian family I
know well were well-off prior to the collapse but for an extended period they could not provide
for their two daughters so they asked my wife and I to sponsor and serve as wards for one of them
who had lived with us under a student exchange program. Her mother had worked as an industrial
chemist and her father had worked in IT for financial institutions. The father died a death of
despair; he drank himself to death. The mother now teaches college level chem. The daughter who
remained with us now works for a well known US company making films, is married and has two children.
The daughter who remained in Russia is a marine biologist. This family, well educated and dedicated
to their work and each other did well under the Soviet system and their lot has improved immensely
under Putin.
I have read that Putin's economic policies are somewhat "right-wing" in their tendencies.
I don't know whether this is accurate although maybe some readers do. If it is, though, it
would suggest that what made the difference in Russia is not so much communism versus capitalism
but a strong state (Putin, communism) versus a weak state (the 90s).
Thanks for this. Perhaps the latest crime of "capitalism"–40,000 civilians may have died under
American and Iraqi bombs and shells as Mosul was "liberated." Rather than visit mass violence
on their own people the US and Britain have turned it outward and then claimed it was unfortunately
necessary.
As for the above post, I think it may be minimizing the degree to which capitalist opposition
shaped communism. This Stephen Cohen article that I linked the other day suggests that the Soviets
under Glasnost may have been moving toward a more democratic form of communism but that was subverted
by the greed of its own oligarchs and open US support for Yeltsin who crushed democracy and wrecked
the country.
The Stephen Cohen article is interesting and I'm puzzled as to why you think it is somehow
incompatible with anything that I said in the post.
When you say we should emphasize more the extent to which capitalist opposition shaped communism,
you fail to address my response that this argument proves too much. Every regime or institution
faces some sort of opposition. This opposition partly constrains how it can act. Why couldn't
you just as easily say, "Everything that Monsanto (or Uber, or Goldman, etc., etc.) does has to
be understood considering that they are operating in a fearsome competitive environment, where
at the first sign of weakness, their competitors were ready to crush them"?
Rossana Rossanda, who had every reason in the world to want to find extenuating circumstances
for the regime she had "loved," was unable to convince herself that the argument you are proposing
sufficed to conjure away the moral problem. See below (response to Ulysses) where I quote from
her book at length.
I also think you are engaging in sloppy reasoning when you attribute 40,000 deaths at Mosul
to "capitalism." That's the same kind of lack of concern to agents used in the Black Book when
it attributes massive numbers of war deaths to "communism."
If America had never invaded Iraq would those 40,000 still be alive? I'd say there's a persuasive
case that they would be. And there's also a persuasive case that George W. Bush's motives had
everything to do with capitalist imperatives, oil imperialism, the profits of the MIC etc.
And I'm not trying to defend Soviet communism since IMO both sides of the Cold War divide were
misguided. I'm just saying that from the very beginning the attitude of the capitalist countries
was that communism was something that couldn't be allowed to succeed lest the contagion spread.
So it's hard for us to know how, say, Cuba might have turned out absent so much US meddling.
Perhaps the latest crime of "capitalism"–40,000 civilians may have died under American and
Iraqi bombs and shells as Mosul was "liberated."
is this an indictment of capitalism or of US politicians delusion of "transformation" and the
inertia of the MIC?
correlation is not causation File under: crimes of Stalin, Mao, PolPot and Castro
The Brits starved something like 30 million Indians in the 19th century,
Source, please. Note that prior to 1857, the British control over India was incomplete. Many
of the famine deaths prior to that were unrelated to British rule. I think I've seen estimates
that about 5 million people died in 1876 and again in 1896. I'm not defending British rule -- they
had no right to be there, and they did not care about the needs of the people that they ruled.
I'm just wondering about the number 30 million.
if people accurately tallied up the deaths and inefficiencies under capitalism and imperialism,
Stalin and Mao were quaint.
False. In addition to what happened in Ukraine and Kazakhstan in 1931-1933, we need to consider
the catastrophe of Mao's Great Leap Forward from 1958 to 1962. The low estimate of deaths from
starvation is 30 million, and in Frank Dikötter's book
Mao's Great Famine
, the author estimates that at least 45 million died of starvation. That's just a 4 – 5 year period.
Perhaps the Russians could claim that the 20 million plus Russians who died during WW2 were
victims of capitalism not to mention all those who died in WW1. The point is that neither system
has clean hands when it comes to violence. They just have different targets.
There's a difference between deaths in wartime and deaths in peacetime. They're equally horrible,
but it's harder to pick an economic ideology to blame for wartime deaths. After all, Stalin helped
start the European portion of WWII with the Molotov Von Ribbentrop Pact. So one could say that
those 20 million deaths were partly caused by communism.
One reason many in the West were at first complacent about Hitler coming to power was the hope
that he would take out the Soviets. I'd say there's a case to be made that the whole second half
of the 20th century was shaped by the Russian Revolution and the reaction to it. Hitler was always
going to invade Russia. He hoped Britain and others would join him in his crusade. When WW2 was
over there were many who thought we should keep going and take out the Soviets too, even if with
nuclear weapons. Some people it seems still think that even though Russians are no longer communists.
So it's a power struggle of course, but in the 20th cent it was very much an ideological struggle.
Perhaps anti-communism was just an excuse but having been there I'd say the Cold Warriors were
true believers.
Very likely true. But first he had to invade Poland, and he would have done that later if it
had not been for his Nonaggression Pact with the Soviets. Meanwhile, if the invasion of Poland
had been delayed, Britain and France would have improved their military capabilities, because
they knew what Hitler was up to after he seized Czechoslovakia earlier in 1939. Stalin made it
easier for Hitler in 1939.
Could we just order summary execution for anyone who brings up mass deaths from the past ??
Only semi snarking
most wars seem to come from grandfathers telling their grandsons things that never were
Someone kills some trees and throws some ink on them to work on tenure 50 75..100 200 500 years
after the fact
Why does anyone believe anything anyone writes or says??
The dead are dead we can't bring them back and
they won't have noticed
we avenged them because they are dead
Can we even agree on what is going on around the world today as we speak & communicate ??
Trump being investigated by the watchful eye of the fool who was filling in crossword puzzle
books his first few weeks in office allowing the events of 9-11 to occur ??
How funny is that ??
We have the self proclaimed righteous (privately owned) 1$t amendment acela vanity press cutting
and pasting talking points while almost never publishing the contents of the federal register
or congressional research service reports and it's not just an american phenomenon most countries
have "official gazettes" none of the "great and brave journalists" bother actually reporting on
the business of government
The dead are dead nothing will bring them back and those who killed them are also probably
dead
For those who submit and do not resist, most leadership will seem benevolent for those with
other thoughts death will come sooner than originally planned
There is plenty of history when one is handed "atrocities" one should ask why this and why
now ??
By the time of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, a European war was already unavoidable. The farce
of Non-Intervention in the Spanish Civil War, the Munich Agreement, and Poland's participation
in the partition of Czechoslovakia, had totally discredited Litvinov's pro-Western foreign policy.
Sources: Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis and Epidemics and History by Sheldon Watts
both deal with the staggering death toll of British rule in India (roughly 30 million).
Perilous Passage by Amiya Bagchi has a more rigorous count and analysis of India, China, and
other countries subjected to imperialism.
Regarding the Ukraine, the Best Sons for the Fatherland by Lynn Viola details the second civil
war that was collectivization. Peasants didn't want to give up grain, so they killed Party members,
killed their livestock, destroyed their equipment, etc.
I've read Dikotter. The problem with his death tolls is fertility and birth rates drop during
famine. You can't extrapolate pre-famine birth rates and say "oh, these people weren't born therefore
those count as deaths." They did the same thing with deaths in Kampuchea. And yes, millions did
die of famine in the Ukraine and Kazkhanstan. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing this notion
that Stalin and Mao were worse than Hitler. They were not. It's misleading to say "Stalin killed
more of his citizens than Hitler did" because most of the killings by Nazis were of Slavs. The
Soviets lost well over 20 million people due to the Nazis genocidal plans.
Regarding China, you know the bloodiest civil war/famine in history? The Taiping Rebellion,
which was the result of the Brits shoving opium down China's throat. Mao was no saint, but mortality
rates in China were far higher before the 1949 revolution than after. See for instance Mobo Gao's
the Battle for China's Past or William Hinton's Through a Glass Darkly.
Ultimately, purges and famines miss another huge source of deaths: disease. Mao's China and
Stalin's Russia made astounding leaps in public health, eliminating smallpox for one. Conveniently,
these millions of lives saved are ignored by Western hysterics. This isn't to say Stalinism and
Maoism are desirable. It is to say that the picture requires nuance. There is a reason Mao and
Stalin are still revered by millions of people in China and Russia.
"I'm disputing this notion that Stalin and Mao were worse than Hitler."
I'm not sure who said that Stalin and Mao were worse than Hitler, but in my opinion they were
approximately the same.
Yes, I'm aware of the Taiping Rebellion. Much more deadly than World War I.
Why are Stalin and Mao still revered by some people? Probably for similar reasons as the reverence
that some Americans have for Reagan and Trump: people sometimes believe weird things. As for smallpox,
that's been eliminated everywhere (we hope); not just in Russia and China.
Dikotter is a grotesque neoliberal apologist for imperialist drug dealers. He is also a fabulist
in his treatment of the effects of heroin/opiate addiction in late 19th/early 20th century China.
Given that we in the US are now experiencing a staggering public health disaster with respect
to opiate consumption by the immiserated proletariat, Dikotter's attempts to minimize the impacts
of opiates on Chinese public health is ghoulish at best.
Well, that doesn't seem relevant to the artificial famine of the Great Leap Forward, but I'm
curious. What's your source for your claim that he is an apologist for drug dealers? Did he write
something bad about the opium wars? Clearly the behavior of Britain in that context was atrocious.
I would like to thank the author for taking such an open minded, non doctrinaire attitude to
this subject.
That's not to suggest I agree with all his conclusions. Nor does the Q & A approach always prove
enlightening.
"Q: Was Stalinism good?
A: No."
The question is easy & the answer is correct. Of course, there is a small wrinkle: most historians
agree that it was the USSR that made the primary contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany.
Q: to what degree did "Stalinism" enable the USSR to defeat the Nazis ?
A: It's an open question. It's often forgotten that the USSR came very close to defeat in 41′-42′.
In part because of Stalin's interference in military matters. But, would the USSR have had ANY
chance of victory "but for" the "crash" industrialisation instituted by Stalin in the 30's ? If
you allow that crash industrialisation was a necessary, (not sufficient) condition for eventuaL
victory – can we give Stalin any credit ?
"Q: Is it at least true that a planned economy always fails?
A: Probably not." But is that the right question ? Isn't the right question, "to what degree/extent
can an economy be planned & succeed ?" (An "economy" is almost be definition "planned". The most
basic law on property, succession etc IS planning ).
Some of the author's Q & A's are very good:
"Q: Well, is it at least true that attempts to change a society consciously lead to catastrophe?
A: What does it mean for a society to change "unconsciously"? Aren't most social changes due
to human decisions? Often proclamations of this sort can function as code for certain groups of
people being allowed to change society in "natural" ways, free from "conscious" and "unnatural"
"interference" from others." I think the author probably means "programmatically" when he says
"consciously" but his point remains valid: change occurs because people have ideas which they
seek to implement.
A few responses: First, I agree that your question on whether the 30s industrialization was
crucial is worth posing. On Stalin's interference in 1941-1942, yes, and it's also true that Stalin
was initially blindsided by Hitler's attack – he was pretty faithful to Molotov-Ribbentrop while
it lasted.
On "programmatic" versus "conscious," I agree that your wording is more precise, but my purpose
there was to paraphrase standard ideological constructions.
The purpose of the Q & A was to illustrate how some questions can be answered even when we
don't know all the historical details. I can't provide a general answer to, "To what extent can
an economy be planned and succeed?" – can you? As I indicated in the article, I think the more
fundamental question is in any case, "In what circumstances would you want the economy
to be planned, and what sort of planning do you have in mind?"
"In what circumstances would you want the economy to be planned, and what sort of planning
do you have in mind?"
An answer was given in "Organizations", written by March and Simon in the 1950s: in case of
war.
The observation that during WWII every major player (UK, USA, Germany, Japan, USSR), no matter
which economic principles it followed, turned to and relied upon a planned economy, with central
resource allocation, dirigiste production schedules and centrally rationed consumption, led those
authors to analyze markets and planing entities, as well as participating organizations as problem-solving
mechanisms geared to processing information and reducing uncertainty. Interestingly, it appears
that in the USSR, WWII led to a moderate relaxation of planning in some sectors of the economy.
Basically, when the stakes are very high (of a survival nature), the resources to put into
use of a massive (i.e. national) and comprehensive scale, and there is no time to let multiple
entities experiment and find out a "best" approach through trial and error (through the market
and its creative destruction), then a centrally planned economy is simply more effective.
I presume that once climate change will really bite and massive, survival-level solutions will
be required really fast to mitigate or counter-act it, most countries will be forced to turn to
a planned economy modus -- no matter what proponents of markets, four-freedoms or free trade will
argue.
Yes, the Soviet Union contributed more to the defeat of Nazi Germany than any other country.
We are entering into an area where the discussion has sometimes been very angry in the past on
this site. In addition to their huge role in the defeat of the Nazis, the Soviets also enabled
the Nazi invasion of Poland. Indeed, the Soviets themselves invaded half of Poland under their
agreement with the Nazis.
The Soviets helped to win the war that they helped to start.
First off, thanks for introducing me to the concept of the 'motte and bailey' argument. Its
a great description of a particular type of argument from ideologues of all types that really
irritates me.
You've pointed out one of the reasons why I've never self-identified as communist, anarchist,
feminist or any other of the myriad 'isms' on the left. I even hesitate sometimes at 'socialist'.
There are too many assumptions built into any of those identifications which I'm not always comfortable
defending.
I think that constructing an 'ideal' fair and equitable society is an impossibility. There
are too many variables in history and sociology and human behavior. And democracy has a nasty
habit of producing answers that idealists don't like. I see it as a process, not an end – a messy
one of step by step building a world that is more equal, more fair, more environmentally sustainable,
with a deeper sense of justice, while accepting that the building blocks of that society might
not be very sturdy and will need constant maintenance and repair, and that sometimes you might
have to step back and start again. And sometimes, really unpleasant compromises will have to be
made in order to achieve a greater good.
One reason I love NC so much is that instead of starting from some sort of idealised notion
of how the world should work, is that it addresses how the real world of economics and sociology
actually exists, and asks us to think very hard about how to make it better. Its the articles
and discussions here which have forced me to question my own assumptions and idealisms and think
much harder about how a better society would actually function, not in a 'we'll all live together
in co-operatives and play guitar and draw from our Universal Income and guaranteed pensions',
but how it will really work.
"I think that constructing an 'ideal' fair and equitable society is an impossibility. There
are too many variables in history and sociology and human behavior. And democracy has a nasty
habit of producing answers that idealists don't like. I see it as a process, not an end – a
messy one of step by step building a world that is more equal, more fair, more environmentally
sustainable, with a deeper sense of justice, while accepting that the building blocks of that
society might not be very sturdy and will need constant maintenance and repair, and that sometimes
you might have to step back and start again. And sometimes, really unpleasant compromises will
have to be made in order to achieve a greater good."
Excellent points! Yet your last sentence raises a serious question– greater good for who? Very
often, neoliberals fudge the answer to this by reifying an abstraction they call "the economy."
"We know it's hard on the eight out of ten people in this de-industrializing nation who
will see their living standards decline, but globalization is "good for the economy" in the
long run."
The more honest version of this statement would replace the word "economy" with "obscenely
wealthy banksters and kleptocrats, and a small number of their enablers and servants to whom they
allow a bit of wealth to trickle down."
If you ask your children how a cake can be fairly distributed, all answers will probably be
different. Now imagine this negotiation across 7 billion people.
Guess who gets to cut? Usually the one already in power or the one with a more entitled attitude.
It's rarely the most fair individual who gets his/her way.
Actually, re the kids. If they have a handle on the idea of fairness – so 3ish and up – they
are remarkably sensitive to what fairness rerquires, and how this relates to everyone arround
the cake. You try it. It will be divided equally – unless, say, there is someone with an injury
or medical conditon or something rather awful – and they will then give that person a bigger slice,
and a smaller equal one for everyone else. I've had a fair bit of experience in this matter. (I
suspect this wonderfully cheering fact it is what Jesus was reminding us of when he said "Become
like little children".)
I suppose I don't disagree with your point in principle, but coming at this from the perspective
of labor organizing and what have you, solidarity of purpose quite often demands a certain degree
of (lax) identity signaling so you can easily identify who your comrades/fellow travelers are.
A management/worker framing of the dynamics at play in any given place of employment may not perfectly
reflect the nuances of that place's social organization but it does provide a handy rule of thumb
for action for those who don't want to write a graduate thesis simply in order figure who's on
their side and who isn't. Arnade's front row/back row works in a similar way. It's not perfect,
but it's been rather effective in identifying how certain educated groups are at least complicit
with the aims of plutocrats.
As for advocating for the "ideal," this could just as easily be understood as staking a strong
bargaining position. You always ask for more than you think you'll get. So, that doesn't mean
a group's utopian demands reflect an inability to see the practicalities of the here and now.
It could just as easily mean "we know where we are, but we're always striving for better."
I agree with you in general, but I'd make a distinction between pressing for specific aims
(for example, Union recognition), and aiming to transform society. Unity of purpose and 'signalling'
is vital if people are to unite for a specific aim. But its much harder if your aim is 'an equal
society'. You will spend more time arguing about what 'equal' means than actually doing things.
Which is of course why the establishment loves identity politics, because it provides an infinity
of possibilities for people to fall out arguing over split hairs.
Yes, there is a necessary dualism. On the one hand, as you say above, it is always a process,
not an end. On the other hand, making progress against entrenched power IMO generally requires
an image of a destination, even if that destination is always fragile and subject to undermining
(as it will always be).
Which I suppose is the issue with communism. It is conceived of as some kind of permanent end
point, a Fukuyama-esque end of history. That seems extremely dubious to me.
That is why I rarely reference my ideas in comments sections. When one does, many seem to think
that the reference means one supports the entire philosophy of the quoted pundit and then one
gets pigeonholed.
Lovely to find this here. Almost all the arguments have been rattling in my head for the past
couple of years. Work of this sort is crucial for the next phase, so thanks! Something is in the
air ..
Great article. As a first time commenter, I just want to thank you and everyone else for how
far ranging and thought provoking of a Blog Naked Capitalism is.
The questions you posed are ones that I often have struggled with as a philosophically inclined
leftist. As one who is as sympathetic to Anarchism as he his To Marx and his followers I have
to ask, do you think Anarchist critiques of Marx (those of Bakunin and Kropotkin, for example)
and Marxism are any more or less elucidating than the seemingly Liberalish ones you have mentioned
(from what I've heard of Camus he was more of a liberal existentialist and not one that was ever
exactly radical, but I've not read him yet so I could be very wrong). Also, do you feel that Rosa
Luxembourg's critiques of Lenin were also apologetics for Marx, if not necessary the Bolshevik
interpretation of Marx, or more than that.
As a side note, I also have to ask, Which students in the 60s thought the Soviet Union was the
be all, end all. I always thought that the SDS and Situationist type groups were more Anarchist
even if they sometimes thought they were Marxist.
I agree that the anarchist critiques are worth discussing. I'm not particularly interested
in liberal critiques per se , and to the extent that they get tangled up in their own
mantras, they can become pretty frustrating. Aron and Furet are a bit different – both books were
important historically, and both authors had read Marx very carefully. Aron was in some sense
a "Marxian," and Furet at one point went to the trouble of compiling a book on everything Marx
wrote about the French Revolution so people would stop reading stuff into him.
The advantage of looking at writers from far outside of the Marxist tradition is that you can
sometimes find critiques that problematize features that more "inside" writers are unlikely to
question. Of course, some of these critiques are more persuasive/original than others
On Rosa Luxemburg, it's true that she was pretty strongly Marxist. Her critique of Lenin, like
Kautsky's, is useful in showing how Lenin's form of Marxism was fairly marginal within the
intellectual Marxist world before the Russian Revolution provided Lenin with the mantle of
apparent success.
When you say that many student leaders "were more anarchist even if they sometimes thought
they were Marxist," I think you are onto something. However, in terms of professed beliefs,
I know that the Italian students used Marxist language very heavily. Re SDS, I once met a former
mid-level SDS leader who told me that when he expressed reservations about the Russian invasion
of Czechoslovakia, he was systematically ostracized by the high-level SDS leadership. Many of
those individuals wound up in the Weather Underground.
Thanks for the response. I am always looking for historically important books to further aid
my own investigations of political ideologies, their origins and their evolutions and corruptions
throughout time. I'll have to check Furet and Aron out to see what they have to say.
I didn't realize that Lenin was more on the outskirts of Marxism before the October revolution
took place. I always thought the he had to have had a higher profile, even before the revolution.
Human history seems to have a habit of pushing formally background characters to the forefront
I'd have never thought the SDS expelled people over Prague, but then again, I haven't looked that
much into the SDS history and what their changing political lines were. I guess it isn't that
surprising that the SDS had more Stalinist types in their ranks that were willing to excommunicate
rivals. Most socialist movements had similar issues with Stalinists in the 60s and 70s.
He was antifascist, anti-colonialist, and (at least in the early 50s) Keynesian. On Aron and
Marx, see here
(in French, sorry, that section doesn't exist in the English version).
Although I know less about his later trajectory, it may however be true that he became much
more of a neoliberal as time went on. This sort of thing happens for familiar reasons – people
solidify in their positions and lose initial nuances under the pressure of rhetorical combat.
Great to see another anarchist in the hood. And you bring up some great questions. To me, Bakunin
never had the philosophical grip that Marx had on capitalism. Bakunin DID ride Marx and the Communist
International on the meaning of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".
As for anarchists and the early Russian Revolution, have a look at "The Bolshevik Myth" by Alexander
Berkman, Emma Goldman's old bo.
Having been an old New Lefty of the 60's myself, everybody I knew of or read thought that the
Soviet Union was OLD, antique, almost quaint. The same went for the Communist Party USA. Then
again, the New Left never had an answer for why the Berlin Wall was around. Or why power freaks
like Enver Hoxha of the People Republic of Albania were given the time of day. And don't get me
going on how Che Guevara, before he went off to Bolivia, organized the Cuban state sugar farms
with political prisoners' free labor.
Thanks for chiming in.
I've been meaning to read Berkman for a while, and your recommendation sounds like a great place
to start. I didn't know that about Guevara, but honestly, the idea that slave labor was used in
the early days of the Cuban revolution sounds like an accurate description, as sad as that is.
I remember reading The Port Huron statement in an American Political Ideas I had recently.
What you say about the New left consider the USSR quaint does remind me of the tone in that and
other political statements from the 60s I have read.
I am also glad to know that there are other anarchists here at Naked Capitalism
". And don't get me going on how Che Guevara, before he went off to Bolivia, organized the
Cuban state sugar farms with political prisoners' free labor."
I don't subscribe to the cultish veneration of any individual, past or present, nor its flip-side
of obsessive demonization of any individual, past or present. However, in the spirit of this excellent
post and thread about "The Minefield of Historical Communism", I would be very much interested
in your adding context to this comment, e.g., their conditions pre-revolution, their conditions
at the time of your claim, and the lessons learned, that may be of value to others. As far as
legacy, they certainly don't seem to export as much sugar today, but they do seem to export a
lot of doctors.
What would one think of someone who tried to absolve the theorists of colonialism of any
responsibility for, say, British misrule in India, on the grounds that these theorists said
very clearly that they wanted to help the natives to become more civilized?
First, why does a discussion of British colonial misrule immediately turn to India, as opposed
to Ireland?
I'd say it is because ' the theorists of colonialism ' is at best a euphemism for
'psychopathic cheer-leaders of barbarism and genocide', and of course the Indian people are more
brown than the Irish.
There are no legitimate theories of colonialism, only rationalizations for what on it's face
is barbarous behavior, in short propaganda propagated by the perpetrators, not legitimate 'theorists'.
Second;
Large numbers of intellectuals in France and Italy, and also elsewhere, as well as much
of the leadership of the 60s student movements, were convinced that the USSR was a genuine
incarnation of Left values. What does this imply about their powers of discernment?
This question seems to me to be part of the never-ending effort to de-legitimise all resistance
to imperial capitalist barbarism by waving the Bloody-Shirt of Stalinism.
The way I remember it, the dynamism, and turmoil of the 1960's was not the result of naive,
and misguided intellectuals and student leaders pushing a communist agenda, it was rather, a clear
demonstration of the lengths to which the PTB will go to repress legitimate resistance to obviously
barbarous imperialism abroad, and systemic racism everywhere.
Socialism does not equal Communism, does not equal Stalinism, but this is the most useful fallacy
that the psychopathic cheer-leaders of barbarism and genocide have cooked up to thwart the efforts
of those who would teach/preach Solidarity.
As I recall, it was very effective in the 60s, and we just witnessed its efficacy in stopping
Bernie.
Lastly, and yes, this is much more than a 'quibble';
I find this baffling. It seems to suggest that left-leaning people continued to emotionally
identify with the USSR well into the 80s, and to be imprisoned within the idea that it constituted
a superior economic system.
I find it baffling that anybody takes this sort of bull*hit seriously.
On Ireland versus India, I have no quarrel with anything you are saying. I would have been
as happy to talk about Ireland as India.
When you say,
This question seems to me to be part of the never-ending effort to de-legitimise all resistance
to imperial capitalist barbarism by waving the Bloody-Shirt of Stalinism.
you are engaging in a breathtaking misreading of the article. The whole point of the article
is to open up ways to look radically beyond the existing system, without having to self-censor
about what did and did not happen during Stalinism. I specifically reject the idea that the history
of Stalinism implies that it is wrong to try to envision alternatives to capitalism.
When you say that the 1960s "was not the result of naive, and misguided intellectuals and student
leaders pushing a communist agenda" you are blatantly straw-manning. I did not say that. I did
say that many of the student leaders were willing to reflexively defend "really existing communism."
If you doubt that this is true, read any history of the SDS leadership, don't just make peremptory
statements about what you imagine the 60s "stood for."
When you claim that the article implies that "socialism equals communism," you are again responding
to a thesis that it doesn't argue for, and in fact takes precisely the opposite thesis.
If you don't think that people in the PCI and PCF continued to consider the USSR a good economic
model well into the 1980s, then why did those parties collapse with the Soviet Union? You can
say words like bullshit all you want, but vehemence is a poor substitute for critical thinking.
I've asked plenty of ex-members of those parties why they stopped believing in the possibility
of radical economic change and if I get an answer, it's along the one I gave. But more often,
the answer is just embarrassed silence.
I've asked plenty of ex-members of those parties why they stopped believing in the possibility
of radical economic change and if I get an answer, it's along the one I gave. But more often,
the answer is just embarrassed silence.
With this;
Large numbers of intellectuals in France and Italy, and also elsewhere, as well as much
of the leadership of the 60s student movements, were convinced that were convinced that the
USSR was a genuine incarnation of Left values.
to understand that you're trying to sell the notion that those who have striven for radical
economic change are folks who, in your words, "were convinced that the USSR was a genuine
incarnation of Left values."
This is not the case.
The notion that the USSR was a legitimate incarnation of "Left values" was set to rest with
the advent of Stalinism, that is, the embarrassed silence you speak of happened in the 1930s.
Because the tactic of associating progressive activists with the evil commies has been so successful
thus far, the PTB will never stop using it.
IMHO, that's exactly what you're engaged in this morning.
Your claims about my intentions are false. Nor do the quotes from me that you cite back up
your claims in any way.
The statement that I made about certain intellectuals in France and Italy and (e.g.) many SDS
leaders is a historical claim that can be verified or disputed. Is any hope of "striving for radical
economic change" dependent upon never mentioning it? Is it helpful when "striving for radical
economic change" to close oneself off from learning from the past?
Let's try something else. I'm going to respond by saying something that I think is far more
plausible than what you are saying.
* * * * *
"Your attempt to force anyone who wants to strive towards a radically different economic system
to tread very gently whenever saying anything critical of any society that has ever called itself
communist is a tried and true tactic of the PTB. By blocking thoughtful self-reflection among
people interested in living in a drastically different future, it cripples their intellectual
resources when trying to imagine such a future. Simultaneously, it facilitates the PTB's efforts
to discredit such efforts by making statements like "they won't even come to terms with how their
efforts led to disaster in the past" appear reasonable.
Because the tactic of forcing progressive activists into ideological rigidity has been so successful
thus far, TPTB will never stop using it.
IMHO, that's exactly what you're doing this morning."
Now, I don't actually believe that. IMHO, through various life experiences, you have acquired
the idea that open discussions of historical communism are an attempt to subvert attempts to envision
another future, and you are currently engaging in pattern-matching.
IMHO, through various life experiences, you have acquired the idea that open discussions
of historical communism are an attempt to subvert attempts to envision another future, and
you are currently engaging in pattern-matching.
I disagree.
What I am currently engaged in, is explaining that there is no logical need for any person
who wants to work towards a radically different economic system, to first take on the responsibility
of addressing the historical failures of soviet communism.
To my knowledge, the historical failures of communism are not seriously disputed, or ignored
by anyone currently working for a better economic system in the USA.
I'm not refusing to face embarrassing facts, I'm disputing the relevance of the whole topic
to current political discourse.
To insist that Bernie Sanders supporters, for instance, must, in order to be taken seriously,
first engage in discussion that addresses the historical failures of communism is ridiculous.
I agree with portions of this sentiment and disagree with others.
I agree that people shouldn't be held hostage to particular forms of historical inquiry. People
shouldn't be forced to "take responsibility" for a position on any topic they aren't ready to.
Bernie Sanders is not proposing a radically new economy. Reforms like the ones he's proposing
have actually been tried out in Western European countries. If I were claiming that no one should
be allowed to support Bernie without first taking responsibility for historical communism, that
would be silly – but I didn't. Suggesting that I did comes dangerously close to further straw-manning
of my position.
There's a difference between saying people should be obligated to talk about a certain
topic and saying that they should be allowed to talk about it without being immediately
blasted as an enemy agent.
When I read an experience like that of Rossanda's below, my reaction is not, "Ooh, those communists
sure were evil, ha ha ha." It's that she seems like a person who was very intelligent, who genuinely
wanted to change the world for the better, and still found herself fifty years later interrogating
herself, wondering how much of her life work was misguided, and whether she bears responsibility
for her role in providing some measure of support for a regime that is hard to excuse.
My reaction is, "That could be me. I don't want it to be me, but who's to say that I'm any
more insightful or moral than she was?" I don't want to be in the position of having provided
vocal support for a political program that makes the world worse, and if I were to do so, having
done it for "good motives" would be cold comfort. I'm not saying that anyone else has to learn
from her experience – there's only so much time in the world, and there's a lot of history that
might provide valuable lessons, not just the 20th century. But personally, I'd like to learn from
her experience, and not shy away from where it leads me.
I believe what I've been arguing is based in the American experience, which in this particular
means being immersed in a politically naive population marinated in anti-communist propaganda.
I'm not sure a citizen of any European country can appreciate the degree to which our people
have been trained to believe that the impulse to join together in solidarity for any purpose,
is evidence of a soft intellect or moral depravity.
Even before the fall of the USSR, any discussion of a political nature approaching a topic
that could be construed as being in favor of socialism in even the most limited context was apt
to be met with a chorus of derisive abuse.
I believe an invitation to discuss the reality of historical communism, in the USA at least,
is most often actually a thinly veiled invitation to shut the hell up, and it has been so for
close to one hundred years.
This situation has become incredibly worse in the last couple decades, this is especially evident
in the disquieting popularity of the 'ideas' championed in the writings of Ayn Rand.
I hope you'll excuse my misinterpreting your intent, and understand that I've never been honestly
invited to consider historical communism, I've only been invited to consider keeping my socialist
ideals to myself.
I am familiar with some of the American dynamics you bring up. One of my hopes is that if critically
thinking people can find spaces where they discuss these sorts of ideas without fear or favor,
it will gradually make it possible to develop antidotes to the kind of discussion-choking maneuvers
you mention.
There was a time in the 1970s when the popular comic Pilote wasn't just for kids,
despite running Astérix and Achille Talon . Then Jacques Lauzier ran some grueling
character studies (well, at least one, among other similar stories) of French ex-Communist intellectuals
facing the consequences of just such attitudes as Outis has described. Interesting to look up,
if you read French, or can find a translation.
The author's statement that "large numbers of intellectuals in France and Italy, and also elsewhere,
as well as much of the leadership of the 60s student movements, were convinced that the USSR was
a genuine incarnation of Left values." is more than a little disingenuous.
The many former sessantottini that I knew in Italy, SDS leaders, and other U.S. student
radicals from the sixties were all very strong supporters of the Prague uprising against Soviet
domination in 1968. This includes many who self-identified as Marxist!
And of course, the author's statement appears even more of a smear when one remembers this
historical reality:
"In 1969, Enrico Berlinguer, PCI deputy national secretary and later secretary general,
took part in the international conference of the Communist parties in Moscow, where his delegation
disagreed with the "official" political line, and refused to support the final report. Unexpectedly
to his hosts, his speech challenged the Communist leadership in Moscow . He refused to "excommunicate"
the Chinese communists, and directly told Leonid Brezhnev that the invasion of Czechoslovakia
by the Warsaw Pact countries (which he called the "tragedy in Prague") had made clear the considerable
differences within the Communist movement on fundamental questions such as national sovereignty,
socialist democracy, and the freedom of culture. At the time the PCI was the largest Communist
Party in a capitalist state, garnering 34.4% of the vote in the 1976 general election."
I am much less monolithically critical of the PCI than you assume (see also my next post on
this subject). It was much more independent of the Soviet Union than the French Communist party,
and there was a lot of opposition to Prague.
I think it's probably true that at least for a while, the leadership of the PCI was more open
to critical thinking about the historical role of the USSR than its broad membership was. Here
is a string of excerpts from Rossanda's autobiography:
[On November 4, 1956, she woke up to tanks marching through the streets of Budapest.] This
was the first time I said to myself – they hate us. Not the elites. The ordinary [Hungarian]
people, the ones on our side, they hate us. [ ]
The poor and oppressed are not always in the right. But communists who are hated [by them]
are always in the wrong. And this was a massive, sedimentary hatred, you don't get to this
level [of hatred] without having suffered from felt oppression for a long time. In those days,
all my hair turned white. Yes, it happens. [ ]
Was it therefore impossible to knock down the capitalist system, even a broken-down autocratic
mess [like Russia], and build a socialist one without paying an inhuman price? [She now rehearses
possible exculpatory arguments:] No, those were different times and circumstances, you have
to take into account the backward circumstances in which Lenin was operating, the civil war,
efforts that went nowhere, certain errors that weren't fixed, and so the skidding into authoritarianism.
But even if you grant that at the beginning repression was necessary, why had it lasted so
long? And even expanded? Was the dictatorship of the proletariat therefore a dictatorship like
any other? No – it was not established on behalf of just a small number of people; yes – it
treated human beings as tools. We debated means and ends, a debate that goes nowhere. Togliatti,
writing in Nuovi Argomenti, and also Isaac Deutscher, had a different response: The repressive
apparatus was an overgrowth, a massive fungus that had not infected the trunk – the revolution
had been immature, things had been forced, the tree will be healed. But it had taken so
long . And was it healthy even now?
Sorry, I need to take a break, will provide more of the text here later.
"It was much more independent of the Soviet Union than the French Communist party,"
Something which no one would have guessed from your original post, in which you lump together
French and Italian intellectuals as "convinced that the USSR was a genuine incarnation of Left
values."
You were free to write as long and accurate a post as you felt like writing. You chide me for
"assuming" that you are monolithically critical of the PCI. Am I supposed to be a mind reader?
No one reading your post would have any reason to doubt that the PCI was unwaveringly Stalinist.
It was not.
Now, in this backpedaling reply, you assert that the "broad membership" of the PCI was less
open to critical thinking about the USSR than its leadership. On what evidence? I lived in Italy
for several years in the eighties and early nineties. I met very few members of the PCI "leadership",
but many hundreds of its "broad membership." Not a single one of these PCI voters was even a little
bit supportive of the U.S.S.R.! I traveled from Genoa to Palermo, and all points in between.
Now who are you asking me to believe? You, or my lying eyes?
Just in case anyone here is interested in the facts of the PCI demise, here is an important
moment:
"Per decidere sulla proposta di Occhetto fu indetto un Congresso straordinario del Partito,
il XIX, che si tenne a Bologna nel marzo del 1990. Tre furono le mozioni che si contrapposero:
la prima mozione, intitolata Dare vita alla fase costituente di una nuova formazione politica
era quella di Occhetto, che proponeva la costruzione di una nuova formazione politica democratica,
riformatrice ed aperta a componenti laiche e cattoliche, che superasse il centralismo democratico.
Il 67% dei consensi ottenuti dalla mozione permise la rielezione di Occhetto alla carica di
Segretario generale e la conferma della sua linea politica.
la seconda mozione, intitolata Per un vero rinnovamento del PCI e della sinistra fu sottoscritta
da Ingrao e, tra gli altri, da Angius, Castellina, Chiarante e Tortorella. Il PCI, secondo
i sostenitori di questa mozione, doveva si rinnovarsi, nella politica e nella organizzazione,
ma senza smarrire se stesso. Questa mozione uscì sconfitta ottenendo il 30% dei consensi.
la terza mozione, intitolata Per una democrazia socialista in Europa fu presentata dal gruppo
di Cossutta. Costruita su un impianto profondamente ortodosso ottenne solo il 3% dei consensi.
Il XX Congresso, tenutosi a Rimini nel febbraio del 1991, fu l'ultimo del PCI."
Do you notice that 3% figure at the bottom? Those would be the people that O.P. characterizes
as the "broad membership" unwilling to criticize the U.S.S.R! Under what bizarre meaning of "broad"
does something opposed by 97% of a given group make any sense?
In 1991, the PCI voted to renounce "democratic centralism," i.e. the party being organized
internally along Leninist grounds.
This shows that up until two years after 1989, the PCI was still nominally in favor of Leninism.
On the other hand, the major losing motion, with 30% of the vote, was that of Ingrao and others,
was a vote for "the PCI to renew itself, politically and organizationally, while remaining faithful
to itself."
In other words, a motion for the PCI to remain faithful to its postwar heritage lost by a crushing
margin, 67-30.
If the broad membership of the PCI felt like the USSR was basically alien to their own political
aspirations, why would the USSR's implosion have led to this sort of radical renunciation? Surely
you don't think it was merely a coincidence that this motion passed in 1991 as opposed to, say,
1975 or 1985?
I'm open to other interpretations, but I don't see how the quote supports your argument.
I apologize for anything that was misconstrued as invective. You appeared to claim that the
broad membership of the PCI was staunchly Stalinist up until 1991. Having lived in Italy during
the late 1980s myself, I knew this claim to be false.
The reason the PCI collapsed after the fall of the U.S.S.R. (and not earlier) was best explained
to me by a friend who was himself a Christian Democrat, with a Communist girlfriend. He argued
that the triumphalism of western capitalists in the U.S. at the "fall of communism" after 1989
created an urgent need for "re-branding" for the people, like his girlfriend, who became the new
Democratic Party of the Left.
In other words, after the only major country in the world to have been at least nominally anti-capitalist
collapsed, Italian communists rightly feared that their attempts– to distance themselves from
the particular horrors of Stalinism– would be forgotten amidst the crowing by people like Fukuyama
over "The End of History."
My main objection to what you wrote, in your original post, was that it seemed to imply that
most Italian communists were like the 3% who, even in 1991, were proud to be known as Stalinist.
There's actually a pretty good discussion of this whole issue here, where, as your Rossanda
quotations might suggest, we see that the Stalinist orientation of the PCI was considerably weakened
after 1956.
"E la religione politica del Pci? Quella d'élite? Stalinista, sì. Almeno fino al 1956, "anno
indimenticabile" e nuovo inizio, costellato di sofferenze e ambiguità."
"Insomma la "doppiezza veritiera" di Togliatti stava in questo: immaginare il socialismo
radicalmente diverso dentro due ipotesi impossibili (tali almeno fino a Gorbaciov). L'ipotesi
di una cooperazione distensiva tra i blocchi. E quella di una riformabilità della casa madre
sovietica. Ma è nello spazio immaginario di quella ipotesi strategica "impossibile" che il
Pci – in definitiva – intimamente stalinista non fu. Fu semmai pedagogico, storicista, elitario
e altresì di massa. Capace di aprire malgrado tutto l'Italia della guerra fredda al mondo.
Alla cultura internazionale. All'etica dei diritti sociali e civili che inseriva i ceti subalterni
nello stato.
Strana giraffa il Pci. Esteriormente stalinista, interiormente no."
The article you linked to is quite good, thanks for sending it.
Let's see if I understand the theory you propose. It seems to suggest that the people who genuinely
believed in communism felt like they had to go underground for a while until their adversaries
had spent their fury, so that they could resurface later intact.
I've contemplated ideas along these lines. I think it's noteworthy that your friend was a supporter
of the DC – in fact, it's the kind of theory that anticommunists often hint at, because it implies
that their adversaries have "not changed" and instead have become like "sleeper cells," normal
on the outside but frightening inside.
But that doesn't necessarily make it false. In fact, if a whole group of people had decided
to shield each other by not talking about anything that might make their enemies suspicious, then
that would explain some of the behavior that I described in one of my other responses.
Still, I have a hard time entirely making sense of it. Back before 1956, the PCI really was
fairly Stalinist in its official allegiances. The "horrors of Stalinism" were much closer then,
and yet the PCI did not distance itself from them at the time despite plenty of people who were
willing to cast them in its teeth.
Why was Fukuyama so much more terrifying than anti-communists of the 50s?
I'll respond to another point you bring up in a separate post when I get a chance.
"The "horrors of Stalinism" were much closer then, and yet the PCI did not distance itself
from them at the time despite plenty of people who were willing to cast them in its teeth."
This is a very important point. My only information on why this was the case comes from people
who were already fairly old by the 1980s. They witnessed the partigiani acting as the
strongest actual resistance to the fascists– and they were reluctant to give credence to anything
said against anything communist.
Only long after Mussolini's execution (yet still before the fall of Franco) were Italian communists
open to seeing the events of 1956, 1968, etc. as revealing serious flaws in the Soviet system.
This certainly played a role. Consider, for example, a movie like Roma Città Aperta
(1945), where communists, together with Catholics, are placed at the foundation of the new Italian
identity, unified through the anti-Nazi struggle.
There is a lot of invective here, which I'm not interested in responding to.
There is, however, also some substance, which I think is worth discussing.
I don't have any particular stake in whether or not the PCI base was less skeptical of the
USSR than the leadership. I'm curious about the question. Here's what evidence I have,
pointing in various directions.
Let's start with the 50s. Rossanda herself didn't seriously question the USSR until 1956. In
the incident with Ortese she mentions (possibly later, maybe in the 60s), she was clearly worried
that Ortese's articles would lead PCI sympathizers to think negatively of the USSR. Since she
herself didn't find Ortese's experiences implausible, that means that she wanted for the PCI base
to think more positively of the USSR than she did. The fact that she isn't sure, in retrospect,
whether she would have censored Ortese if she had had the power to do so, means that she considered
maintaining this positive attitude on the part of the base to be quite important.
The PCI remained faithful to the general political directives of the USSR up into the 70s
and 80s, all the while developing over time an increasingly autonomous political line and full
acceptance of democracy already starting at the end of Togliatti's secretaryship.
So it was complicated. I've read quite a few documents from student groups in 1968 on, and
some did seem to me to leave the door open toward some sort of authoritarian political structure.
I don't remember what the Red Brigades' official attitude on the USSR was, but their own political
vision as per their comunicati , etc., was pretty reminiscent of Stalinism.
I don't doubt your personal experience in Italy. Here's mine (living there at various times
in the 90s and 00s). I was honestly interested in the PCI experience, and I didn't take a particularly
moralistic attitude toward it at all. I was hoping that Italians, given their history, would be
more interested in thinking about the possibility of radically different economic systems than
Americans were. I also hoped, given that I knew from having read Pasolini and others that the
Italian Left had not been consistently some sort of caricature of communism, that there had been
some room for criticism of the USSR, that they would not have overly identified with the fall
of the Soviet Union and so would not have been unduly discouraged by its collapse.
What I found was pretty disappointing. A lot of people acted like the PCI had never existed.
I talked to people who I knew had been strong supporters of the PCI back in the day (according
to their friends and family), and they assumed that I could not possibly be asking about their
experience in good faith. They tended to assume I was making fun of them, and for all intents
and purposes acted like they were embarrassed about their communist past.
Nor could I find people interested in talking much about alternative economic systems. There
were plenty of people eager to resist Berlusconi, but they were much more willing to make speeches
on how he was historically unprecedented and violated all sorts of basic constitutional guarantees
than to say much about radical alternatives. I would get frustrated and ask would-be left groups
why they didn't talk about fundamental questions, why the sorts of discussions that had happened
when the PCI was around didn't happen any more. I never got a straight answer besides, "Well,
with the fall of the Berlin Wall, it all looked like an illusion." I would point out why this
wasn't a sufficient argument. Shrug.
I honestly do not know what the reason was for all of this avoidance behavior. As I said in
my post, the only reason I can think of is that at least on some level, many PCI members still
saw the USSR as a flagship of communism. That would explain why they were so morally discouraged
afterwards. But I would have thought that a lot of PCI members should have been able
to see through that trap. So maybe the explanation is wrong.
But I don't know another. I would be thrilled to hear one.
Nothing stayed the same. Not even for those who insisted on seeing the secret report [of
Khrushchev] as a tissue of lies – for them, the USSR was in the hands of a clique of traitors,
led by Khrushchev. Others fell back on the thesis that, sure, Stalin had been a tyrant but
he had been great, because the revolution had been great and its internal and external enemies
great as well. What was this supposed to mean, evil but great? That much should be forgiven
to greatness? That pain and horror are inevitable [byproducts]? I couldn't accept the esthetic
of history. Then there were those like the French Communist Party who thought that, true or
not, Khrushchev should have kept his mouth shut.
And Hungary and Poland and Czechoslovakia? There the excuse of backwardness wasn't applicable.
The PCI stood fast within the trenches: yes, there had been mistakes, fault by communist governments,
but the revolutions were themselves problematic, and [so] there was fault on their part, too.
[ ] The PCI shifted about with a perpetual "It could have been worse" and "Let's avoid pushing
things to the brink." [ ]
Leaving [the PCI] would have meant turning one's back not just on the USSR but on ourselves,
and to resign ourselves to existing society. Or start over again, but very, very profoundly,
abandoning this party, erase it, obliterate it – give the communists up as lost. But they weren't
all nothing but Stalinism. And in any case, what had the dissident groups from the 20s on managed
to accomplish? At most to leave a witness. [ ]
What the USSR had become gave me no peace, and I had difficulty finding a reasonable way
to assess it. It had to be hard, even the tedious manual of the PCB didn't deny it, far from
it. But why so many enemies? With the sector of society hostile to the revolution, the struggle
had been cruelly resolved during the civil war. But afterward? Why so many arrested and shot
among their own people? The hatred that communism had accumulated terrified me. The model of
power that had made it possible to succeed had turned out to be a mortal trap. But then in
what sense was it a model? Political liberalism implies social slavery and social liberalism
implies political slavery? [ ]
It will soon be 50 years since that 1956 that forced me to look squarely at the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics – a name I had loved – and I still don't find a full explanation.
I refuse to give in to the oft-repeated idea that without the profit motive, there is no democracy.
Our [democracy] is depressing. It is. But it doesn't finish you off with two bullets to the
brain in a cellar. [ ] If I talk about this, even with my closest friends, I lower my voice,
I apologize, I become annoying. We in the PCI at least didn't have bloody hands. Because we
had not managed to take power? No, we were different. How different? And me, what was I like?
I had not cracked down on anyone, I had always covered for people. At least I think so. You
would have to ask those who worked with me, who had less power or rank than I did. I never
humiliated anyone. Or did I? I had a lofty idea of what I did, therefore of myself, how to
exclude that I had trampled others, without even noticing?
I remember one minor episode. Anna Maria Ortese, a reserved woman, always dressed in black,
her hair held tightly in a black fillet over her pretty face, spent her days in silence at
the House of Culture because she didn't have a real house of her own. In one of her first reports
on the Soviet Union that a weekly magazine had asked her to write, she had spoken of immense
poverty and loneliness, and it sounded like an unending accusation. It was Ortese, it was her
empathy with the suffering of the wretched, but it exasperated me because I suspected it was
true. I ripped into her: "Don't you understand the toil, the isolation of that country? Why
don't you write also that everyone has a job, everyone can go to school, everyone has health
care? And don't you see that it's under attack?" We saw each other every day, we had something
of a relationship, she never asked anything of me – and I hurt her. The next day, she came
to my house with a ridiculous bouquet of flowers and as I opened the door, I was unable to
say a word. We hugged each other, crying. With tears in my eyes, I went to find some cognac
to cheer her up, she was white as a sheet. We didn't say hardly anything to one another, and
we left there arm in arm. I haven't forgotten that moment. If I had had the power to repress
her articles, would I have done so? Maybe I would have. I don't know. And what would I have
done when faced with more serious choices?
[ ] It does not comfort me that the Black Books have manipulated numbers, that with the
archives open, the number of political trials comes out to less than five million, the number
shot less than a million. "Only" five million?!
One can't look at these philosophies without accounting for the productive capacities of the
land.
Monarchs of the last couple of centuries were essentially trying to one-up each other and planning
marriages according to needed and desired resources.
One can imagine that the limits were not the same in France, England and Russia.
French Monarchs were obviously in the best position resource speaking. France was one great
piece of land. Russian monarchs probably had to squeeze its population way more than French royalty
to maintain the same quality of life. It's no surprise that the UK ended up colonizing. How could
it compete on an overpopulated island?
At the beginning of the early 1900s, Germany was hitting productive limits vs. the size of
its population without the exploitative capacities of the UK or France propped up be their own
colonies.
Communism would be easier to implement in a closed economy . hard to see this happening in
countries that depend on imports or with colonies to exploit.
Russia was in a good position to try it enough resources to be autarkic and a population used
to poor
and harsh conditions where materialism would not be receding if trying it out.
While I enjoy reading about economic and political philosophies, I find it annoying how most
of the time these never account for the physical limitations that drive countries into specific
directions.
Most of humanity has always been blind to 3 things:
– the planet's physical limits
– its own technological limitations in exploiting the planet's bounty at each epoch
– the problem of redistribution when a system hits a wall.
And none of the philosophies seem to address all three.
agree. ' Spring cleaning' is my favorite change metaphor. It's more benign than 'rat-killing'.
But the point is always a practical one. We get rid of stuff that no longer works. That's the
first step. So why won't vested interests and ideologues see the logic? Or more accurately, why
are they so slow? If we do not change it is gonna go from farce to tragedy pretty fast this time.
If I recall correctly your background you're far too intelligent to believe that stuff!! C'mon
now. Physical limits???? In Russia??? Russia is yyyuuuuge.
Maybe this is an artifact of your MIT eduction in reductive materialism. :-)
Newton and Leibniz were very very smart guys. Engineering is pretty cool! I would not argue
with things like computers and TVs and Youtube. I couldn't watch Adele and Bruce Springsteen on
Youtube if it wasn't for engineers. I'm just being honest. I won't criticize engineers. But they
are mostly boneheads. Hahahaha.
I'm not sure reading all these political crackpots is useful either. There's a point where
things are obvious just by direct observation. I understand the impluse to expand one's mind and
it's not at all obvious how to do that. The strangest thing of all though is that all this supposed
erudition reduces itself to things that are completely obvious simply from solitary contemplation.
Of course engineering is not that way at all.
First, I agree with Ulysses that lumping French and Italian intellectuals together with regard
to acceptance of the Soviet Union as an emanation of leftist values is dubious. Look at the differences
between the traditional French Communist Party, which was more or less Stalinist, and the Italian
Communist Party, which was animated by Gramsci and Berlinguer, two highly skeptical Sardinians.
And that's for starters.
I recommend reading Gramsci: I am currently reading his letters from prison. He had a very
broad view of politics, events, and culture. As a newspaper editor, he also wrote tremendous numbers
of articles, including theatrical criticism (and he was a pretty good theater critic), all worth
reading.
I note that Outis mentions Rossana Rossanda above, and I suspect that she has some skepticism
about exercise of power, too.
I agree with you that the French and Italian communist party experiences are extremely different.
The purpose of this article was not to get too much into the details, but my subsequent post on
this subject is all about the Italian situation, which is in my opinion fascinating.
Your explanation of why the PCI was different from the PCF leaves me a little unconvinced.
Gramsci probably played a role, more in terms of the pattern of wide-ranging critical thought
seen in the Quaderni del carcere (which I agree are well worth reading) than in anything
particularly groundbreaking he did as a leader before the fascists imprisoned him. Berlinguer
was a very significant figure, but I think the fact of the the PCI being less hermetically closed
than the PCF predates his leadership by a couple decades.
On Rossanda's skepticism about the exercise of power, yes, that's right. I haven't finished
yet, but in the next part of the excerpt quoted in my reply to Ulysses she will express sentiments
along those lines.
Thanks for the interesting passages from Rossanda. I do sincerely hope that you will find the
time to also respond to the questions raised in my two comments currently under moderation.
Some cultural differences between Italy and France that may have affected how communism evolved:
–France has strong centralizing tendencies. Until recently, Paris dominated thoroughly. Italy
is indeed a federal republic, with strong decentralizing tendencies. As a friend from Piedmont
said, Every village speaks its own form of the Piedmontese language. In France, the communist
party seems to have wanted Stalinist centralization.
–In France, the state created lay society (the secular state). In Italy, secular society, arguably,
was created by the communists. (Although the Savoys (weirdly) and the Republic of Venice also
created secular states, I suppose. But they did not dominate as thoroughly as the French Republic
and its message of laicité does.)
–Italian Catholicism is rather mystical and oddly unpuritanical. French Catholicism is much more
rigid.
–Because the arts in Italy tend to be somewhat more democratic, communist artists existed / exist.
Pasolini. Nanni Moretti. It's a long way from Jean-Paul Sartre to Nanni Moretti.
These are all great points. Yes, it's a long way from Sartre to Pasolini as well.
On Italian versus French Catholicism, I hadn't thought of this. But it also makes a great deal
of sense in terms of the particular history of French Catholicism under the FR, with the clerical
oath.
I agree with this line of thought. What's always bothered me by previous discussions of "communism"
have been 1) the absence of the roots of communism, ( ie hunter gatherer societies, and the teachings
of the Buddha and Christ), and 2) the cultural and tribal influences of each group attempting
this quest.
To the first point, it seems to me that various religious groups within the United States have
attempted their version of communism with varying degrees of success, from 1800s farming communities
to self proclaimed demagogues of the Jim Jones variety. I think the notion of the battle between
humanistic traits of altruism vs narcissism are instrumental in understanding the roots of the
success of each group.
From my little understanding of China and Russia, both have historically had autocratic cultures
for multiple reasons, so an autocratic form of top down society would be a natural progression
from the then status quo.
Regarding the "Horrors of Communism" I am reminded of the types of regimes that were overthrown
in the cases of the China and Russia, and how the degree of external threat to the fledgling attempts
may have influenced their courses. Interesting current examples include the continually externally
besieged and totalitarian regime of North Korea, as opposed to the "Communist" regime of North
Vietnam. I can only wonder what will result in the United States should our Lords and Masters
decide to use all means necessary to quell a popular uprising, but then the current control of
the media is proving quite successful.
In any case from my perspective the more democratic and successful attempts at economic equality
have been exemplified in smaller homogeneous tribal societies such various Nordic countries. My
observation of history tells me that the larger the entity one tries to democratically control,
the more likelihood of corruption by narcissistic players irrespective of the type of governmental
system proposed.
Q: Are the problems of historical communism explainable in terms of the opposition that communism
experienced from reactionaries?
No, but many of them ARE explained by the opposition–wars, bombings, sabotage, etc.–of international
capitalism to almost every socialist experiment that has arisen, 1917-Venezuela. We'll never know
about what kind of success they would have experienced in a petri dish, but we do know that when
you have to devote much of your economy to building arms to defend yourself–live on the defensive–that
can distort your project, distort your vision, distort your economy, make you paranoid–hey–end
up making you murderous and worse. And (no small thing) that improving the lot of the great mass
of people can be very handy for capitalism once you have finished the heavy lifting.
See Rossana Rossanda's take on this argument below.
I actually take Venezuela's experience as supporting the point that there was historical contingency
involved and therefore Stalinism was not simply historically necessary. Venezuela was geopolitically
weaker than Russia and Chavez faced substantial opposition from very well-organized forces and
foreign-supported forces. And still, it's completely clear that whatever else you think of Chavez
and his legacy, he did not institute the sort of repression that some people claim is inseparable
with communism. He came very close to losing power in 2002 (if I remember correctly, the US had
even already started to recognize the coup directors as legitimate), but he held on.
"From the standpoint of living standards the Soviet Union were improvements over Imperial Russia."
This is a point I can agree with in reference to Russia. Communism served as a way to quickly
sever the serf system that had partially survived in Russia into the 20th century.
However, the central planning aspect of communism is its great problem. It centralizes absolute
power in a small group; the guy who said "absolute power corrupts absolutely" seems to have been
absolutely correct. In Cuba, if you decided you wanted to sell sandwiches to your friends to make
a little extra, that was prohibited and you would be been arrested and jailed – heard they're
starting to allow some of that recently. I've heard the Russian system wasn't quite as extreme
in those economic cases, don't know, although it was worse in its repressive excesses. Even the
Pharaohs of Egypt didn't try to stop the bread makers and fisherman from making some extra income
so their families could have socks – only Marx managed to develop a worse system. Also, communism
didn't work anywhere; the experiment failed everywhere.
There is no difference between everybody working for the government and everybody working for
Walmart/Amazon. .. the same dynamic is at work. Limiting government power and reach, and limiting
Corporate power and reach is the only antidote to repression.
Thanks for this as someone who started out as a Dem Socialist but now am becoming more open
to further left positions. I agree with some of the basic philosophies of the hard left even "tankies"
but I hate when they gloss over atrocities committed.
The way I see it, there is plenty of criticism of Stalin from the left. I think the idea that
leftists refuse to criticize Stalin is a bit of a trope. However, I think it is correct to point
to the lack of good information on Stalinist USSR. It is hard to logically critique something
when you are drowning in propaganda and disinformation. All that being said, if the left has one
flaw regarding Marxist theory and communism, it is that they often fail to apply Marxist theory
TO communism (this is less of a problem among anarchists, of course).
One of the big (maybe biggest) takeaways of Marx is that class war is eternal, and that class
war exists in all systems, including communism. I have been reading Marx in fits and starts for
20 years, and although I have never read any specific statement on class war in communist type
societies, I have no doubt that Marx would agree. Lenin/Stalin were simply the leaders of the
elite class in the Soviet Union, and like other members of the elite class, they worked to increase
or cement their power at the expense of the lower classes. Class war is eternal and universal.
As far as the fall of the Soviet Union, my view is that there were many complex drivers, however
the biggest one was the fundamental difference between the Soviet and American Empires. The Soviet
core (Russia, basically) exploited its own resources and subsidized it's subordinate nations (such
as Eastern Europe and Cuba), which weakened the Soviet Empire over time economically. The US Empire
(I include western Europe as part of the core here) did the opposite, exploiting the resources
of the subordinate nations on it's periphery (think Africa and South America), subsidizing and
enriching itself. Of course this isn't absolute, since the US had some anomalies such as the Marshal
Plan, and the Soviets did have some populations they exploited such as those in the "stan" republics,
but I think it explains a lot.
Just a few quick points on some of the issues raised by the article.
All economies are planned, just depends on WHO they are designed to benefit. In the US, the
DOD and associated entities are the clearest example of government directing economic resources
to certain ends. Those ends happen to be the lining the pockets of well connected grifters, but
its still a "planned economy".
The thing that always struck me about people who believe(d) in Communism is that it's just
another form of religion. The idea of History as having end its working towards is Christian or
Jewish millenarianism recast in terms of political economy. The historical determinism of Marxism
is totally laughable in the face of the randomness and capriciousness of human existence.
Stalinism and Maoism replaced one set of elites with another, neither of which cared one bit
about the impact their grand schemes had on the people they ruled. But at the same time the millions
they murdered says more about the dangers of unquestioned top down control in any system rather
than the faults of one -ism over another.
The capitalist system has killed millions. It's just harder to pin the mass murder on one person.
The dirty jobs just get passed on along the global trade chain.
One could easily argue that many countries have been forced into bad implementations of communism
because of the stronghold of existing capitalist empires on resources.
If the capitalist developed countries had been less exploitative, perhaps a gentler form of
communism could have emerged.
I find the stuff Marx did in the "understand the world" dept – specifically the "labour
theory of value" immensely valuable and is, like Newton's work, outside of history. The equation
for profit i.e. s/(s+v) all functions of time, and that it tends to zero as time tends to infinity
is for the ages. And since profit is the prime motive for production in capitalism, then
His stuff on (the point is) "to change the world" ? – i.e. class struggle – is definitely
best understood as history, as in history of ideologies, best to be understood as something coming
from a man of his times – one can distill stuff from it to apply it to our own time but only like,
say, Julius Caesar's use of chance – " the die is cast " come "Lights, Camera, Action"
time.
Why did that part or not so much the "labour theory of value" part catch the imagination of
the rebellious of my gen of the 60s, 70s ? That too reflects that we were partly creatures of
our times.
Ante Ciliga was a Croatian communist who wrote 'The Russian Enigma' which is a smart and evocative
account of his experiences there during the 1920s and 1930s.
His political conclusions are best summarised in the French title of his book: 'Au Pays du
Grand Mensonge' i.e. In the Land of the Great Lie!
If there's going to be an honest critique of "historical communism," then first we need to
be honest in identifying what it is we're talking about, which in this case is really Marxist-Leninism
(Stalinism just being the same but with more gulag). There's two ways of looking at M-L's record,
which is, what was it's real world impact, pro and con? And, did it achieve what it set out to
do? On the former, there's many well-worn arguments trotted out: rapid industrialization, extreme
poverty prevention, but also the atrocities, limited civil rights, etc.The typical leftist apologia
seems to hinge on pointing out the blood on the hands of capitalism, which is both valid and not.
Yes, it's important to criticize the right on its tendency to either outright deny the death caused
by capitalism or to ideological explain it away as the fault of something else, and to make people
aware that death by capitalism usually comes in more subtle forms, but that doesn't magically
make what Stalin, Mao, etc. did okay.
However, more important on the practical level is that the trend for the M-L has been in the
long haul to shift towards market economies. The USSR was making motions towards this right before
the sudden liberalization of their economy. China has shifted from state capitalism to state-managed
capitalism, Vietnam has allowed for more market-based co-ops and small business, Cuba has set
up limited markets. So M-L works for the rapid expansion period, but once that singular drive
and goal gives way, the central planning needs to acquiesce to market economies.
What really should give the left the cause to abandon M-L to the historical dustbin, is on
the second question. M-L gets us war communism and state capitalism, but it has failed in all
cases to transition to the final stage of true communism. Give a small group of politicos absolute
control over the economy while still collecting that capitalist cut off the top, of course they're
not going to hand that over to the workers. It doesn't achieve its goal of workers controlling
the means of production, so if the left wants that, then they need to follow the lead of the Kurds
and look elsewhere.
A thoughtful friend in the 70s called Marx "a historian of the future." He created a vision,
a ramp, a consolidation of dreams and efforts that converged possibilities toward realities. Like
most Enlightenment/Romantic religious movements, this vision was cast as science, not faith (as,
to be fair, was the book of Genesis). His aim was for something more than sociology or political
science, and I think he should be both defended and criticized on those broader grounds. The ultimate
question isn't whether he was right or wrong, but whether and how he moved human possibilities
forward.
Leaving aside the rich and varied strands of socialism that have occurred and been acted upon
(cooperatives, syndicalism, democratic socialism, or even the thoughts of Veblen) that don't involve
Marx or communism, I have more than a quibble with the entire methodology employed.
It is acknowledged that the history and uniqueness of communism, let alone socialism, are not
easily compressed into small tales to be stored and later related to explain very complex historical
processes.
So a neat Alexandrian solution is found to cut through the numerous Gordian knots of distinct
historical events and the specific people who acted upon circumstance and reacted to historical
circumstance.
We are provided with "the sword" of our supposed common knowledge of human nature to explore
and answer the various strands of socialist thought and action. Hell, we can ask simple questions
and come up with a monosyllabic answer.
However,
1. Do we really know that much about "human nature" and especially about how human nature reacts
during specific historical events of which we most of us do not have experience?
2. Is human nature always the same throughout history? How much do material circumstances of
any given historical period "colour" our perception of human nature? Or is our view of human nature
dictated by our material circumstances, including the political and social spheres which often
cloud our view given an ongoing process of unique historical circumstances?
3. Can an approach which relies solely upon insights of human nature explain complex phenomena
just because humans where involved in the phenomena? Does the conjecture of human nature provide
a omniscient viewpoint?
I would suggest that socialism, like capitalism, isn't quite so easy to pigeon hole via an
all encompassing theory of human nature.
I really don't have any quibbles with the article itself or of the conclusions drawn by the
author. As I am not a communist , I really don't have fish to fry. Since I am nothing more more
than a student of politics, I can both appreciate and critique Marx in equal measure.
I don't see socialism as an alternative to capitalism but as a manner in which I wish to strive
for in my life. It's just that capitalism, especially as it is currently practised, has been planned
and is being planned in such a manner that seems to ensure that the individuals and groups of
individuals are being limited in the scope of their responses to life's circumstances.
Just because capitalism doesn't mostly involve central planning, as in the Soviet Unions, doesn't
mean the economy/society isn't being planned with consequences that have impacts centrally upon
all our lives.
And I suspect the plans aren't being planned in my interests or in the interests of most of
humanity, and certainly not in the interest of many creatures and flora of which we share this
plant.
Unlike Marx, I can't buy the dialectic of historical determinism, nor am I willing to be curtailed
by an other imperative determinisms – such as human nature must follow upon predetermined train
tracks leading in one inexorable direction.
And as always with NC, thanks for bringing these subjects into a public domain. Upon such stuff
might common grounds be found.
There's also the issue of whether or not "Human Nature" should be considered a singular or
a plural. It's neat and convenient to think of humans as all sharing one set of underlying "code,"
with the differences merely being ornamentation thrown on by circumstance, but there's been a
change of thinking in psychology that we really have multiple natures within the species (e.g.,
we are not a monolithically monogamous nor a polygamous species, but rather contain both monogamous
and polygamous individual). So some people's nature is in line with capitalism, others within
socialism, others with fascism, etc. Which would explain why some Russians adapted easily to neoliberal
capitalism and others descended into alcoholism.
I hadn't even considered this idea at all. And as a general explanation of the nature of "human
nature", it's well worth exploring. Might explain much about our species.
I may be mis-reading but this seems like pseudo-science with a taxonomy obsession with slovenly
implied spillovers into id-politics as pigeonhole fetish no need to engage, just label and tuck
away. " [N]eat and convenient" for the pigeonholer, but much less so for the pigeonho[led], who
consequently AND inconsequentially can be easily ignored, and eventually extinguished with alcohol
{either-or} opioids.
Michael Hudson has pointed ou t that Marxism and the classical economics of Smith/Malthus/Ricardo
are but two of three schools of political economy which developed in the 18th through 19th centuries.
There was a third school which congealed as first USA Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton
explicitly rejected Smith and went about the task of building a new republic. It became called
the American System or American School after a
speech by Henry Clay in February 1832 .
The clear answer is the American School. The major proponents of the American School were Henry
C. Carey (who advised Abraham Lincoln, so get transcontinental railroads and telegraph and the
USDA at the same time the Union is fighting the Confederacy), Friedrich List (who leads the unification
of Germany), and E. Peshine Smith (whose ideas guide the industrialization of Japan). Why do we
never hear of these economists and their American School of political economy?
In December 1993, James Fallows rattled the economics profession with an article in The Atlantic,
How the World Works :
The more I had heard about List in the preceding five years, from economists in Seoul and
Osaka and Tokyo, the more I had wondered why I had virtually never heard of him while studying
economics in England and the United States.
Fallows goes on to describe the historical importance, not of British opium-trade apologist
Adam Smith, but of the American School, in guiding the early industrial development of Tokugawa
Japan, late imperial China, czarist Russia, Germany, South Korea, and other countries.
In a nutshell, the American School is the only body of economic thought which has actually
resulted in national industrial development along with a large degree of general prosperity and
political freedom. A partial exception is Marx, but, as Lawrence Goodwyn, the late historian of
the American agrarian revolt and populist movement of the late 1800s, pointed out, no system of
Marxism has been implemented without the coercive power of a red army behind it.
What Carey could not forgive in the English school of political economy, which after all
must historically be called the capitalist school, and what he particularly could not forgive
in Ricardo and Malthus, whom Marx so profoundly respected, was that they assigned to civilization
the role of pursuing not happiness but wealth and power; that they debased man by directing
him toward an aim that was beneath him, since power and physical satisfaction are also the
aim of the beast; that they forgot to take man and man's nature into consideration when they
established their so-called laws which reduced him to the level of the beast.
The link above includes two excerpts from Carey himself that I think very concisely condemns
the market fundamentalism of modern economic neoliberalism and conservatism:
Such is the course of modern political economy, which not only does not "feel the breath
of the spirit" but even ignores the existence of the spirit itself, and is therefore found
defining what it is pleased to call the natural rate of wages, as being "that price which is
necessary to enable the laborers, one with another, to subsist and perpetuate their race without
either increase or diminution" (Ricardo)!that is to say, such price as will enable some to
grow rich and increase their race, while others perish of hunger, thirst, and exposure. Such
are the teachings of a system that has fairly earned the title of the "dismal science."
And,
Such being the tendency of all its teachings, it is no matter of surprise that modern English
political economy sees in man only an animal that will procreate, that must be fed, and that
can be made to work [Carey's emphasis]!an instrument to be used by trade; that it repudiates
all the distinctive qualities of man, and limits itself to the consideration of those he holds
in common with the beast of burden or of prey; that it denies that the Creator meant that every
man should find a place at His table, or that there exists any reason why a poor laborer, able
and willing to work, should have any more right to be fed than the cotton-spinner has to find
a market for his cloth; or that it assures its students that "labor is a commodity."
Why do we never hear of Carey and the American School? Why does it appear the only left alternative
to laissez faire capitalism is Marx? The answer is: Carey and the American School have
been written out of economic history, Here are the results of of some time spent in the stacks
of the library at the University of North Carolina looking through the indexes of introductory
economics textbooks. These are the number of pages on which there citations (for example, a citation
in the index of pp. 145-147, is counted as three pages, not one) of Henry Carey, Alexander Hamilton,
Friedrich List, Thorstein Veblen (American School); Milton Friedman, David Ricardo, Adam Smith
(British school), and Karl Marx.
Joan Robinson and John Eatwell, An Introduction to Modern Economics (McGraw Hill, 1973)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 3
List 1
Friedman 1
Ricardo 18
Smith 20
Marx 28
Lloyd C. Atkinson, Economics: The Science of Choice (Richard D. Irwin, 1982)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 4
Ricardo 0
Smith 3
Marx 0
Allen W. Smith, Understanding Economics (Random House, 1986)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 1
Ricardo 0
Smith 4
Marx 3
Roger N. Waud, Economics, 3rd Edition (Harper and Row, 1986)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 9
Ricardo 6
Smith 5
Marx 7
Bradley R. Schiller, The Economy Today, 4th Edition (Random House, 1989)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 6
Ricardo 3
Smith 3
Marx 6
William J. Baumol and Alan S. Blinder, Economics: Principles and Policy, 5th Edition (Harcourt
Brace Jovanovitch, 1991)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 5
Ricardo 5
Smith 13
Marx 7
Paul A. Samuelson and William D. Nordhaus, Economics (McGraw Hill, 1995)
Carey 0
Hamilton 4
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 5
Ricardo 2
Smith 8
Marx 2 (plus 2 on "Marxism")
Robert J. Barro, Macroeconomics (MIT Press, 1997)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
List 0
Veblen 0
Friedman 9
Ricardo 0
Smith 0
Marx 0
Julian L. Simon, Economics Against the Grain, Volume 2 (Edward Elgar, 1998)
Carey 0
Hamilton 1
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 5
Ricardo 3
Smith 11
Marx 1
Frank Stilwell, Political Economy: The Contest of Economic Ideas (Oxford University Press,
2006)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 11
List 1
Friedman 9
Ricardo 12
Smith 16
Marx 19
N. Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Economics, Instructor's Edition, Sixth Edition (Southwestern,
2012)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 9
Ricardo 1
Smith 9
Marx 0
In a nutshell, the American School is the only body of economic thought which has actually
resulted in national industrial development along with a large degree of general prosperity
and political freedom.
If we're talking about the economics of America as set up in the late 18th and 19th centuries,
wouldn't we be talking about economics that include and assume the existence of slavery, and later
Jim Crow laws? That doesn't strike me as being politically free.
You raise a very important question; important, because it forces us to deal with the fact
that human history is quite messy. When a nation of 50 million people acts, does it act in accord
with the wishes and intent of all 50 people? Of course not. Look at the American Civil War, and
the men who fought on the Union side. Where they all of like mind in willing to risk their limbs
and lives in way because they all shared a desire and intent to destroy slavery? No. Most actually
fought to preserve the Union, though there were many who fought motivated by abolitionism. Many
more served because of social pressure in their towns or locales, or simply because the accompanied
family members or neighborhood fronts into the army.
It is easy to be confused by American history, because at the same time that the American System
was being built and practiced, the British system was competing with it for control of the domestic
economy and polity. To the extent that people today mistakenly believe that the American economy
was founded on the ideas of Adam Smith (it most emphatically was not:
Hamilton explicitly rejected the ideas of Smith ) the British system is winning. Michael Hudson
has written at least two excellent overviews of this fight within the USA between the American
and British systems:
A similar contest rages in USA today (and around most of the world, for that matter). There
are proponents of conservatism, mostly classical British laissez faire economics. There are proponents
of libertarianism, the even more extreme Austrian school of economics (and there is a recent book
out, which I have not acquired yet, Nancy MacLean's new book, Democracy in Chains: The Deep
History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America , on James Buchanan and "public choice
theory). There are proponents of neoliberalism (it is interesting to peruse this,
Everyone Hates Neoliberals, So We Talked to Some , and note the astonishing lack of historical
knowledge, and the complete absence of any notion of republicanism or Enlightenment political
ideals). There are proponents of Marxism. Most readers of NC will probably agree that conservatism
and neoliberalism are practically indistinguishable in the realm of economic policies, and have
been the dominant school in our lifetimes. Conservatives and libertarians argue vehemently that
the dominant school has been liberalism and Keynesianism, which they disparage as "statism." There
are proponents of other economic schools as well, probably some I do not know, and perhaps even
some that don't even have names yet. Out of this stew of contending interests and beliefs, how
do you pick out one coherent set of ideas and attribute to it the policy direction of USA for
the past half century?
In answer to your question: The simplified version of USA economic history at the period you
point to is that the British system was dominant in the slave South, and fought for free trade
in opposition to the American System's protective tariffs, which dominated the North.
If William Hogeland's analysis in The Whiskey Rebellion is correct, one of Alexander Hamilton's
major policy innovations was a deliberate exercise in rigging the economy in favour of the 1%
of his day.
In his reading, Hamilton pushed for the Federal Government to assume the debts of the States
in order to guarantee that bondholding speculators got paid, and to allow for the creation of
a Federal tax system. The tax in question, the whiskey excise, was deliberately set up in order
to drive small producers out of business and to bring the whiskey market under the control of
large producers in the cities. The whole thing was a massive transfer of wealth from western farmers
to Wall Street.
I disagree with Hogeland completely and vehemently. He appears to have made no attempt whatsoever
to understand republicanism and its place in the Enlightenment, and his understanding of political
economy and matters of national and international finance are laughably facile.
Hogeland also completely ignores the crucial contribution Hamilton made in developing the constitutional
theory of implied powers. As Supreme Court Justices John Marshall and Joseph Story noted, the
opposing theory of enumerated powers -- which conservatives and libertarians are promoting today -- would cripple the national government.
What Hamilton actually accomplished financially, was to free the infant United States from
a complete dependence on borrowing from European oligarchs, by creating a domestic system open
to the much smaller fortunes of American bankers and merchants. It boggles my mind that anyone
can not see or ignores this obvious historical fact.
I cannot account for the malice Hogeland and others on the left, such as Matt Stoller, bear
toward Hamilton; though it is obvious to me why certain concentrations of economic wealth revile
Hamilton: they have become increasingly powerful as the USA abandoned Hamiltonian political economy
(such as a protective tariff) and deindustrialized and financialized. Destroy Hamitonian political
economy, and the USA is destroyed from within by increasingly concentrated economic power. The
left is shooting itself in the head by failing to understand Hamilton.
In regards to the Whiskey Tax: I think it cannot be truly understood without the historical
context of the idea of that time of a sumptuary tax. Classical republican ideology has always
held that luxury was the vanguard of rot and corruption in a state. In fact, during the Constitutional
Convention, it was argued that one reason a new, stronger national government was needed was so
that sumptuary taxes could be imposed over the opposition of individual states.
The general view, discernible in contemporaneous literature, was that the responsibility
of government should involve enough surveillance over the enterprise system to ensure the social
usefulness of all economic activity. It is quite proper, said Bordley, for individuals to "choose
for themselves" how they will apply their labor and their intelligence in production. But it
does not follow from this that "legislators and men of influence" are freed from all responsibility
for giving direction to the course of national economic development. They must, for instance,
discountenance the production of unnecessary commodities of luxury when common sense indicates
the need for food and other essentials. Lawmakers can fulfill their functions properly only
when they "become benefactors to the publick"; in new countries they must safeguard agriculture
and commerce, encourage immigration, and promote manufactures. Admittedly, liberty "is one
of the most important blessings which men possess," but the idea that liberty is synonymous
with complete freedom from restraint "is a most unwise, mistaken apprehension." True liberty
demands a system of legislation that will lead all members of society "to unite their exertions"
for the public welfare. It should therefore be the policy of government to aid and foster certain
activities or kinds of business that strengthen a nation, even as it should be the duty of
government to repress "those fashions, habits, and practices, which tend to weaken, impoverish,
and corrupt the people." –Johnson, E.A.J., The Foundations of American Economic Freedom: Government
and Enterprise in the Age of Washington (University of Minnesota Press, 1973), J194-195
Aside from Hamilton, Veblen is the only member of the American School I've heard of – and I
took economics in college and have followed it ever since. Amazing.
"[Friedrich] List argued, a society's well-being and its overall wealth are determined not
by what the society can buy but by what it can make."
"In strategic terms nations ended up being dependent or independent according to their ability
to make things for themselves. Why were Latin Americans, Africans, and Asians subservient to
England and France in the nineteenth century? Because they could not make the machines and
weapons Europeans could."
In the 1500s Spain became the richest nation in Europe because it had accumulated the gold
wealth of the America's. By the next century it had become among the poorest nations of Europe.
Spain had so much gold it could afford to simply buy anything it wanted, until the gold ran out,
while the Germans developed craft industries to supply Spain with products and became wealthy
and powerful .. the Arab nations are in this situation today, so resource rich that they haven't
focused on developing industry, so that when oil runs they'll be impoverished.
Your data does not mean a thing. Data, to be meaningful as to the reality one is trying to
show, must be preceded by a true knowledgable understanding of such reality. I conducted with
two other colleagues a study about 15 years ago. This study was never published as we ran out
of funds and we could not complete it. Nevertheless, the evidence from most colleges was overwhelming.
Marx was not read. Marx was not fairly taught. This is the way it works, in case you are not aware.
That a textbook includes chapters on Marxism and socialism does not imply that they are given
attention too. In a large percentage of cases, if they are included in the syllabus by the teacher
or department-I am saying teacher because in some colleges the professor ends up in practice applying
his own particular syllabus-they are relegated to the end of the semester, with the tacit rule,
"we will get too it, if we have time". It goes without saying that very rarely "we end up having
time for it". Also, our team collected recordings from actual college economics and sociology
classes. I vividly remember a professor who used for his Sociology 101 class James Henslin's textbook.
Henslin suggested the students to learn three sociological views, functionalism, (interaction)
symbolism and marxism. The first day of class the professor put it very clearly in his own words
how Marx's dismissal was in order: "We are not going to use the Marxist approach. Marx was a workers'
liberator who had never worked in a plant". It was not uncommon, in practice, to obliterate Marx,
despite textbooks, syllabus or otherwise. Direct readings for the economics 100s and 200s classes
systematically excluded Marx works, with Smith's The Wealth of Nations as #1 reading.
Your reply involves some interesting information, but it is unnecessarily vehement and it in
fact misreads pretty seriously what Tony Wikrent said.
Wikrent claims that the American School of economics is not taught in universities, and so
that if you are looking for an alternative to laissez-faire, you tend to assume the only one is
Marxism. All of his data is aimed, not at showing that Marxism is taught, but that Carey and the
American School are not.
From my experience as well, economics professors don't teach Marx. But that doesn't invalidate
Wikrent's point. Even if students never hear about Marx from their economics professor, they will
still have heard of Marx as a radical economist because his existence as such is generally known
in mainstream culture. Whereas, Wikrent is saying, they will not have heard of Carey and the American
School in other venues, so if they don't hear about them in economics departments, it will be
like they never existed.
True. But I could mention several important political economy schools which are ignore across
the board. This is what happens when orthodoxy pervades institutions. Now, specific to the comment,
when one lays data out and makes it a reflection of practice, the least one and others can do
is to point out that it is only a valid partial representation of that practice (here just valid
for Wikrent's particular aims) and that the full data does not reflect the entire practice -and
indeed provides an illusion of it.
Yes, but please try to apply more interpretive charity. You could have made the same point
by just saying, "One thing I'd like to add," and it wouldn't have come off as a personal attack.
Are we again looking for "the theory of everything"? You know, that one "ism" or theory or
form of government that will explain everything and make everything right?
Bad news. It doesn't exist.
No "ism" or form of government will solve and explain everything. No "ism" or form of government
is completely wrong and no "ism" or form of government is completely right and never has been.
I'm a student of history and I love reading how ideas got started and how civilizations fail
– and I've found the two are very related .
For those who wish to call the collapse of Russia a failure of communism, I ask when was the
theory of communism practiced in Russia? Certainly what Lenin and Stalin created had nothing in
common with the "commune" systems (from whence Communism gets its name) the peasants put in place
to protect themselves.
And Capitalism? Even Adam Smith (of whom I am no great fan) understood that Capitalism (he
didn't call it that but he did lay the basis for that system) understood that all members of the
system had to have the same knowledge and act morally to be able to work best in their self interest.
Does what Adam Smith proposed even resemble the Capitalism we have today?
I'll ignore Marx since it is such a touchy subject today, but I will ask: When were the theories
of Marx ever really put into practice within the boundaries Marx set up? Do Marxists actually
understand what those boundaries are?
And Democracy? Shall we again excoriate Athens for their failures in attempting to practice
the theory?
Even something as reviled as feudalism had its roots in something good. Certainly, at the time,
the peasants preferred it to being the victims of the Vikings and every other attacker that came
along. But those who gained power from it couldn't give it up, even when it was no longer useful
for protection .
The problem isn't the "isms" or even the forms of government- each "ism" and type of government
has its value in a particular setting – but that does not mean it applies to every setting. "Isms"
, like all theories, have boundaries within which they work – and "isms", like theories, will
fail when applied to areas outside those specific boundaries. For a quick example, Democracy works
when you have an educated and involved populace who understands that in order for their form of
government to survive, power must never be completely centralized – it fails when the people do
not understand or recognize that boundary.
It would be much better for us all if humans if they had the ability to recognize the boundaries
of their "ism" and the ability to switch to a different theory when the times demanded – but they
don't. Sadly I see throughout history that there have always be those people who rise to power
during an "ism" and can't let go of it, even when it doesn't work (when the "ism" or theory is
used outside its specific boundaries), because of their fear of losing control. And then the societal
destruction begins but that isn't the fault of the "ism" – or the form of government
Perhaps instead of just deriding those theories that aren't currently popular, we really should
be asking ourselves: What are the boundaries of each "ism" and when will that "ism" work and when
will it not, and how do we learn to switch between them as necessity dictates?
Err .my last sentence should have read: "What are the boundaries of each "ism" and when will
that "ism" work and when will it not, and how do we learn to switch peacefully between them as
necessity dictates?"
While I respect the author for raising this topic, he seems to fall into "assessment of the
Soviet Experiment" mode in a careless way. I realize I tend to repetition about this, but it is
terribly misleading -- perhaps "disorienting" would be a better term -- to discuss theses questions
without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures -- call it "intersystemic conflict,"
"international conflict," whatever -- had on the course of the Soviet Union's development. While
it could be argued that capitalist economies also faced external pressures, that would miss the
question of how such pressures impact on a society in the process of formation . We're
talking about questions of constrained path dependence of a fundamental order that the experimentalist
mode of thinking misses. Etc, etc.
Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the choice
by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of developing a transitional
program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy under market socialism. What
from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over was in fact
a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the elite seizing
an opportunity to enrich themselves.
While it is essential to try to determine the viability of alternative economic systems in
comparison what we've got now, doing so without taking into account the tremendously destructive
opposition a transition would face is, in a way, to blithely continue on in a "Soviet Experiment"
mentality. It's obvious that people can enjoyably engage in cooperative behavior, but if they
can do so under a barrage is another matter. The one thing that we can be certain of is that if
capitalist elites aren't thoroughly demoralized they will do whatever they can to 'prove' TINA.
I was a little confused by this comment. I'm not opposed to looking at the impact
of external pressures, but I am opposed to treating them as monocausal.
Your preferred pattern of historical explanation shifts during the course of your comment.
When discussing the USSR in the process of formation, you concentrate on bringing out external
pressures and therefore considering the choices of the leadership as highly constrained. When
discussing the collapse of the Soviet Union, you instead stress the choices of the leadership
elite to "seize an opportunity to enrich themselves."
I'm not even sure why you would assume that your thesis about the elite choosing to engage
in looting is opposed to anything that I'm saying.
I agree with you on is that it is possible to think both about what a self-sustaining better
society might look like, and also the extent to which it's hard to get there within the constraints
of current power structures. They are not the same question, and I think both are worth pondering.
Although I only understood 33% of this, I'm thankful for how the author points out the common
forms of cherry-picking BS that both sides use when talking about communism.
If your only knowledge of communism came from the online left, you'd believe that it's never
once been tried before!
They talk about it like some religious Rapture that will someday come and fix all the problems,
not like a system that already has a proven track record. And it drives me nuts.
I mean, be a commie if you want to, but at least don't be a weasel about it.
Either say, "All those countries were awful dictatorships and that wasn't real communism anyway,"
(in which case it's on you to explain why YOUR post-revolutionary society will turn out different!)
or say, "Those countries were pretty rad actually, and I own the actions of the leaders," and
take the pushback that will result from THAT.
But whatever you do, please, don't just duck the issue by saying, "Well capitalism is bad too,
so whatever LOL"
p.s. thanks for explaining the Motte and Bailey argument – wish I'd known about it in college!
I enjoyed this post, Outis, even though I'm going to be a bit critical of it. I am pleased
to just to be able to talk about this stuff from time to time.
In Asimov's original Foundation stories, Hari Seldon devised an actual plan for the
future history of an empire.
But historical dialectical materialism is not a plan. It is a theory which one may use to develop
hypotheses.
Does Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection determine which species happen to survive?
Would evolution by natural selection fail to happen, if nobody ever wrote about it?
So why would Marx's theory of class struggle alter the course of history?
If one reads the Communist Manifesto , one finds that the work is almost entirely devoted
to the bourgeoisie and to the history of capitalism.
The bourgeoisie, after centuries of struggle against the nobility, the clergy, and the petty
bourgeoisie, at length became the dominant class in society. Obviously the bourgeoisie didn't
need Marx to help them do that!
Marx hypothesizes that for as long as the bourgeois class is what it is, and does what it does,
a class struggle will result in which proletarians will assume power.
Marx points out that the vast majority of the job of obliterating private property is actually
being performed by the bourgeois class themselves. Marx points out that most of the job of reducing
differences between nations is actually done by the bourgoisie. Marx points that it's the bourgeoisie
who dissolve traditional family institutions.
But that's observation and extrapolation, not a plan. For a revolutionary programme of the
proletariat, Marx only offers a short list of points to consider.
Little of the Manifesto is devoted to the subject of the proletariat. That's not surprising,
since proletarian history had scarcely begun.
For the sake of argument, ask yourself how much could one write about bourgeois history, or
bourgeois political prospects, in the 12th century? At that time the Occidental bourgeoisie was
in its political infancy. Few would imagine that these harried, oppressed, vulgar little burghers
would eventually become the dominant class in society. I mean, the whole notion would seem "not
even wrong."
It was difficult for Marx, and it is still difficult for us, to contemplate what a society
would look like, or what life would feel like, if the proletariat were the politically and culturally
dominant class. One only gets tantalizing glimpses, half-fanciful, such as Orwell's first impression
of Barcelona.
To extend my 12th century bourgeois analogy, it would be like trying to envision Planet Bourgeois,
based on a day trip to 12th century Venice.
Marx does offer brief critiques of those socialist programmes which do not focus on the proletarian
class.
For our present purposes, the most interesting of them is Marx's anticipation of the welfare
state, which he refers to as "bourgeois socialism."
For decades after WWII, many in the developed nations thought that the welfare states had solved
the worst problems of capitalism. I used to be one of them. But it took Marx just a single page
of the Communist Manifesto to raise, evaluate, and dismiss the idea.
"But historical dialectical materialism is not a plan. It is a theory which one may use
to develop hypotheses. Does Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection determine which
species happen to survive? Would evolution by natural selection fail to happen, if nobody ever
wrote about it?"
Well said! This is very close to the sort of defense that most MMT theorists deploy– when critics
decry the possible negative consequences of "adopting" their theory. "We are not proposing, merely
describing" is the refrain. I myself have never been a Marxist, yet I find the historical analysis
of some Marxist scholars quite perceptive. In my former life as a medievalist I often relied heavily
on excellent work, authored by conservative Catholics, without ever feeling the urge to become
one myself!
Thanks, Roland. Actually, I think your summary is pretty good, and it provides an opportunity
to clarify some things.
The Hari Seldon analogy is based on an idea of Marx that was often found in communist political
cultures. It's true that they didn't imagine that Marx had seen the precise path of the future
with the kind of mathematical precision that Seldon was supposed to have done.
However, I think the analogy still captures some noteworthy elements of how Marx was perceived.
If a key feature of Marxism is the idea that people do not understand the history they are building,
then Marx's role is to bring understanding into a world where it had been lacking. Whereas the
same scientific principles regulating the class struggle are supposed to have operated both before
and after Marx, before humanity was in the dark, but now it can choose to see. Similarly, Seldon's
psychohistory is supposed to have operated as a sort of natural principle both before and after
his lifetime, but once Seldon has revealed it, it becomes possible for an appropriate elite not
only to understand what is happening (the First Foundation, to some extent) but also to midwife
the process of bringing a new society into existence (the Second Foundation).
All of this touches on a point I made in the article. Once you describe the role of Marx as
it was often imagined within historical communist culture, it doesn't sound very Marxist. Nevertheless,
people did often imagine him that way. Systems of beliefs as actually held by people can often
be more complex and contradictory than their theoreticians would claim.
It was a long read to get to this point in the discussion. I would like to point out that all
economies are planned. The question is: what class is doing the planning? If the workers are not
doing the planning, then the first step toward socialism, a workers' state, does not exist or
it is degenerating rapidly. A workers' state must by it very nature be democratic when it is in
formation. If history kills the worker's state, then some other class based on private property,
share holding capitalism or a singular private property based on the state itself replaces the
workers' rule. You cannot get to socialism with our first having a workers state and you cannot
get to communism without first attaining socialism. This is basic Marxism. If you do not understand
this you will end up talking endlessly but get no where with in a truly Marxist frame work.
A little outside the box but I would recommend: The English and their History, by Robert Tombs.
Why? Because in Marx's own time England was the most industrialized and trade unionized country
in the world and Marx spent a lot of time there proselytizing to limited effect. Tombs makes a
wide ranging and sensitive study of Marx's intersection with British liberalism. It's a fascinating
read!
Outis, thanks for raising all of these issues for public discussion. There is no question that
a solid historical consideration of the communist experience in the 20th century is critical to
how we think about Marxism and many other leftist ideas and it a decidedly fraught terrain where
greater nuance is desperately needed.
I am surprised that you don't mention more recent historical scholarship on the Soviet Union
and the Eastern bloc countries, however. In your brief note on what you are currently reading
it seems that nearly all of the works are more than a half-century old. While such dustier tomes
are often invaluable, none of them benefited from the archival access, oral histories, and other
sources that have become much more widely available in the last 25 years. There was certainly
a lot of dogmatic work that came out in the years after communism fell–something like Fukuyama's
The End of History comes to mind as a quintessential example of that–but there were also many
serious scholars who did not necessarily have a strong ax to grind for or against communism, historical
or otherwise.
For example, I find the historian Stephen Kotkin's work to be quite nuanced without taking
a strong ideological stance. Originally a scholar of Stalinism who wrote on the construction of
a major steel plant in the Urals (Magnetic Mountain, 1995), he went on to also write books on
the collapse of the Soviet Union (Armageddon Averted) and the Eastern European bloc (Uncivil Society).
He has a new biography of Stalin coming out in phases, though I haven't read it yet. All of these
works emphasize what was in fact the close integration in many ways of the capitalist and communist
worlds. In the 1930s it was the crisis of capitalism that largely helped to preserve the appeal
of communism even as it was largely American firms that were being contracted to build socialist
factories and import equipment. In the later postwar years the price of oil was critical to understanding
some of the early successes and later extreme difficulties of the Soviet and Eastern bloc economy.
The collapse of the Eastern bloc had much to do with the comparison that socialism itself encouraged
people to make with capitalism by an increasing focus on consumer goods that the communist system
was woefully unable to produce.
All of this is by way of saying that the good historical work out there does not try to see
the communism of the 20th century as some kind of pure or corrupted manifestation of any ideological
system but, like every other kind of political upheaval, a complicated venture that was inseparable
from its many contexts–chief among them its place in a world global economic system and its self-definition
vis-a-vis the actually existing capitalism of its time. Susan Buck-Morss makes some of these points
in her book Dreamworld and Catastrophe on the similarities between the U.S. and USSR.
In any case, I hope my brief thoughts might help move the discussion of the minefield of historical
communism more firmly onto the terrain of actual history.
Thanks, etnograf. Furet's book is from 1995, and the interview with Castoriadis is from that
time, but as you say, some of the other books I'm interested in are from the 50s or earlier. I
enjoy reading books written in the heat of events, and so from far in the past, since you often
get plunged into a worldview that is curiously alien from the present. But often modern historical
scholarship is incredibly helpful, and I greatly appreciate your suggestions.
However, one thing that I hope was clear from the post is that I think that while looking into
some problems requires wide and careful reading, there are some fundamental questions that it
isn't wrong for people to discuss even if they aren't experts on current scholarship.
It is evident this writer has not even been close to live and understand many failed European
attempts by real grassroots leftists to significantly shape socioeconomic dynamics.
A excerpt: "Large numbers of intellectuals in France and Italy were convinced that the USSR
was a genuine incarnation of Left values (this implies nothing good about the historical left"
From the very 60s and 70s a good number of activists and intellectuals in several European
countries did not call the USSR communist, socialist or Marxist. There was a very clear term for
the USSR regime: Sovietism.
Also what most people do not realize is that Marx was extremely generous to capitalism from
many important angles. If you want me to illustrate, let me know.
Also the author would need to clarify his reference to Latin America, just in case he has forgot
what took place there in the 70s and 80s.
When I mentioned Latin America, I was referring specifically to the coup against Arbenz in
Guatemala (1973) and the coup against Allende in Chile (1973). I brought them up as genuine cases
where attempts to carry out left-oriented reforms were thwarted by external pressures and interventions.
The fact that Marx had good things to say about capitalism and saw a key role for it in the
way history moves forward is not disputed by anyone serious.
You do not understand the quote you are criticizing. If I say that large numbers of intellectuals
in France and Italy saw the USSR as part of the Left, you don't achieve anything for your argument
by claiming that there were "a good number" of "activists and intellectuals" who referred to the
USSR's regime as "Sovietism." The two statements aren't inconsistent in any way.
"When I mentioned Latin America, I was referring specifically to the coup against Arbenz in
Guatemala (1973) and the coup against Allende in Chile (1973). I brought them up as genuine cases
where attempts to carry out left-oriented reforms were thwarted by external pressures and interventions"
Yes, Kissinger knows one thing or two about it. I think that makes your, "one thinks of Latin
American countries that tried to institute various left-leaning social programs, and then, between
economic pressure and the threat of military subversion, ended up being pushed into the arms of
the USSR", much comprehensive. I appreciate it
"as well as much of the leadership of the 60s student movements, were convinced that the USSR
was a genuine incarnation of Left values."
Why do you think it was called the "New Left"? I was there, and that's not what I remember.
For one thing, most of us were very anti-authoritarian. Communism was seen archaic.
No, I wasn't a "student leader," nor was I close enough to any of the famous ones to know what
they thought. But I was immersed in the zeitgeist, and that wasn't it. For one thing, the Hungarian
and Tibetan uprisings were formative for a lot of us.
Not old enough! But see my comments addressing this point elsewhere (do a search on this page
on SDS). I can also provide more references if you're interested.
People have different experiences. I know some people who did live through that time and who
were pretty radical then. According to them, as they gradually over time grudgingly accepted that
the USSR/China/Cuba etc. were not everything they had imagined, their own politics became less
and less radical, more "liberal" or even "neoliberal." This is a kind of trajectory that I think
is not logically necessary, but important to understand.
I wasn't directly involved with SDS – just read about it.
I became a Green – arguably the tail of the New Left. I gather the German party has moved in
a more neoliberal direction, but the US and British parties have moved the opposite way.
I attended a college whose unofficial motto was "Atheism, Communism, and Free Love." Epate
les bourgeoisie, IOW. I don't remember much interest in actual communism, but I could be just
projecting. Free love, now, that was another matter. But that was 50 years ago.
So this is how one SDS leader at Stanford, Martin Bresnick, recalled his visit to Prague in
1970:
"Standing near the Charles Bridge we saw a worker whitewashing over a name that had been
painted on the pedestrian side of the bridge. It was the name of Jan Palach, the young student
who had burned himself to death the year before protesting the Soviet invasion. Whenever I
passed by I saw that someone had again painted Palach's name on the bridge during the night
and each day another worker was sent to whitewash over it.
In the evening we went to concerts at the Smetana Hall in the immense Municipal building.
It is difficult to describe what music meant to the Czechs then. The audience listened to everything
with the most focused attention imaginable and musicians played with a passion I had never
experienced.
In Prague, in 1970, all music seemed to be a testament of freedom, filled with unspoken
messages of defiance and resistance. When a work ended, the audience broke into wild applause,
wept, cheered, then eagerly spoke to each other in Czech, guessing the Soviet soldiers scattered
in the crowd could not understand them ."
Here is an excerpt from an email that a reader sent me, about an incident that happened two
years before the one you describe (with the brackets to protect his privacy):
In the summer of 1968 the SDS national office in Chicago sponsored a trip to Cuba (Met in
Houston Texas (Todd Gitlin was then the President of SDS) flew to Mexico City and then flew
to Havana/ ended up returning via Russian Freighter to Saint Johns Canada and then drove across
Canadian border back into U.S) [I and a friend] jointly decided to take advantage of this opportunity
to see up-close the Cuban revolution and also meet fellow SDSers Two years earlier I had helped
set-up an SDS chapter on my campus and had engaged in a series of demonstrations, and organizing
activities both on and off campus, primarily around anti-war protests of one type of another.
I would call my two previous years of organizing on my campus quite successful and I was personally
excited about meeting other members of SDS chapters from across the country from different
local campus or local community organizations, in order to swap organizing experiences and
gain and exchange political insights. A significant number of SDS members who were on that
trip to Cuba in the summer of 1968 had just been involved in the takeover of buildings at Columbia
University (April of 1968).
That Columbia grouping would later make up a significant portion of the Weatherman faction
that eventually took over and destroyed SDS.
A foreshadowing of that groupings increasingly rigid ideological politics took place during
on our trip in Cuba. Shortly after arriving in Havana in mid-August of 1968 the Russians invaded
Czechoslovakia and our SDS group got into a political debate about what our collective stance
was toward the Russian invasion. About 6 of us condemned the invasion, while the vast majority
of the approximately 45 SDSers (including most of the Columbia University faction supported
the Russian invasion). The next morning when our entire group was supposed to leave Havana
to begin our trip throughout Cuba–the six of us were told by a member of our SDS group that
we were to stay in Havana because we were considered politically unreliable by the majority
of our "comrades."
Our Cuban guides didn't appear to know what to do with us but after meeting with the Cubans
and explaining our political infighting they allowed us to rejoin the trip. Needless to say
most of the other SDS members were not happy to see us when we returned to the trip but there
was nothing they could do about it. The supreme irony about that incident was that one of the
most ideologically militant SDS members on that trip turned out to be an undercover FBI agent
who later gave testimony to Congressional committee about what had taken place during that
trip to Cuba.
I have zero first hand knowledge, but my impression is that the NewLeft romanticized Castro
and Ho Chi Minh and possibly Mao, but saw the Soviet Union as a failure.
No links offhand– it's just the impression I long have had. There were exceptions– the historian
who wrote some famous books o American slavery ( I am blanking on his name and his books) was
an admirer of the Soviet Union. This is all very fuzzy, but I think it is correct and fits in
with what others have said about New Left attitudes towards the Russian suppression of the Czech
revolt.
"Why do you think it was called the "New Left"? I was there, and that's not what I remember."
Well said! This huge discrepancy between the broad generalization that "much of the leadership
of the 60s student movements" were Soviet apologists, and the actual lived experience of those
of us born before 1965 is jarring, to say the least.
I remember well the years 1968 to 1975. My parents were strong anti-war activists and academics,
who hosted numerous student radicals at many social gatherings. I have no memory of any Soviet
apologists, yet recall distinctly many condemnations of 1956, 1968, and both sides in the Cold
War.
What are your recollections about attitudes toward Mao? As I recall from David Barber's book
A Hard Rain Fell: SDS and Why It Failed , the Black Panthers were certainly Maoists and
there were also others who preferred China to the USSR.
pre-internet, there was simply a great vacuum in marxist materials.(I looked). Late 80's one
could find a lot of post-punk nihilism in the head shops and vintage record stores in houston,
but nobody talked about marx or, really, even economics and politics.
Now, 35 years later, and out in the rural hill country of texas, I find that nobody wants to
talk about such things .aside from those who replace discourse with simple declaratory sentences.
The Taboo larded onto all things marx is still in the process of falling away. Reckon this
should be remembered and accounted for in all such discussions.
Marx and Engels were democrats first and then attached a theory of capitalism and socialism
to their democratic beliefs. They were right that the new industrial proletariat would become
the main social force in the fight for democratic rights against the autocratic and aristocratic
regimes of Europe, but their theory of capitalism and socialism was mistaken.
Lenin was also a democrat for thirty years and fought for a democratic republic before the
catastrophe of WWI and the Russian Revolution. Luxemburg's critique of Lenin's and Trotsky's authoritarianism
identifies the tragic ideological turning point in the history of Marxism.
To find what is still useful in Marxism, go back to its democratic values, not its theory of
history or theory of socialist revolution and economic planning. For Marx and Engels' role in
the democratic struggle in Europe, August Nimtz's recent work is clear and straightforward. For
Lenin's early democratic strategic thinking, Neil Harding's Lenin's Political Thought, Vol 1,
is essential. Finally, Barrington Moore's The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy provides
a better framework for understanding modern history than Marxism.
The central conflict in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries was not between capitalism and
socialism but between democracy and an authoritarianism rooted in agricultural elites dependent
on unfree labor. The Old Regime in Europe was finally destroyed by the Allied armies in WWII.
However, the struggle for democracy is not over and Moore's title is not quite accurate.
Moore's title should have been The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Constitutional Liberalism
because the United States is not a representative democracy based on one person one vote, the
monstrosity of the Senate being the main expression of this undemocratic structure. The primary
political goal in the United States is to establish democracy, and the history of Marxism is useful
in understanding the ideological and strategic aspects of that goal because for over seventy years
that was also the primary political goal of Marxism
I wish I had time to respond fully to this, because I think I helped trigger it in a prior
discussion and because I have, let's say, extensive priors.
Let me briefly state what I failed to make clear before: I think that society evolves in much
the same way that organisms do – that is, variation followed by "natural" selection. The big difference
results from the mode of transmission: genetics, in the case of biology, which evolves fairly
slowly; and culture, in the case of societies, which can evolve very quickly. Culture is learned,
so acquired traits are retained, unlike genetics (biologists have now discovered epigenetics,
a big exception to that rule), and furthermore are transmitted independent of reproduction.
Evolution, like life itself, is a feedback-controlled system that can appear to have a "mind
of its own." It's in that sense that I think most social change is "unconscious," even though
it depends on the conscious decisions of many participants. Note that markets, when they operate,
have the same characteristic. And because it's a characteristic of life itself, they can't be
eliminated, as the communist countries discovered.
On the other hand, I'm very materialist, in Marx's sense (if I understand it): livelihood and
survival are the ultimate determinants of social evolution – within bounds set by the initial
state (because that's how evolution works).
For me, all that goes back to a thesis I was working on in college. Unfortunately, I broke
down and dropped out, not because of the thesis, so it wasn't finished, and I don't know what
anthropologists presently think. Social evolution is the reason Dawkins invented the term "meme":
the unit of cultural transmission.
That's what I meant when I wrote that Darwin – evolution – had superseded the dialectic.
I'll try to come back and respond to some of the economics questions (yeah, I know, everybody's
holding their breath), but I right now I need to go to work.
Robert Asprey's War In the Shadows, the Guerilla in History, Vol II might be good
survey reading for your project. He has a thesis of historical Leninism and Maosim as method applied
in partisan struggles that might prove enlightning; especially on the Eastern Front of WWII and
in Yugoslav history (Vol I is a long tactical and strategic evaluation of the conflict and police
action in Vietnam that set the question Vol II tried to answer, and won't help you with your questions).
Carl Schmitt's Theory of the Partisan is a very accessible and serious theoretical
look at internationalist communism, particularly during WWII. This work of Schmitt's later deeply
influenced Laclau and Mouffe's work on building left populism in Latin America and Europe.
For a little lighter, but still useful, reading, Gary Brecher's The War Nerd collects
his irreverent, proto-dirtbag left columns from the Russian alternative rag The Exile. Some of
his work on Chechen history under Stalinism, Nepali Maoist guerillas, and Albanian bunkers might
be instructive.
I'm left, but often the left has a poor understanding of itself. Asprey was a US career army
officer who was deeply concerned about the Vietnam police action, Schmitt an influential Weimar
and Nazi German conservative jurist and legal scholar, "Dolan" a satirist and former rhetoric
professor expat from the US in '90s Russia.
Historical minefield, for sure. This is anecdotal about 60's 70's US new left, but I think
generally accurate. One core group was the red diaper babies, children of CPUSA or sympathizers.
Inheriting aspects of parents experience, frequently in the leadership of the left CIO unions.
Ahead of everyone else in terms of understanding Marxism due to anti-communist era. Splits in
this group vis a vis Kruschev outing Stalin.
SDS split along Progressive Labor and anti-imperialist lines. PL evolved out of Teamsters labor
struggles in Minneapolis and had Trotskyist bent. The imperialism thesis derived from the Lenin
work.
By the mid 70's you had a terrorist bent and what was generally conceived as a new party building
movement (CP) that was Maoist oriented. The big dog in the Bay Area was the Revolutionary Union
who established proletarian cred by getting the still widely available industrial jobs in the
area. Then there were a bunch of sects with various core beliefs.
This is leaving aside the black struggles of the period. Naturally the polntless nature of
the party building got to most people, though some still soldier on. Obviously no such group has
anywhere near the influence that CPUSA had.
"... While I respect the author for raising this topic, he seems to fall into "assessment of the Soviet Experiment" mode in a careless way. I realize I tend to repetition about this, but it is terribly misleading -- perhaps "disorienting" would be a better term -- to discuss theses questions without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures -- call it "intersystemic conflict," "international conflict," whatever -- had on the course of the Soviet Union's development. While it could be argued that capitalist economies also faced external pressures, that would miss the question of how such pressures impact on a society in the process of formation ..."
"... Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the choice ..."
"... What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves. ..."
"... It's obvious that people can enjoyably engage in cooperative behavior, but if they can do so under a barrage is another matter. The one thing that we can be certain of is that if capitalist elites aren't thoroughly demoralized they will do whatever they can to 'prove' TINA. ..."
"... West had spent several billion dollars in cash to bribe significant portions of the Soviet elite (Soros, via his foundation, was especially active). And large part of the elite war already poisoned by neoliberalism and wanted to become rich. So while pre-conditions for the collapse of the USSR were internal (communist ideology was actually discredited in early 70th; economic stagnation started around the same time, Communist Party leadership completely degraded and became a joke in 80th ), external pressures and subversive activity played the role of catalyst that made the process irreversible. ..."
While I respect the author for raising this topic, he seems to fall into "assessment of
the Soviet Experiment" mode in a careless way. I realize I tend to repetition about this, but
it is terribly misleading -- perhaps "disorienting" would be a better term -- to discuss theses
questions without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures -- call it "intersystemic
conflict," "international conflict," whatever -- had on the course of the Soviet Union's development.
While it could be argued that capitalist economies also faced external pressures, that would miss
the question of how such pressures impact on a society in the process of formation .
We're talking about questions of constrained path dependence of a fundamental order that the experimentalist
mode of thinking misses. Etc, etc.
Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the
choice by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of developing
a transitional program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy under market socialism.
What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over
was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the
elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves.
While it is essential to try to determine the viability of alternative economic systems in
comparison what we've got now, doing so without taking into account the tremendously destructive
opposition a transition would face is, in a way, to blithely continue on in a "Soviet Experiment"
mentality.
It's obvious that people can enjoyably engage in cooperative behavior, but if they can
do so under a barrage is another matter. The one thing that we can be certain of is that if capitalist
elites aren't thoroughly demoralized they will do whatever they can to 'prove' TINA.
I was a little confused by this comment. I'm not opposed to looking at the impact
of external pressures, but I am opposed to treating them as monocausal.
Your preferred pattern of historical explanation shifts during the course of your comment.
When discussing the USSR in the process of formation, you concentrate on bringing out external
pressures and therefore considering the choices of the leadership as highly constrained. When
discussing the collapse of the Soviet Union, you instead stress the choices of the leadership
elite to "seize an opportunity to enrich themselves."
I'm not even sure why you would assume that your thesis about the elite choosing to engage
in looting is opposed to anything that I'm saying.
I agree with you on is that it is possible to think both about what a self-sustaining better
society might look like, and also the extent to which it's hard to get there within the constraints
of current power structures. They are not the same question, and I think both are worth pondering.
"Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the choice
by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of developing a transitional
program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy under market socialism.
What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over
was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the
elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves. "
West had spent several billion dollars in cash to bribe significant portions of the Soviet
elite (Soros, via his foundation, was especially active). And large part of the elite war already
poisoned by neoliberalism and wanted to become rich. So while pre-conditions for the collapse
of the USSR were internal (communist ideology was actually discredited in early 70th; economic
stagnation started around the same time, Communist Party leadership completely degraded and became
a joke in 80th ), external pressures and subversive activity played the role of catalyst that
made the process irreversible.
The fact that neoliberalism was rising at the time means that this was the worst possible time
for the USSR to implement drastic economic reforms and sure mediocre politicians like Gorbachev
quickly lost control of the process. With some important help of the West.
The subsequent economic rape of Russia was incredibly brutal and most probably well coordinated
by the famous three letter agencies: CIA (via USAID and "Harvard mafia") ) and MI6 and their German
and French counterparts. See
Brain drain, especially to the USA and Israel was simply incredible. Which, while good for
professionals leaving (although tales of Russian Ph.D swiping malls are not uncommon, especially
in Israel ) , who can earn much better money abroad, is actually another form of neocolonialism
for the countries affected:
It was a tragically missed opportunity to try genuine socialism. Instead of essentially selling
the state enterprises to the Mafia, they could have been GIVEN, probably broken up, to the workers
in them. It would have been instant worker-owned, market regulated – what? We don't have a familiar
name for it, but it might be what Marx meant by "socialism."
Ironically, the Bolsheviks first set up such co-operatives, called soviets, but soon seized
them in favor of state ownership. End of the socialist experiment. It's quite possible they were
far more Russian than Marxist.
The US economy hit a wall in the 70s. Instead of readjusting internally, it used its reserve
currency and global exploitation to gain an extra few decades of consumerism. If exploitation
is acceptable, then we could say that capitalism wins. However, capitalism will work until there
is nothing left to exploit.
In the meantime, the USSR was set up in a way where it could not follow
IMO, left leaning theoretical communism would have trouble surviving when in competition with
a system based on short-termism such as capitalism. This competition against short-termism would
force the communist country to turn into a form of fascism just to stop the opportunists which
happen to have the skills from defecting.
While in the Peace Corps serving in Africa (after 2010), I had a former military doctor (originally
from Moldavia) who I'd see due to ongoing health issues. He served in Angola as a doctor during
the civil wars and had pictures of the people he helped who were injured in the war. He was hands
down the most competent doctor I saw who was employed by the PC. This was by a wide margin of
competence too. I had not illusions about the Peace Corps and it purpose (to put the kind face
on US empire?). We'd talk quite a bit, and he was still bitter about the collapse of the Soviet
Union, and Gorbachev who he blamed for its demise, due to the lower standards of living and hardships
now faced by many in the Eastern bloc and in Russia itself. In all honesty, though I identify
with the far Left, this was new to me since I never realized that anyone would long for those
days since all I ever heard about as a youth (due to propaganda of course) was about long bread
lines and the gray world of the lives of those in the Soviet Union. Kukezel's comments above,
and other information I have gained over the time had somewhat expanded my ideas and understanding
regarding the system, as have my growing understanding of just how unjust our system in the US
is becoming more unjust year after year.
I am not knowledgeable enough, possibly not smart enough, to understand the finer points of
the discussion here concerning Marx, but I do think it possible for we as a species to create
better systems to organize our world other than one predicated on the profit motive. Besides being
unsustainable in a world of finite resources and the possibility that we humans will destroy the
possibility to exist, we need to creatively try new forms of organization. The problem with the
concentration of power of present day capitalism is that it seems so adaptable to new ways to
effectively change. I know some Marx but am limited, but he was very impressed with capitalism's
way to adapt to preserve itself.
Unfortunately, at times I become too cynical about the ability of the human species intellect
and abitlity to go beyond short-term solutions. We just may not be able to get past our limitations
as a creature. In short, I just don't know if we are smart enough to do what is best for survival.
Like my Peace Corps doctor, I too sometimes wax nostalgic for a past that will never return, back
to the sixties when it seemed the distribution of wealth was more egalitarian, unions brought
about some economic justice, and the concentration of power and wealth was not so dramatic as
it is today. I just never know if I was too blind, or deluded, at the time to see that maybe those
weren't actually better times in that the system itself was built upon the same exploitation has
existed in all of US history. So all this good discussion at times brings me back to the question–is
our historical evolution not far enough along a continuum for us to change before it is too late?
That's a bummer of a thought, I know, but the present political manifestations keep blunting any
optimism I still possess.
I too sometimes wax nostalgic for a past that will never return, back to the sixties when
it seemed the distribution of wealth was more egalitarian, unions brought about some economic
justice, and the concentration of power and wealth was not so dramatic as it is today.
That was "white priveledge" back then. It's passing is what led to Trump and the epidemic of
homelessness.
"... All of these works emphasize what was in fact the close integration in many ways of the capitalist and communist worlds. In the 1930s it was the crisis of capitalism that largely helped to preserve the appeal of communism even as it was largely American firms that were being contracted to build socialist factories and import equipment. In the later postwar years the price of oil was critical to understanding some of the early successes and later extreme difficulties of the Soviet and Eastern bloc economy. ..."
Outis, thanks for raising all of these issues for public discussion. There is no question
that a solid historical consideration of the communist experience in the 20th century is
critical to how we think about Marxism and many other leftist ideas and it a decidedly
fraught terrain where greater nuance is desperately needed.
I am surprised that you don't mention more recent historical scholarship on the Soviet
Union and the Eastern bloc countries, however. In your brief note on what you are currently
reading it seems that nearly all of the works are more than a half-century old. While such
dustier tomes are often invaluable, none of them benefited from the archival access, oral
histories, and other sources that have become much more widely available in the last 25
years. There was certainly a lot of dogmatic work that came out in the years after communism
fell–something like Fukuyama's The End of History comes to mind as a quintessential
example of that–but there were also many serious scholars who did not necessarily have
a strong ax to grind for or against communism, historical or otherwise.
For example, I find the historian Stephen Kotkin's work to be quite nuanced without taking
a strong ideological stance. Originally a scholar of Stalinism who wrote on the construction
of a major steel plant in the Urals (Magnetic Mountain, 1995), he went on to also write books
on the collapse of the Soviet Union (Armageddon Averted) and the Eastern European bloc
(Uncivil Society). He has a new biography of Stalin coming out in phases, though I haven't
read it yet.
All of these works emphasize what was in fact the close integration in many ways of
the capitalist and communist worlds. In the 1930s it was the crisis of capitalism that
largely helped to preserve the appeal of communism even as it was largely American firms that
were being contracted to build socialist factories and import equipment. In the later postwar
years the price of oil was critical to understanding some of the early successes and later
extreme difficulties of the Soviet and Eastern bloc economy.
The collapse of the Eastern bloc had much to do with the comparison that socialism itself
encouraged people to make with capitalism by an increasing focus on consumer goods that the
communist system was woefully unable to produce.
All of this is by way of saying that the good historical work out there does not try to
see the communism of the 20th century as some kind of pure or corrupted manifestation of any
ideological system but, like every other kind of political upheaval, a complicated venture
that was inseparable from its many contexts – chief among them its place in a world
global economic system and its self-definition vis-a-vis the actually existing capitalism of
its time. Susan Buck-Morss makes some of these points in her book Dreamworld and Catastrophe
on the similarities between the U.S. and USSR.
In any case, I hope my brief thoughts might help move the discussion of the minefield of
historical communism more firmly onto the terrain of actual history.
"... After the processes of industrialization and urbanization had completely, there was nowhere for the economy to go, and the low growth combined with the ossification of bureacratic structures and the entrenchment of the World War II generation in power meant a lack of job opportunities. All of this contributed to the malaise that killed productivity and increased alcoholism, creating a self-feedback loop. Yeltsin and his cronies calculated that if the USSR transitioned to a capitalist economy, they stood to make a lot of money, so they met in secret and agreed to its dissolution. The public wanted reform, but they didn't want full-blown capitalism, certainly not of the variety Russia saw in the 90's. ..."
"... Especially considering the fact that Marx was arguably the greatest thinker of the modern era and his contributions were not at all limited to the 'isms' that people fought for in his name, I think a much better topic for a post would have been "common Cold War misconceptions about Russia and Marxism." ..."
I would rather live in Cuba than in Haiti, and the country's economic performance is all
the more impressive considering the economic warfare wrought upon it by the US.
48% of Russians regret the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the second largest political
party in Russia after Putin's is the Communist Party (article from The Nation circa 2012).
And this isn't a political party claiming to bring about a new socialist society but rather
one that promises to bring back the communism of the Brezhnev era.
Russia was a backwards country at the beginning of World War I and saw its industry
annihilated by the war. The peace treaty ceded its industrial heartlands, and then it was
ripped apart by the civil war of the 1920's. But this didn't compare to World War II, which
wiped out an entire generation of Russians.
Yet within 12 years of the war's end, they were the first to put an object into space, and
four years later they were the first to put a human into orbit. They Americans, who had been
unscathed by the war, were blessed with nearly unlimited natural resources and had the most
powerful economy and military in in history, saw their attempt blow up on the launchpad.
At this time in America, people actually thought socialism might win out. The Soviets
certainly thought so. In the first two decades after World War II, their economy was probably
the fastest growing in history. They were so confident that their system was superior that
they assumed they could beat the American capitalists in every way, including providing the
general populace with consumer goods. This promise, made during the "Kitchen Debates" and
throughout the 60's and 70's, when the government officially embraced consumerism, was a
horrible miscalculation that eventually contributed greatly to the public's discontent with
the regime.
After the processes of industrialization and urbanization had completely, there was
nowhere for the economy to go, and the low growth combined with the ossification of
bureacratic structures and the entrenchment of the World War II generation in power meant a
lack of job opportunities. All of this contributed to the malaise that killed productivity
and increased alcoholism, creating a self-feedback loop. Yeltsin and his cronies calculated
that if the USSR transitioned to a capitalist economy, they stood to make a lot of money, so
they met in secret and agreed to its dissolution. The public wanted reform, but they didn't
want full-blown capitalism, certainly not of the variety Russia saw in the 90's.
Especially considering the fact that Marx was arguably the greatest thinker of the modern
era and his contributions were not at all limited to the 'isms' that people fought for in his
name, I think a much better topic for a post would have been "common Cold War misconceptions
about Russia and Marxism."
This is supposed to be a heterodox economics blog but it's always from the Keynesian
perspective and never from the Marxist. Considering Keynes's thoughts on the Labour Party,
for one, I think more perspectives are needed in informing discussion on how to approach
questions of social justice. Marxian economists predicted the crisis just as well as the
Keynesians. Let's listen.
"... What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves. ..."
While I respect the author for raising this topic, he seems to fall into "assessment of
the Soviet Experiment" mode in a careless way. I realize I tend to repetition about this, but
it is terribly misleading -- perhaps "disorienting" would be a better term -- to discuss theses
questions without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures -- call it
"intersystemic conflict," "international conflict," whatever -- had on the course of the
Soviet Union's development. While it could be argued that capitalist economies also faced
external pressures, that would miss the question of how such pressures impact on a
society in the process of formation
. We're talking about questions of constrained
path dependence of a fundamental order that the experimentalist mode of thinking misses. Etc,
etc.
Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the
choice
by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of
developing a transitional program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy
under market socialism. What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a
necessary start-over was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended
outcome, of a section of the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves.
While it is essential to try to determine the viability of alternative economic systems in
comparison what we've got now, doing so without taking into account the tremendously
destructive opposition a transition would face is, in a way, to blithely continue on in a
"Soviet Experiment" mentality. It's obvious that people can enjoyably engage in cooperative
behavior, but if they can do so under a barrage is another matter. The one thing that we can
be certain of is that if capitalist elites aren't thoroughly demoralized they will do
whatever they can to 'prove' TINA.
I was a little confused by this comment. I'm not
opposed
to looking at the impact
of external pressures, but I am opposed to treating them as monocausal.
Your preferred pattern of historical explanation shifts during the course of your comment.
When discussing the USSR in the process of formation, you concentrate on bringing out
external pressures and therefore considering the choices of the leadership as highly
constrained. When discussing the collapse of the Soviet Union, you instead stress the choices
of the leadership elite to "seize an opportunity to enrich themselves."
I'm not even sure why you would assume that your thesis about the elite choosing to engage
in looting is opposed to anything that I'm saying.
I agree with you on is that it is possible to think both about what a self-sustaining
better society might look like, and also the extent to which it's hard to get there within
the constraints of current power structures. They are not the same question, and I think both
are worth pondering.
"Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the
choice by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of
developing a transitional program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy
under market socialism.
What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over
was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of
the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves.
"
West had spent several billion dollars in cash to bribe significant portions of the Soviet
elite (Soros, via his foundation, was especially active). And large part of the elite war
already poisoned by neoliberalism and wanted to become rich. So while pre-conditions for the
collapse of the USSR were internal (communist ideology was actually discredited in early
70th; economic stagnation started around the4 same time, Communist Party leadership
completely degraded and became a joke in 80th ), external pressures and subversive activity
played the role of catalyst that make the process irreversible.
The fact that neoliberalism was rising at the time means that this was the worst possible
time for the USSR to implement drastic economic reforms and sure mediocre politicians like
Gorbachev quickly lost control of the process. With some important help of the West.
The subsequent economic rape of Russia was incredibly brutal and most probably well
coordinated by the famous three letter agencies: CIA (via USAID and "Harvard mafia") ), MI6 and their German and French counterparts. See
Brain drain, especially to the USA and Israel was simply incredible. Which, while good for
professionals leaving (although tales of Russian Ph.D swiping malls are not uncommon,
especially in Israel ) , who can earn much better money abroad, is actually another form of
neocolonialism for the countries affected:
Putin's biggest mistake was not creating the fake two party system. America has given the world many gifts, and our system
of party politics is one of the best for maintaining control of a large nation. If Vlad had followed this advice, and created
the real illusion of democracy in Russia, the West would have found him much harder to oppose.
Article is by Gessen, and clearly biased against Russia, but I think the idea is still a good one.
Putin has arguably aged badly as a leader, and considers himself too indispensable, much like Jiang Zemin in China. Though
by Russian standards, he's the best since Alexander II.
Dutch disease is another mark against Russia, which Putin hasn't done much about, and which arguably makes them more dependent
on the West (and possibly China) than they should be.
The article above also doesn't mention Larry Summers, which is a profound insight to which particular businessmen got away
with it.
The only thing that Russia wanted from Ukraine is not to allow themselves to become threat to Russia by joining NATO. Ukraine,
having wasted all other options for normal development, couldn't resist taking the offer of cashing in on becoming a threat
to Russia. Ukraine tries to justify this based on some past historical grievances from the 1930's.
What total lunacy and hippocracy. Do I really need to remind you that before 2014 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, NATO membership
was not a popular option for most Ukrainians. But now, after the deceitful land grab by Russia of Crimea and three years of proxy
directed war in Donbas orchestrated in Moscow, most Ukrainians now look favorably towards NATO membership. Latest polls show that
55.9% o Ukrainians now favor NATO integration (I think that pre 2014 it was less than 15%) and 66.4% now favor EU integration.
You reap what you sew, Putinista fanboys. Bye, bye 'NovoRossiya'! http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2017/06/17/7147228/ The engine
that drove the US into an economic power house was decades of violating free market principles
The engine that drove German economic success was being bailed out by the US right after WW2..
Considering that Russia was gang-raped by Bill Clinton's Oligarch friends .a gang rape that caused a demographic collapse of
the Russian population .Russia's subsequent recovery has been miraculous
OOPS These comments were meant for Priss Factor not Mr. Hack
"... The reasoning was simple and is not hard to understand: Carthago delenda est. ..."
"... In a way McCain can be viewed now as a caricature of the Roman senator Cato the Elder, who is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches. ..."
Your discussion just again had shown that there is no economics, only a political economy.
And all those neoliberal perversions, which are sold as an economic science is just an apologetics
for the financial oligarchy.
Apologetics of plunder in this particular case.
In a way the USSR with its discredited communist ideology, degenerated Bolshevik leadership
(just look at who was at the Politburo of CPSU at the time; people much lower in abilities then
Trump :-) and inept and politically naïve Mikhail Gorbachev at the helm had chosen the most inopportune
time to collapse :-)
And neoliberal vultures instantly circled the corpse and have had a feast. Geopolitical goals
of the USA also played important role in amplifying the scope of plunder.
No comparison of performance of Russia vs. China makes any sense if it ignores this fact.
While I would argue with the economic advice given the Russian government after 1988, I am simply
trying to understand the reasoning behind the advice, no more than that.
The reasoning was simple and is not hard to understand: Carthago delenda est.
In a way McCain can be viewed now as a caricature of the Roman senator Cato the Elder,
who is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches.
History repeats "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
Unfortunatly Russia has its own fifth column of "Chicago boys" (called Chubasyata) to implement those distarous for common people
measures
What Russia needed at the time was a Marshall plan. Instead Clinton mefia (Which at the very top included Rubin and Summers) adopted
the plan to plunder and colonize Russia. It did not work.
Structural factors in the economic reforms of China, Eastern Europe, and the Former Soviet Union
By Jeffrey Sachs and Wing Thye Woo
Discussion
By Stanley Fischer - Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The facts with which Jeffrey Sachs and Wing Woo have to contend are, first, that Chinese economic reform has been successful in
producing extraordinary growth - the greatest increase in economic well-being within a 15-year period in all of history (perhaps
excluding the period after the invention of fire); but second, that reform in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union (EEFSU)
has been accompanied not by growth but by massive output declines (in countries that are reforming as well as in those, such as Ukraine,
which are not).
The interpretation of these facts with which they have to contend is that Chinese reform - described variously as piecemeal, pragmatic,
bottom-up, or gradual - has been successful because it has been gradualist and EEFSU reform has failed because it has applied shock
treatment. The conclusion is that EEFSU should have pursued a gradualist reform strategy, perhaps one that started with economic
rather than political reform. Many also imply that there is still time for gradualism.
Sachs and Woo reject the view that economic reform in EEFSU should have been gradualist, though they do approve of the gradualist
Chinese approach to the creation of a non-state industrial sector. They argue that the structure of the economy was responsible for
the success of the Chinese reform strategy, and that there are no useful lessons for EEFSU from the Chinese case.
Reform in China started in an economy in which 80 percent of the population was rural, in which planning had never been pervasive,
and in which economic control was in any case quite decentralized. Further, Chinese industrial growth has come largely from new firms,
largely town and village enterprises, and there has been no reform of the state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector. In EEFSU by contrast,
the industrial sector was extremely large, and there was no hope of starting a significant private sector without restructuring industry.
The authors make this argument with the aid of a model, basically one that says that the private sector in a reforming EEFSU economy
is so heavily taxed that it does not pay an individual to move to that sector from the subsidized industrial sector. In China by
contrast, agricultural reform freed up labour whose opportunity cost was below the earnings available in the industrial private (or
at least TVE) sector - and in addition, because the SOE sector was relatively small, the industrial private sector was taxed less
than in EEFSU. The model is linear and ignores uncertainty, but there can be no doubt that it is very difficult to start new firms
in much of EEFSU. That, more than the earnings of an individual already in that sector, seems to be the equivalent of the tax that
Sachs and Woo include; indeed, earnings for those who succeed in moving to the private sector are typically higher than they are
in the state sector.
Sachs and Woo also argue that the data exaggerate China's success and EEFSU's output declines. I was initially inclined to discount
this argument, but now believe it has a real basis, and that all that needs doing is to fill in the numbers....
Reading the paper by Samuel Marden, which was important in understanding the economic transformation of China, was also an important
experience in understanding why Jeffrey Sachs, Wing Thye Woo and Stanley Fischer expressly rejected the Chinese experience in
looking to a development model for the Soviet Union as the Soviet Union was geographically transformed.
The Chinese development model worked dramatically well, the Soviet model that Sachs, Wing and Fischer supported was as dramatically
disruptive and self-defeating.
"... If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing houses (and assuming, of course, that Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the rest of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could say "Jonathan Hay." ..."
"... Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who control our lives, was the general director of the Harvard Institute of International Development (HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian economy and the plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer (HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks and investment houses in Boston and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. ..."
"... These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers, now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant millionaires (or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign investors. ..."
"... Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work with, they ignored - or shunned - the most capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke and his disciple, Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism would collapse. Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities. ..."
"... On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression, taxation and war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, the Balkans, and other countries, and how it uses its control over money to produce social chaos. ..."
"... Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank" was designed to plunder the wealth of America through war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less than a giant pyramid scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources. ..."
"... The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the policy implementers - Williamson employs the derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by the thousands (the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances, renting out the finest dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution businesses, and then watching, cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the artistic heritage of the country. ..."
"... Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father, of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s daughter married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote anti-czarist political agitation for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin upon his successful revolution. ..."
"... By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little vibrations on Capitol Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical Bill Clinton bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson. ..."
"... The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year period, Williamson notes, is more than $180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international public lenders have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices." ..."
"... As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded last year, with the attendant Bank of New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock market, and the whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings. ..."
"... What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings that barely rose above the seriousness of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively make banks another federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial transactions of U.S. citizens. ..."
"... In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau, or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would show far more professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury secretary] Larry Summers, Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who oversaw the distribution and sale of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member of the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998. ..."
"... And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this year] announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment was made to him from a secret Kremlin bank account? . . . ..."
"... You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared. ..."
After 1991 Eastern Europe and FSU were mercilessly looted. That was tremendous one time transfer
of capital (and scientists and engineers) to Western Europe and the USA. Which helped to secure
"Clinton prosperity period"
China were not plundered by the West. Russia and Eastern Europe were. That's the key difference.
For Russia this period was called by Anne Williamson in her testimony before the Committee
on Banking and Financial Services of the United States House of Representatives "The economic
rape of Russia"
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia by Paul Likoudis
May 4, 2000
The other day I was surprised to learn that Jeffrey Sachs, the creator of "shock therapy"
capitalism, who participated in the looting of Russia in the 1990s, is now NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo's
top adviser for health care. So we in NY will get shock therapy, much as the Russians did two
decades ago. Here is a story I wrote for The Wanderer in 2000:
===
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia
by Paul Likoudis
In an ordinary election year, Anne Williamson's Contagion would be political dynamite, a
bombshell, a block-buster, a regime breaker.
If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing
houses (and assuming, of course, that Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book
would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the rest
of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could
say "Jonathan Hay."
Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who
control our lives, was the general director of the Harvard Institute of International Development
(HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian economy and the
plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by
Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer (HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish
sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks and investment houses in Boston
and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Contagion can be read on many different levels.
At its simplest, it is a breezy, slightly cynical, highly entertaining narrative of Russian
history from the last months of Gorbachev's rule to April 2000 - a period which saw Russia
transformed from a decaying socialist economy (which despite its shortcomings, provided a modest
standard of living to its citizens) to a "managed economy" where home-grown gangsters and socialist
theoreticians from the West, like Hay and his fellow Harvardian Jeffrey Sachs, delivered 2,500%
inflation and indescribable poverty, and transferred the ownership of Russian industry to Western
financiers.
Williamson was an eyewitness who lived on and off in Russia for more than ten years, where
she reported on all things Russian for The New York Times, Th e Wall Street Journal, and a
host of other equally reputable publications. She knew and interviewed just about everybody
involved in this gargantuan plundering scheme: Russian politicians and businessmen, the new
"gangster" capitalists and their American sponsors from the IMF, the World Bank, USAID, Credit
Suisse First Boston, the CIA, the KGB - all in all, hundreds of sources who spoke candidly,
often ruthlessly, of their parts in this terrible human drama.
Her account is filled with quotations from interviews with top aides of Yeltsin and Clinton,
all down through the ranks of the two hierarchical societies to the proliferating mass of Russian
destitute, pornographers, pimps, drug dealers, and prostitutes. Some of the principal characters,
of course, refused to talk to Williamson, such as Bill Clinton's longtime friend from Oxford,
Strobe Talbott, now a deputy secretary of state and, Williamson suspects, a onetime KGB operative
whose claim to fame is a deceitful translation of the Khrushchev Memoirs. (A KGB colonel refused
to confirm or deny to Williamson that Clinton and Talbott visited North Vietnam together in
1971 - though he did confirm their contacts with the KGB for their protests against the U.S.
war in Vietnam in Moscow. See especially footnote 1, page 210.)
The 546-page book (the best part of which is the footnotes) gives a nearly day-by-day report
on what happened to Russia; left unstated, but implied on every page, is the assumption that
those in the United States who think what happened in Russia "can't happen here" better realize
it can happen here.
Once the Clinton regime and its lapdogs in the media defined Russian thug Boris Yeltsin
as a "democrat," the wholesale looting of Russia began. According to the socialist theoreticians
at Harvard, Russia needed to be brought into the New World Order in a hurry; and what better
way to do it than Sachs' "shock therapy" - a plan that empowered the degenerate, third-generation
descendants of the original Bolsheviks by assigning them the deeds of Russia's mightiest state-owned
industries - including the giant gas, oil, electrical, and telecommunications industries, the
world's largest paper, iron, and steel factories, the world's richest gold, silver, diamond,
and platinum mines, automobile and airplane factories, etc. - who, in turn, sold some of their
shares of the properties to Westerners for a song, and pocketed the cash, while retaining control
of the companies.
These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson
of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers,
now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant millionaires
(or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign
investors.
When Russian members of the Supreme Soviet openly criticized the looting of the national
patrimony by these new gangsters early in the U.S.-driven "reform" program, in 1993, before
all Soviet institutions were destroyed, Yeltsin bombed Parliament.
Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work
with, they ignored - or shunned - the most capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists
who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke and his disciple,
Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism
would collapse. Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit
of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities.
In the new, emerging global economy, it's clear that Russia is the designated center for
heavy manufacturing - just as Asia is for clothing and computers - with its nearly unlimited
supply of hydroelectric power, iron and steel, timber, gold and other precious metals.
This helps explain why America's political elites don't give a fig about the closing down
of American industries and mines. As Williamson observes, Russia is viewed as some kind of
"closet."
What is important for Western readers to understand - as Williamson reports - is that when
Western banks and corporations bought these companies at bargain basement prices, they bought
more than just industrial equipment. In the Soviet model, every unit of industrial production
included workers' housing, churches, opera houses, schools, hospitals, supermarkets, etc.,
and the whole kit-and-caboodle was included in the selling price. By buying large shares of
these companies, Western corporations became, ipso facto, town managers.
Another Level
On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation
of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts
on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression, taxation and
war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia,
the Balkans, and other countries, and how it uses its control over money to produce social
chaos.
Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of
the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank" was designed to plunder the wealth of America through
war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less than a giant pyramid
scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources.
Williamson is of that small but noble school of economics writers who believe that the academic
field of economics is not some esoteric science that can only be comprehended by those with
IQs in four digits, and she - drawing on such writers as Hayek and von Mises, Roepke and the
late American Murray Rothbard - explains in layman's vocabulary the nuts and bolts of sound
economic principles and the real-world effects of the Fed's policies on hapless Americans.
Contagion also serves up a severe indictment of the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, and the other international "lending" agencies spawned by the Council on Foreign Relations
and similar "councils" and "commissions" which are fronts for the big banks run by the Houses
of Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, et al.
The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the
policy implementers - Williamson employs the derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed
ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by the thousands
(the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances,
renting out the finest dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for
goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution businesses, and then watching,
cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the
artistic heritage of the country.
Williamson describes brilliantly that heady atmosphere in Moscow in the early days of the
IMF/USAID loan-scamming: a 24-hour party. There were bars like the Canadian-operated Hungry
Duck, which lured Russian teenage girls into its bar with a male striptease and free drinks,
"who, once thoroughly intoxicated, were then exposed to crowds of anxious young men the club
admitted only late in the evening."
The Third Level
At a third and more intriguing level, Contagion is about America's criminal politics in
the Clinton regime, and, inevitably, the reader will put Williamson's book down with the sense
that Al Gore will be the next occupier of the White House.
Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father,
of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for
Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s daughter
married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote
anti-czarist political agitation for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin
upon his successful revolution.
Williamson also documents Gore's intimate involvement with powerful Wall Street financial
houses, and his New York breakfast meeting with multibillionaire George Soros (a key Russian
player) just as the Russian collapse was underway.
Williamson tells an interesting story of Gore's response to the IMF/World Bank/USAID plunder
of U.S. taxpayers for the purpose of hobbling Russia.
By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of
billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian
and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little vibrations on Capitol
Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical
Bill Clinton bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling
ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error
and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson.
"Pundits and academics joined government officials in bemoaning Mother Russia's thieving
ways, her bottomless corruption and constant chaos, all the while wringing their soft hands
with a schoolmarm's exasperation. Russia's self-appointed democracy coach Strobe Talbott ('Pro-Consul
Strobe' to the Russians) would get it right. An equally sanctimonious Albert Gore - the same
Al Gore who'd been so quick to return the CIA's 1995 report detailing Viktor Chernomyrdin's
and Anatoly Chubais' personal corruption with the single word 'Bullshit' scrawled across it
- took the low road and sniffed that the Russians would just have to get their own economic
house in order and cut their own deal with the IMF. . . ."
The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year
period, Williamson notes, is more than $180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton
has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international public lenders
have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices."
As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded
last year, with the attendant Bank of New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker
Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock market, and the
whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings.
What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings
that barely rose above the seriousness of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result
in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively make banks another
federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial
transactions of U.S. citizens.
Double Effect
In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan
District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau, or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom
of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would show far more
professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury
secretary] Larry Summers, Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted
with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who oversaw the distribution and sale
of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member
of the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998.
"Instead of allowing Larry Summers to ramble casually in response to questions at a banking
committee hearing, the Treasury secretary should be asked exactly who suckered him - his Russian
friends, his own boss [former Harvard associate Robert Rubin, his boss at Treasury who was
once cochairman at Goldman Sachs], or private sector counterparts of the Working Committee
on Financial Markets [a White House group whose membership is drawn from the country's main
financial and market institutions: the Fed, Treasury, SEC, and the Commodities & Trading Commission].
. . . Or did he just bungle the entire matter on account of wishful thinking? Or was it gross
incompetence?
"The FBI and Congress ought to be very interested in establishing for taxpayers the truth
of any alleged 'national security' issues that justified allowing the Harvard Institute of
International Development to privatize U.S. bilateral assistance. It too should be their brief
to discover the relationship between the [Swedish wheeler-dealer and crony of Sachs, Anders]
Aslund/Carnegie crowd and Treasury and exactly what influence that relationship may have had
on the awarding of additional grants to Harvard without competition. On what basis did Team
Clinton direct their financial donor, American International Group's (AIG) Maurice Greenberg
(a man nearly as ubiquitous as any Russian oligarch in sweetheart public-funding deals), to
Brunswick Brokerage when sniffing out a $300 million OPIC guarantee for a Russian investment
fund. . . .
And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this year]
announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment
was made to him from a secret Kremlin bank account? . . .
"American and Russian citizens can never be allowed to learn what really happened to the
billions lent to Yeltsin's government; it would expose the unsavory and self-interested side
of our political, financial, and media elites. . . . Instead, the [House] Banking Committee
hearings will use the smoke screen of policing foreign assistance flows to pass legislation
that will effectively end U.S. citizens' financial privacy while making them prisoners of their
citizenship. . . . The Banking Committee will use the opportunity the Russian dirty money scandal
presents to reanimate the domestic 'Know Your Customer' program, which charges domestic banks
with monitoring and reporting on the financial transactions in which middle-class Americans
engage. This data is collected and used by various government agencies, including the IRS;
meaning that if a citizen sells the family's beat-up station wagon or their 'starter' home,
the taxman is alerted immediately that the citizen's filing should reflect the greater tax
obligation in that year of the sale. . . . Other data on citizens for which the government
has long thirsted will also be collected by government's newest police force, the banks. .
. ."
You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians,
leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist
gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans
deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy,
and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared.
"... You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating
a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all
Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their civil
rights. If only Americans cared. ..."
The other day I was surprised to learn that Jeffrey Sachs, the creator of "shock therapy" capitalism, who participated in the
looting of Russia in the 1990s, is now NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo's top adviser for health care. So we in NY will get shock therapy, much
as the Russians did two decades ago.
Here is a story I wrote for The Wanderer in 2000:
===
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia
by Paul Likoudis
In an ordinary election year, Anne Williamson's Contagion would be political dynamite, a bombshell, a block-buster, a regime breaker.
If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing houses (and assuming, of course, that
Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, and the rest of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could say "Jonathan
Hay."
Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who control our lives, was the general director
of the Harvard Institute of International Development (HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian
economy and the plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer
(HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks
and investment houses in Boston and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Contagion can be read on many different levels.
At its simplest, it is a breezy, slightly cynical, highly entertaining narrative of Russian history from the last months of Gorbachev's
rule to April 2000 - a period which saw Russia transformed from a decaying socialist economy (which despite its shortcomings, provided
a modest standard of living to its citizens) to a "managed economy" where home-grown gangsters and socialist theoreticians from the
West, like Hay and his fellow Harvardian Jeffrey Sachs, delivered 2,500% inflation and indescribable poverty, and transferred the
ownership of Russian industry to Western financiers.
Williamson was an eyewitness who lived on and off in Russia for more than ten years, where she reported on all things Russian
for The New York Times, Th e Wall Street Journal, and a host of other equally reputable publications. She knew and interviewed just
about everybody involved in this gargantuan plundering scheme: Russian politicians and businessmen, the new "gangster" capitalists
and their American sponsors from the IMF, the World Bank, USAID, Credit Suisse First Boston, the CIA, the KGB - all in all, hundreds
of sources who spoke candidly, often ruthlessly, of their parts in this terrible human drama.
Her account is filled with quotations from interviews with top aides of Yeltsin and Clinton, all down through the ranks of the
two hierarchical societies to the proliferating mass of Russian destitute, pornographers, pimps, drug dealers, and prostitutes. Some
of the principal characters, of course, refused to talk to Williamson, such as Bill Clinton's longtime friend from Oxford, Strobe
Talbott, now a deputy secretary of state and, Williamson suspects, a onetime KGB operative whose claim to fame is a deceitful translation
of the Khrushchev Memoirs. (A KGB colonel refused to confirm or deny to Williamson that Clinton and Talbott visited North Vietnam
together in 1971 - though he did confirm their contacts with the KGB for their protests against the U.S. war in Vietnam in Moscow.
See especially footnote 1, page 210.)
The 546-page book (the best part of which is the footnotes) gives a nearly day-by-day report on what happened to Russia; left
unstated, but implied on every page, is the assumption that those in the United States who think what happened in Russia "can't happen
here" better realize it can happen here.
Once the Clinton regime and its lapdogs in the media defined Russian thug Boris Yeltsin as a "democrat," the wholesale looting
of Russia began. According to the socialist theoreticians at Harvard, Russia needed to be brought into the New World Order in a hurry;
and what better way to do it than Sachs' "shock therapy" - a plan that empowered the degenerate, third-generation descendants of
the original Bolsheviks by assigning them the deeds of Russia's mightiest state-owned industries - including the giant gas, oil,
electrical, and telecommunications industries, the world's largest paper, iron, and steel factories, the world's richest gold, silver,
diamond, and platinum mines, automobile and airplane factories, etc. - who, in turn, sold some of their shares of the properties
to Westerners for a song, and pocketed the cash, while retaining control of the companies.
These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as
the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers, now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant
millionaires (or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign investors.
When Russian members of the Supreme Soviet openly criticized the looting of the national patrimony by these new gangsters early
in the U.S.-driven "reform" program, in 1993, before all Soviet institutions were destroyed, Yeltsin bombed Parliament.
Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work with, they ignored - or shunned - the most
capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke
and his disciple, Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism would collapse.
Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment
of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities.
In the new, emerging global economy, it's clear that Russia is the designated center for heavy manufacturing - just as Asia is
for clothing and computers - with its nearly unlimited supply of hydroelectric power, iron and steel, timber, gold and other precious
metals.
This helps explain why America's political elites don't give a fig about the closing down of American industries and mines. As
Williamson observes, Russia is viewed as some kind of "closet."
What is important for Western readers to understand - as Williamson reports - is that when Western banks and corporations bought
these companies at bargain basement prices, they bought more than just industrial equipment. In the Soviet model, every unit of industrial
production included workers' housing, churches, opera houses, schools, hospitals, supermarkets, etc., and the whole kit-and-caboodle
was included in the selling price. By buying large shares of these companies, Western corporations became, ipso facto, town managers.
Another Level
On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation of capital into fewer and fewer
hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression,
taxation and war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, the Balkans, and other countries,
and how it uses its control over money to produce social chaos.
Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank"
was designed to plunder the wealth of America through war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less
than a giant pyramid scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources.
Williamson is of that small but noble school of economics writers who believe that the academic field of economics is not some
esoteric science that can only be comprehended by those with IQs in four digits, and she - drawing on such writers as Hayek and von
Mises, Roepke and the late American Murray Rothbard - explains in layman's vocabulary the nuts and bolts of sound economic principles
and the real-world effects of the Fed's policies on hapless Americans.
Contagion also serves up a severe indictment of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the other international "lending"
agencies spawned by the Council on Foreign Relations and similar "councils" and "commissions" which are fronts for the big banks
run by the Houses of Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, et al.
The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the policy implementers - Williamson employs the
derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by
the thousands (the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances, renting out the finest
dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution
businesses, and then watching, cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the artistic
heritage of the country.
Williamson describes brilliantly that heady atmosphere in Moscow in the early days of the IMF/USAID loan-scamming: a 24-hour party.
There were bars like the Canadian-operated Hungry Duck, which lured Russian teenage girls into its bar with a male striptease and
free drinks, "who, once thoroughly intoxicated, were then exposed to crowds of anxious young men the club admitted only late in the
evening."
The Third Level
At a third and more intriguing level, Contagion is about America's criminal politics in the Clinton regime, and, inevitably, the
reader will put Williamson's book down with the sense that Al Gore will be the next occupier of the White House.
Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father, of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's
pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s
daughter married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote anti-czarist political agitation
for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin upon his successful revolution.
Williamson also documents Gore's intimate involvement with powerful Wall Street financial houses, and his New York breakfast meeting
with multibillionaire George Soros (a key Russian player) just as the Russian collapse was underway.
Williamson tells an interesting story of Gore's response to the IMF/World Bank/USAID plunder of U.S. taxpayers for the purpose
of hobbling Russia.
By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had
vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little
vibrations on Capitol Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical Bill Clinton
bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding
a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson.
"Pundits and academics joined government officials in bemoaning Mother Russia's thieving ways, her bottomless corruption and constant
chaos, all the while wringing their soft hands with a schoolmarm's exasperation. Russia's self-appointed democracy coach Strobe Talbott
('Pro-Consul Strobe' to the Russians) would get it right. An equally sanctimonious Albert Gore - the same Al Gore who'd been so quick
to return the CIA's 1995 report detailing Viktor Chernomyrdin's and Anatoly Chubais' personal corruption with the single word 'Bullshit'
scrawled across it - took the low road and sniffed that the Russians would just have to get their own economic house in order and
cut their own deal with the IMF. . . ."
The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year period, Williamson notes, is more than
$180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international
public lenders have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices."
As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded last year, with the attendant Bank of
New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock
market, and the whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings.
What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings that barely rose above the seriousness
of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively
make banks another federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial transactions of
U.S. citizens.
Double Effect
In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau,
or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would
show far more professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury secretary] Larry Summers,
Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who
oversaw the distribution and sale of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member of
the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998.
"Instead of allowing Larry Summers to ramble casually in response to questions at a banking committee hearing, the Treasury secretary
should be asked exactly who suckered him - his Russian friends, his own boss [former Harvard associate Robert Rubin, his boss at
Treasury who was once cochairman at Goldman Sachs], or private sector counterparts of the Working Committee on Financial Markets
[a White House group whose membership is drawn from the country's main financial and market institutions: the Fed, Treasury, SEC,
and the Commodities & Trading Commission]. . . . Or did he just bungle the entire matter on account of wishful thinking? Or was it
gross incompetence?
"The FBI and Congress ought to be very interested in establishing for taxpayers the truth of any alleged 'national security' issues
that justified allowing the Harvard Institute of International Development to privatize U.S. bilateral assistance. It too should
be their brief to discover the relationship between the [Swedish wheeler-dealer and crony of Sachs, Anders] Aslund/Carnegie crowd
and Treasury and exactly what influence that relationship may have had on the awarding of additional grants to Harvard without competition.
On what basis did Team Clinton direct their financial donor, American International Group's (AIG) Maurice Greenberg (a man nearly
as ubiquitous as any Russian oligarch in sweetheart public-funding deals), to Brunswick Brokerage when sniffing out a $300 million
OPIC guarantee for a Russian investment fund. . . . And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this
year] announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment was made to him from a secret
Kremlin bank account? . . .
"American and Russian citizens can never be allowed to learn what really happened to the billions lent to Yeltsin's government;
it would expose the unsavory and self-interested side of our political, financial, and media elites. . . . Instead, the [House] Banking
Committee hearings will use the smoke screen of policing foreign assistance flows to pass legislation that will effectively end U.S.
citizens' financial privacy while making them prisoners of their citizenship. . . . The Banking Committee will use the opportunity
the Russian dirty money scandal presents to reanimate the domestic 'Know Your Customer' program, which charges domestic banks with
monitoring and reporting on the financial transactions in which middle-class Americans engage. This data is collected and used by
various government agencies, including the IRS; meaning that if a citizen sells the family's beat-up station wagon or their 'starter'
home, the taxman is alerted immediately that the citizen's filing should reflect the greater tax obligation in that year of the sale.
. . . Other data on citizens for which the government has long thirsted will also be collected by government's newest police force,
the banks. . . ."
You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating
a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing
all Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their
civil rights. If only Americans cared.
What Caused the Russian Revolution? | The Nation
---
The Sealed Train
A century later, historians still disagree about what
caused the Russian Revolution.
By
Sophie Pinkham
By
--
June 13, 2017
2 Comments
--
On February 23, 1917, an unseasonably warm day, women
at the Vyborg cotton mills in the Russian city of Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg)
marked the recently created International Women's Day. The meeting became a mass
walkout; as the women headed for the Neva River, other people-men and women-joined
their ranks. By noon, about 50,000 protesters were participating in a spontaneous
strike. The police boarded streetcars, expelling anyone with calloused hands, and
blocked the bridges across the frozen river, but the workers walked across the ice.
The next day, nearly 75,000 people were on strike.
Czar Nicholas II sent Cossack horsemen to put the rebellion down, but they simply
cantered through the crowds without using their swords or whips; they had chosen not
to fight the people. Workers flocked into Petrograd for a three-day general strike.
Demonstrators in homemade helmets and padded jackets waved red banners demanding an
end to Russia's involvement in the world war. When police arrived, the Cossacks
defended the protesters.
Revolutionary organizers were convinced that it was time to stop the strikes,
believing that such action could never succeed without the support of the army. They
were surprised by a mutiny in the elite Pavlovsky Regiment, whose cadets rebelled
when they heard that their fellow soldiers had shot civilians. Mutiny in several
other regiments ensued, with the mutineers killing their officers. By February 27, an
estimated 25,000 garrison troops had defected. Workers, acting on their own, raided
the armory and stormed the Kresty Prison, the courts, and the main artillery depot.
The city was on fire. One English observer wrote: "As the streets cleared, little
heaps, some very still, some writhing in agony, told of the toll of the machine
guns."
Protesters stormed the Tauride Palace, home of the Duma, the consolation-prize
parliament formed after the 1905 revolution. Panicked liberal politicians formed a
provisional committee, hoping to maintain order as the imperial administration
dissolved. The revolutionaries set up the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers'
Deputies. Orthodox Marxists did not want this workers' council to attempt to take
power immediately and begin building full socialism; in their view, that would have
meant skipping a stage in the revolutionary process, since parliamentary
democracy-the "bourgeois phase"-had to precede communism. However, the Duma committee
wasn't eager to take responsibility for the increasingly volatile situation. Its
members couldn't decide on what they wanted, either, with some hoping for a
social-democratic system and others a constitutional monarchy. By March 2, it was
clear that the existing system was untenable. Nicholas II abdicated, passing the
throne to his brother, who took fright and refused the next day. The provisional
government and the workers' council settled on an uneasy system of "dual power."
As its members hadn't been elected, the Duma committee had no claim to democratic
authority, and it was clear that workers felt a greater allegiance to the Soviet. The
people, most of whom had little understanding of the finer points of Marxism, wanted
socialism, and quickly. From his exile in Zurich, Lenin expressed his disgust at the
new arrangement. He sent a telegram to his Bolshevik comrades, declaring: "No trust
in and no support for the provisional government. Kerensky especially suspect; arming
the proletariat is the only guarantee no rapprochement with other parties." Lenin was
virtually alone in his insistence that power pass into the hands of the workers
immediately.
For a few brief months, Russia became one of the freest countries in the world.
The provisional government granted amnesty to political prisoners, abolished the
death penalty, banned flogging in prisons, ended the practice of deportation to
Siberia, and dissolved the czarist secret police. It proclaimed equal rights and
legal status for all nationalities and religions, ending the Jewish Pale of
Settlement, and granted unlimited freedom of the press and public assembly.
Russia remained a nation at war, though the war had been the catalyst for
revolution and peace was one of the primary demands of the strikers and
demonstrators. The provisional government, the Petrograd Soviet, and others argued
over whether the country should continue fighting the war-and, if so, on what terms.
Many of the socialists had abandoned pacifism, insisting that the war had to be won
and the motherland defended, and that allies could not be abandoned. Here again,
Lenin was in a tiny minority. He had long called for an immediate end to the war. It
was, in his view, "a struggle for markets and for the freedom to loot foreign
countries," and its effect was "to deceive, disunite and slaughter the proletarians
of all countries by setting the wage-slaves of one nation against those of another so
as to benefit the bourgeoisie." But it wasn't peace that Lenin had in mind when he
called for Russia's disengagement. Instead, he was plotting a civil war, the next
step on his road map to international communism.
O
ne hundred years after the Russian
Revolution, historians are still arguing about what made this seismic political shift
possible. For the most part, the crises, reversals, and surprises, along with the
long strings of names, places, and deaths, are consistent from one account to
another. But different historians-often with distinct political allegiances-offer
very different answers to the question of why many of these events happened in the
way they did. How historians narrate the story of the Russian Revolution tells us
much about their philosophy of history, as well as about their attitude toward the
revolutionary project and the politics of the left.
As its title suggests, Catherine Merridale's
Lenin on the Train
places
Vladimir Ilyich at the center of the narrative, building toward his arrival at the
Finland Station in April 1917. When Lenin, who had been living in Western Europe for
17 years, received the news of the February Revolution, he was desperate to return to
Russia. It wasn't easy: Britain and France, which were relying on their alliance with
Russia, had no wish to help a fierce opponent of the "imperialist war" return home.
Lenin found that his only viable route back was through Germany, Sweden, and Finland,
but traveling through Germany would leave him vulnerable to accusations that he was
on the German payroll.
In fact, he and other Russian revolutionaries
were
being financed by the
German government, which hoped that they would destabilize Russia and weaken its
military efforts. The German government was also willing to arrange for Lenin's
journey back to Petrograd. With his typical pragmatism, Lenin decided to make the
trip, but he insisted on a "sealed train"-a fiction that would allow him to plausibly
deny charges of collusion with the German enemy. (Germany's support would remain a
closely guarded secret throughout the Soviet period.)
The Petrograd Soviet's executive committee was less than overjoyed at Lenin's
return, fearing that he would further destabilize the situation. They were right.
Upon his arrival in the Finland Station's waiting room, Lenin told the festive crowd,
"The piratical imperialist war is the beginning of civil war throughout Europe." When
he arrived at the headquarters of the Bolshevik central committee, he lectured for
two hours straight, though it was already in the early morning and he'd just spent
eight days on a train. Lenin denounced the provisional government and "revolutionary
defencism" (the socialist argument for staying in the war). The Menshevik Nikolai
Sukhanov wrote of Lenin's speech: "It seemed as if all the elements had risen from
their abodes, and the spirit of universal destruction, knowing neither barriers nor
doubts, neither human difficulties nor human calculations, was hovering above the
heads of the bewitched disciples."
Lenin on the Train
is full of vivid details like these, taken from the
memoirs and letters of Lenin's contemporaries. In keeping with her cinematic
approach, Merridale presents Lenin's train ride as the starting point of everything
from the "infant Soviet state to world Cold War." She quotes Winston Churchill: "Full
allowance must be made for the desperate stakes to which the German war leaders were
already committed. Nevertheless it was with a sense of awe that they turned upon
Russia the most grisly of all weapons. They transported Lenin in a sealed truck like
a plague bacillus from Switzerland to Russia." Though Merridale is sympathetic to the
desire for social equality that motivated the Russian left, she writes that
Churchill's bacillus comparison has its merits, and she likens the German support to
today's "global games," in which great powers finance local rebellions in order to
destabilize their opponents. For Merridale, the story of Lenin's train journey is
partly "a parable about great-power intrigue, and one rule there is that great powers
almost always get things wrong."
Churchill's image of Lenin is clearly linked to his loathing of communism, the red
plague. But the notion of Lenin, or communism, as a bacillus betrays a willful
blindness to the larger constellation of factors that make profound social change
possible. Merridale acknowledges as much in her book, but her narrative is
nevertheless structured on the idea that Lenin brought with him a new social and
political world.
Lenin on the Train
is often engaging and evocative, but as
historical analysis, it is not entirely satisfying. Lenin was not Zeus, with the
revolution bursting, fully formed, from his head. Charismatic, gifted, passionate,
and ruthless though he was, Lenin was only one man, and one man is not enough to
foment or sustain a revolution.
I
n
The Russian Revolution
, Sean
McMeekin strips Lenin of his usual role as central protagonist. McMeekin writes that
Lenin was merely "an afterthought" in 1905 and "barely worth the attention of tsarist
police agents" until he returned to Russia in April 1917. Dismissing him as
"out-of-touch," McMeekin argues that Lenin would have had "little impact on the
political scene had he not been furnished with German funds to propagandize the
Russian army." Lenin and the Bolsheviks, he adds, "played no role worth mentioning in
the fall of the tsar."
McMeekin's Lenin is neither brave nor diabolically clever; his main characteristic
is unscrupulousness. The story of the revolution is not the story of a terrifyingly
powerful Lenin, but rather of the failure of the czarist administration and the
provisional government to kill him and other key revolutionaries. It is also the
story of the disastrous decision by Russian liberals to convince Nicholas II to enter
what would become the First World War.
McMeekin's account of the longer-term causes of the Russian Revolution also
deviates from the standard narrative. He argues that the growth of revolutionary
tendencies was not primarily the result of autocracy, Russian economic backwardness,
the land question, labor politics, or socialist theories. In the early years of the
20th century, McMeekin writes, Russia was expanding its territory, modernizing, and
increasing its population at breakneck speed; he compares it to China in the 21st
century. Though the lot of the Russian worker was difficult, it was nevertheless
comparable to that of workers throughout Europe. Russia was unusual only in that it
had few intermediary institutions to buffer popular resentment of the czar. The
famous bread shortages of Petrograd in the winter of 1917 were "mostly mythical."
Drawing on newly discovered archival sources, he even argues that in 1916–17, morale
in the army was on the rise, and that Russian soldiers were better fed than their
German counterparts.
McMeekin also points out that the czarist secret police was small, though very
efficient, and rather lenient. The death penalty was meted out rarely-in some cases,
not even to political assassins-and most revolutionaries were sent into
administrative exile, where they were free to work and agitate, albeit in Siberia.
Exiles received a living allowance for clothes, food, and rent, and they could bring
along family members or hire domestic servants. (Lenin brought his wife and mother
along and hired a maid when he arrived.) Nothing was inevitable, in this telling; the
tide could have turned at any moment. The Bolsheviks' victory was brought about by
Lenin's skillful but risky effort, at a moment of Russian vulnerability, to transform
the "imperialist war" into a civil war by infiltrating the armed forces and "turning
the armies red," spurring mutinies and mass desertions by soldiers who took their
weapons with them.
Upon his arrival at the Finland Station, Lenin was virtually alone in his
insistence that society was already passing to the second stage of the revolution,
when power would be placed in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest peasants.
At the time, even many of his fellow Bolsheviks thought this was madness: There was
no way that Russian workers were ready to form a dictatorship of the proletariat. But
Lenin was unrelenting and, with his gift for oratory, he was able to persuade many
ordinary people that he was right, turning them against the provisional government.
Protests and counterprotests exploded into violence. Lenin's refusal to compromise
with the provisional government or the pro-war "revolutionary defencists" made the
Bolsheviks the only political party offering an alternative to dual power, which came
to seem like a form of impotence or treachery in its failure to end the war, food
shortages, and general disorder.
Lenin's liability was his history of German support, which Kerensky and others
tried to use against him. (Indeed, throughout the Russian Revolution, Germany
continued to send large sums to the revolutionaries.) Accused of treason and
espionage, Lenin fled to Finland in July, and many of his comrades were imprisoned.
Meanwhile, the foolish, foppish Kerensky unwittingly smoothed the way for the
Bolsheviks, remaking himself as a dictator, moving into the Winter Palace, sleeping
in the czar's bed, and traveling in the czar's train carriage. He reinstated the
death penalty in an effort to get the armed forces under control, provoking much
outrage.
After an absurd series of scandals and intrigues involving his own generals and
officers, Kerensky released most of the Bolshevik prisoners, whose comrades had
already made substantial progress in indoctrinating the rank and file of the army and
navy. In September, the Bolsheviks won a major electoral victory, a sign of their
surging popularity. In October, Lenin returned to Petrograd in disguise and argued
forcefully that the Bolsheviks should seize power before the November elections. He
feared that the Bolsheviks would never be able to win an election that included
peasants, who were much more likely to support the Socialist Revolutionary Party than
urban workers were. Lenin's arguments prevailed, though Trotsky managed to delay the
seizure of power so that it happened two weeks later, on the day of the next meeting
of the Second Congress of the Soviets. The planned coup was an open secret: Kerensky
begged the British to help him negotiate an armistice in the war, understanding at
last that peace offered his only hope of remaining in power.
In the early hours of October 25, 1917, armed Bolsheviks approached cadets
guarding key choke points in Petrograd and told them that they were being relieved.
Other Bolsheviks walked into the Central Telegraph Office and disconnected the phone
lines to the Winter Palace. Kerensky sent a telegram summoning two Cossack regiments,
but they refused to come to his aid; they were loyal to a general whom Kerensky had
accused of treason. That same morning, Kerensky escaped Petrograd in a US embassy
car. The Bolshevization of the armed forces had paid off, giving Lenin and his
comrades the muscle they needed to finish off the Kerensky government.
But the economic situation was deteriorating rapidly, with factory closures and
rampant inflation. Though they hadn't liked the Kerensky government much, civil
servants went on strike to protest the Bolshevik coup, shutting down the trains until
January 1918. Telegraph and telephone workers walked out on November 7, with
transportation workers, schoolteachers, and Moscow's municipal workers following
close on their heels. On November 8, the Union of Unions called for a general strike
of government employees. As McMeekin puts it, "The world's first proletarian
government was thus forced to devote its primary energies to strikebreaking."
Banks refused to release funds to the Bolsheviks; Lenin's commissars began taking
bank employees hostage and demanding ransom. It was largely to break the bank strike
that the Bolsheviks formed the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission to Combat
Counterrevolution, Speculation, and Sabotage, better known as the Cheka, predecessor
to the KGB. The Cheka was also responsible for containing the damage done by the
Bolsheviks' defeat in the November 1917 elections, in which the party won only 24
percent of the vote, as opposed to 40 percent for the Socialist Revolutionaries, who
had indeed maintained the loyalty of the peasants. The unfavorable result was
explained away with allegations of electoral abuse and fraud, while the Cheka closed
the Tauride Palace to prevent the opposition from gathering there.
The Bolsheviks' abandonment of democratic principles and their cavalier approach
to coercion and violence played a central role in their victory, at least over the
short term. McMeekin's focus on historical contingency and Bolshevik ruthlessness
suggests that revolution is less about large-scale historical processes and more
about cold-blooded political opportunism. At times, his adamant rejection of
historical determinism looks like an overcorrection for Marxist orthodoxy. No
revolution is inevitable, but it feels perverse to minimize longer-term factors so
energetically. McMeekin's insistence that czarist Russia was doing well economically,
and that workers and peasants had no more reason for complaint than their Western
European counterparts, bears an unpleasant resemblance to today's attempts to dismiss
the economic and social grievances of the masses with statistics showing that the
economy is still expanding. McMeekin displays plenty of sympathy for the murdered
czar and his family, but less for the millions of Russians who suffered under the
czarist regime.
S
.A. Smith's
Russia in Revolution
takes
a more familiar line than McMeekin's, linking the origins of the revolution to
czarist abuses. Smith emphasizes the agency of ordinary people in determining the
trajectory of Russian history, devoting particular attention to workers, who did so
much to further the revolution, and to the peasants, who rose up against the old
order and then rebelled against the new one.
Smith marshals extensive economic, social, and cultural evidence to help explain
the nature of the social transformation that led to the revolution and then to the
Soviet order. Rejecting the Western tendency to see 1917 as the precondition that
made the nightmare of Stalinism inevitable, Smith reminds us of the inspiring hope of
socialism, the justified rage at an unjust order, and the roads not taken that might
have led to a happier result.
If the tragedy for McMeekin is that the czarist regime and the liberal provisional
government failed to stop the rise of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, the tragedy for Smith
is the corruption of Russian revolutionary ideals. He takes the long view,
privileging large-scale economic, social, and political trends over individual actors
and contingent circumstances. He enumerates the ways in which violence was ingrained
in the czarist order, especially for the lower classes. For him, as for the
revolutionaries, violence wasn't only a matter of floggings or executions; it
included poverty, malnutrition, workplace exploitation, preventable disease, and
gender-based abuse. (His consistent attention to the experience of Russian women is
laudable.)
THE STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX.
For Smith, the February Revolution was the result of a crisis brought about by
economic and social modernization and aggravated by the world war. Even as Russia
attempted to keep up with the rest of the world-and maintain its status as a great
power-the social system underpinning the autocracy was eroding with the emergence of
new classes like industrial workers and a professionalized middle class. While
McMeekin stresses the economic gains under Nicholas II, Smith focuses on the
suffering caused by the demands of wartime, which angered the workers as well as a
peasantry already disappointed by earlier land reforms. In Smith's view, the failure
of Russian democracy in 1917 is best explained by the willingness of moderate
socialists to continue the country's involvement in World War I, in keeping with
their belief that the bourgeoisie was next in line for political power. Workers and
peasants were told to wait their turn. It wasn't a surprise that these latter groups
welcomed the more radical Bolshevik position.
Smith takes pains not to cast the Bolsheviks as the only perpetrators of violence
in the revolution and ensuing civil war; the White armies, nationalists, peasants,
and anarchist bandits also committed atrocities. In times of social disintegration,
displacement, and starvation, mass violence is a familiar result and should not be
viewed as the inevitable outcome of a socialist revolution. Rather than seeing
Stalinism as predetermined by the Bolshevik seizure of power, Smith argues that after
the Bolshevik regime began to stabilize Russian society, it veered back toward the
violent, antidemocratic czarist order, itself a product of the country's distinctive
geography, lack of capital, bloated bureaucracy, and religious and peasant
traditions. Stalinism was thus the deformed offspring of Marxism and Russian
political culture, warped by larger social, economic, and political factors that
often had little to do with ideology.
Perhaps the hardest thing to understand about Lenin and the Bolsheviks is their
insouciant attitude toward mass death, despite their adherence to a utopian
philosophy that sought to eradicate human suffering. Smith explains that Lenin's
philosophy was far from a pure Marxism; it was rooted in the nihilist-terrorist
strain of Russian revolutionary thought as well as the millenarian ideas that were
popular in Russia at the turn of the century. Lenin did not seek to make the lives of
those already living better; he believed that revolution would cleanse the world of
injustice and create an entirely new society.
This philosophy produced one of many historical examples indicating that while
violence is often the most effective way of seizing power, antidemocratic coups do
not usher in utopia; more often, they devolve into terror. Transformation born of
violence is likely to end in violence. As the French socialist leader Jean Jaurès,
assassinated in July 1914, warned, "If the social revolution emerges from this chaos
instead of coming about as the supreme expression of progress, as a higher act of
reason, justice, and wisdom, it will be part of this universal mental crisis, an
excess of the contagious fury brought about by the suffering and violence of war."
T
he lessons of 1917 also testify to the risks
that accompany any political position that sees progress as a by-product of history.
The movement from capitalism to socialism (and vice versa) is not inevitable and can
be reversed; teleological thinking leads to strategic blunders and gross
misinterpretations of reality. Still, politics and economics have their patterns; if
these patterns can be understood, they can be adjusted or controlled. After a long
banishment, Marx is returning to mainstream political discourse, as a new generation
discovers that many of his observations about the predatory logic of capitalism still
hold startlingly true.
Of the three books under review, Smith's is the most sympathetic to emancipatory
politics, and it offers the most persuasive explanation of the Russian Revolution's
origins and terrible failures. Smith's approach to history, with an emphasis on
long-term factors and the experience of ordinary people, also feels the most relevant
to our own historical moment. As in the early 20th century, we are living in an age
in which mass movements and popular fury have a new currency. Politics cannot be
contained in the sealed train cars of superpowers, and social movements cannot be
treated as simple instruments in great games. Once again, economic inequality is a
pressing political issue around the world. In American political discourse, Russia's
cautionary tales are still used as blunt instruments to assert the impossibility of
any kind of socialist revolution. A new generation of democratic socialists may glean
more complicated lessons from 1917: not only about the dangerous magnetism of power
and violence, but about the possibility of achieving a political transformation that
spans continents.
n
"... Soros was deeply immersed in the quicksand of corruption which engulfed Russia in the '90s. After years of preparation, he began his big power play in May 1989, when he began funding a young Harvard economist named Jeffery Sachs to develop an economic reform plan for Poland. Soros paid Sachs and his team through his newly founded Stefan Batory Foundation in Warsaw. The young economist favored "shock therapy", a sudden lifting of price controls, currency controls, trade restrictions and investment barriers that would plunge the country instantly into the icy waters of free-market competition. The idea was to get the pain of the transition over with as quickly as possible. Poland implemented Sach's plan on 1 January 1990. Hyperinflation immediately soared out of control. It was very tough on the population, but people were willing to take a lot of pain to see real change ", Soros wrote later. Ultimately, Poland's "Big Bang" was deemed a success. ..."
"... Gorbachev set out to achieve this but he went about things the wrong way and attempted to make too many radical changes too fast. Some of his hair brained schemes (whether this was done deliberately to cripple the country or just out of stupidity) like the alcohol ban lead to major discontent and unrest. Furthermore, and far worse, Gorbachev and many in his circle somehow got into bed with Western Globalists . I don't know where and how exactly this started, and I don't have much information to source this claim, but if one looks at how the Soviet Union ended up by the 1990's it's the only logical explanation. ..."
"... Gorbachev and his people - through a combination of idiocy, incompetency, delusions of grandeur and treachery - screwed the Soviet Union. The West moved quickly to pay off the leadership in former Soviet Republics (Ukraine in particular) to not remain in a Union State with Russia. In Russia, Yeltsin and the Jewish Oligarchy (funded by Rothschild & Globalist Kikery, just like the Communists were in the 1917 Revolution) somehow got into power after Gorbachev lost his grip on power and the rest is history. ..."
From the beginning Pres Clinton chose to deal with Russia and the former Soviet States through
private back channels, circumventing normal State Dept procedures. He appointed what became known
as a "troika", three officials endowed with extraordinary authority over US-Russia relations.
This troika included Strobe Talbott at the State Department, Lawrence Summers at the Treasury
and Vice Pres Al Gore. Talbott had been Bill Clinton's roommate and fellow Rhodes Scholar at Oxford
University. He was the first of the troika to be appointed, and was the leader of the group. On
19 January 1993, Clinton invented a new title for Talbott, naming him Ambassador-at-large to Russia.
Business Week accordingly dubbed Talbott the Clinton Admin's "Russia Policy Czar".
To guide him through the mysterious byways of the former Soviet States, Talbott turned to a
businessman with experience in the regio: George Soros. Talbott added that he considered Soros
"....a National treasure".
The period of Soros' financial and political suzerainty coincided with Russia's wholesale collapse
into corruption and anarchy. David Ignatius of The Washinggton Post held the Clinton Admin largely
to blame. "Let's call it Russiagate", he wrote in an article of 25 August 1999, in which he decried,
"the lawlessness of modern Russia and the acquiescence of the Clinton Admin in the process of
decay and decline there". Ignatius concluded, "What makes the Russian case so sad is that the
Clinton Admin may have squandered one of the most precious assets imaginable, which is the idealism
and goodwill of the Russian people as they emerged from 70 years of Communist Rule. The Russian
debacle may haunt us for generations".
Soros was deeply immersed in the quicksand of corruption which engulfed Russia in the '90s.
After years of preparation, he began his big power play in May 1989, when he began funding a young
Harvard economist named Jeffery Sachs to develop an economic reform plan for Poland. Soros paid
Sachs and his team through his newly founded Stefan Batory Foundation in Warsaw. The young economist
favored "shock therapy", a sudden lifting of price controls, currency controls, trade restrictions
and investment barriers that would plunge the country instantly into the icy waters of free-market
competition. The idea was to get the pain of the transition over with as quickly as possible.
Poland implemented Sach's plan on 1 January 1990. Hyperinflation immediately soared out of control.
It was very tough on the population, but people were willing to take a lot of pain to see real
change ", Soros wrote later. Ultimately, Poland's "Big Bang" was deemed a success.
Soros and Sachs went to Moscow next, seeking to persuade Gorbachev to try shock therapy in
the Soviet Union. Gorbachev rejected their plan which angered soros. Later, when Gorbachev tried
to secure loans from Western Lenders, Soros undermined him, denouncing the Soviet Leader. Soros'
attack damaged Gorbachev's reputation in the West, impeding his access to foreign aid. As the
soviet economy faltered, Gorbachev's power weakened. Kremlin hardliners attempted a coup in august
1991, setting off a chain of reactions that resulted in Gorbachev's ouster. The coup itself failed,
but the soviet Union split up, and Gorbachev was obliged to resign. Boris Yeltsin became Russia's
new leader.
Yeltsin proved more cooperative than his predecessor. Now Soros and Sachs could finally get
down to the serious business of implementing their shock therapy plan. Russia lifted its price
controls on 2 January 1992. The life savings of ordinary Russians went up in smoke as inflation
hit 2,500%. That was only the beginning. What followed was one of the greatest economic catastrophes
in history.
Over the next four years, a cabal of corrupt officials and businessman, both Russian and American,
used their govt connections to hijack Russia's privatization process for their own personal gain.
They bought up the Crown Jewels of Russia's Economy for a fraction of their worth in rigged elections
and stole billions of dollars from foreign aid loans earmarked for economic development projects.
Russia scholar Peter Reddaway estimates that between 1992 and 1996, "although 57% of Russia's
firms were privatized, the State budget received only $3-5 billion for them, because they were
sold at nominal prices to corrupt cliques". By 1996, a group of 7 Russian businessman had managed
to gain control of 60% of Russia's natural resources, including its precious oil and gas reserves.
Through their manipulations behind the scenes, , this group exercised de facto control
over the Russian gov , for which reason the Russians called them the "oligarchs". It is largely
due to widespread disgust with the corrupt reign of the oligarchs that so many Russians today
look favorably to Putin's iron fisted but orderly rule.
Throughout the 90s, Sachs and Soros wielded enormous influence in Russia. From 1995 to 1999,
Sachs headed the Harvard Institute For International Development, through which Harvard University
provided economic development assistance to needy countries. Much as Strobe Talbott delegated
important aspects of US-Russia diplomacy to George Soros in the 90s, the US agency Intl Development
likewise delegated to the Harvard Institute the job of overseeing Russia's transformation to a
market economy. They put Sachs and his team in the position of official economic advisors to Boris
Yeltsin, representing the US Govt. Russians called them the "Gavardniki"- the Harvard boys.
The Gavardniki could make or break Russian officials by deciding who would get foreign aid
grants and who would not. Their influence over Yeltsin was such that he frequently bypassed the
Russian Parliament, issuing Presidential decrees to enact the Harvard team's reforms. At times,
the men from Harvard would even draft Yeltsin's decrees with their own hands. All of this meddling
in Russia's internal affairs might have been excusable and even commendable, had the Gavardniki
proved wise and trustworthy counselors. All too often, however, they used their influence to push
bad policy for selfish reasons. The Harvard Institute's Russian operations quickly became a hotbed
of corruption, as its envoys exploited its access to Yeltsin and the Russian Oligarchs for personal
gain.
Jeffrey Sachs has not been accused of profiting personally from these activities. Nevertheless,
the cloud of scandal which consumed the institute on his watch reflects poorly on his leadership,
to say the least. Sachs resigned as director of the institute on 25 May 1999, even as the US Justice
Dept were investigating their Russian operations. Harvard shut down the scandal ridden institute
in January 2000, but not soon enough to avoid a Justice Dept lawsuit charging Institute personnel
with fraudulent misuse of USAID funds. Harvard settled the case out of court for $26 million-
a mere wrist slap considering the damage the institute had done to the Russian economy and to
US-Russia relations. Oddly, Tthe Russian scandal left no perceptible marks on Prof Sachs' reputation.
The Soros empire was short lived. By 1998 federal investigators in the US were scrutinizing
billions of dollars in illegal transfers flowing out of Russia through the Bank of New York and
other large banks. As the magnitude of the pilferage began leaking into Western Media, foreign
aid and foreign investment slowed to a trickle. Everything finally came to a screeching halt on
"Black Monday", 17 Agust 1998, when Russia was forced to devalue the ruble and default on its
debt. Rep Jim Leach, head of the House Banking Committee, announced Sept 1, 1999 that that the
Russia scandal could prove to be "one of the greatest social robberies in history". Based on preliminary
inquiries, Leach declared that he was "very confident" that at least $100 billion had been laundered
out of Russia, an unknown portion of which may have been diverted from the IMF and other foreign
aid loans.
Journalist Anne Williamson, appearing before Leach's House Banking Committee, explained to
a panel of stunned congressmen how so many US taxpayer dollars had managed to go missing in Russia.
She told the committee that the Clintons had managed to set up an "International Patronage Machine".
Clintonites in the guise of "consultants" to the Russian Govt requested and received loans, virtually
at will, through such International lending agencies as the IMF, the World Bank, the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import Bank. Few questioned the loans, said Williamson,
because the Clinton administration had designated Russian "privatization" a "national security"
priority. Much of the money simpply vanished into offshore accounts or the NYSE. Other monies
were invested in Russian junk bonds, privatization auctions or other lucrative schemes. A handful
of inside players, Russian and American alike, got rich, while the average Russian- not too mention
the US taxpayer- got fleeced.
Soros insists that his own investments in Russia were squeaky clean. this is debatable. His
privileged access to Kremlin officials and friendly oligarchs helped lubricate many deals. Williamson
notes that Soros invested in Russia's second largest steel mill, Novolipetsk Kombinat, and in
the Russian oil firm Sidanko. Joining Soros in these purchases were the Harvard Management Co,
which invests Harvard Uni's multi-billion dollar endowment fund. Soros and Harvard Management
purchased shares in Sidanko and Novolipetsk in 1995, through rigged elections. Technically speaking,
the bidding was closed to foreigners. Soros and Harvard sidestepped the no foreigners rule by
making their purchases through the sputnik fund - an investment group tied to the powerful, corrupt
Russian Oligarch Vladimir Potanin.
It all comes out in the karmic wash, argues Soros, because once he has executed a deal and
made money, he can use his profits for the "betterment" of humanity- as he sees it.
Contrary to what most supposed "experts" in Western Media claim about that period, Russia was
still a relatively wealthy country when the Soviet Union broke up. That soon changed once the
Harvard Boys, Clinton Insiders, Rothschilds, Soros, Russian crooks, Jewish "Russian" crooks, Yeltsin
etc got themselves into position.
Russia was basically looted as the article described via all sorts of corrupt schemes and scams
and the country was plunged into a decade of economic and social destruction, the scale of which
is hard to comprehend. Entire industries disappeared, factories were gutted, salaries weren't
paid for months, State assets got were stolen for chump change by oligarchs who were funded by
the usual scheissters (Rothschilds, Euro nobility, Soros etc).
The country was well on the way toward fragmentation (which is exactly what the perpetrators
and their insider thieving connections were hoping for.)
The process of destruction only really ended once Putin got into power. And that's why the
media and the Western Oligarchy hate him so much.
Ozzy Bon Halen
Russia was basically looted as the article described
Actually, it was a condensed chapter from a book called
The Shadow Party.
I couldn't find some of the info in it anywhere else on the webs, so I decided to type it in manually
and post it. I heard that there is a book called
Sale of The Century that's pretty good, too. I haven't gotten around to reading that one yet,
though.
rasputin
I lived through several years of Yeltsin, and many people were literally starving -- not to death
of course, but being able to afford only basic staples. But the problems didn't start with Yeltsin,
it all started going to shit with Gorbachev.
Afaik the Soviet Union peaked socially in the late 50's and 60's. What had basically happened
was that this generation who matured by that time were tough, smart, hard working people - they
had to be, since they somehow survived the Bolsheviks, WW2 etc. That generation worked miracles.
They won the war, they worked incredibly hard, incredibly fast and made phenomenal progress against
the odds with regards to infrastructural upgrades, technology & science, rebuilding the country
etc etc.
What happened from the 60's or so was that the leadership became old and tired, they became
more out of touch with the times and the general population. Things started stagnating, corruption
increased etc. By the time Gorbachev got into power the system was already in dire need of overhaul
and new ways and ideas.
Gorbachev set out to achieve this but he went about things the wrong way and attempted to make
too many radical changes too fast. Some of his hair brained schemes (whether this was done deliberately
to cripple the country or just out of stupidity) like the alcohol ban lead to major discontent
and unrest. Furthermore, and far worse, Gorbachev and many in his circle somehow got into bed
with Western Globalists . I don't know where and how exactly this started, and I don't have
much information to source this claim, but if one looks at how the Soviet Union ended up by the
1990's it's the only logical explanation.
Gorbachev and his people - through a combination of idiocy, incompetency, delusions of grandeur
and treachery - screwed the Soviet Union. The West moved quickly to pay off the leadership in
former Soviet Republics (Ukraine in particular) to not remain in a Union State with Russia. In
Russia, Yeltsin and the Jewish Oligarchy (funded by Rothschild & Globalist Kikery, just like the
Communists were in the 1917 Revolution) somehow got into power after Gorbachev lost his grip on
power and the rest is history.
Khruschev (a khakhol) was a disaster. Brezhnev (another khakhol) was pretty bad either. Gorbachev
is from the south of Russia too, kind of a weak person who got on top as a compromise figure.
January 26, 2012: "I paid a huge, huge price for going after George Soros," Glenn Beck told
Shadow Party
co-author Richard Poe. "But I ain't dead. And quite honestly, I thought
that was an option. I said on the air, at one point, if I show up dead, check Soros!" (
WATCH
THE VIDEO
)
The Shadow Party
shines a light on the hidden world of multibillionaire
George Soros. It explains how he uses his philanthropic activities as camouflage for
covert political operations in many countries.
Soros has undermined currencies,
subverted elections and overturned governments all over the world. Now he is
targeting the United States.
GLENN
BECK: THE PUPPET MASTER GEORGE SOROS
November 9-11, 2010
In November 2010, Glenn Beck aired a three-part
investigative series called "The Puppetmaster George Soros." Drawing heavily on
The Shadow Party
, a book by David Horowitz and Richard Poe, Beck accused
billionaire George Soros of using his global network of philanthropies as a
front for covert operations. He accused Soros of overthrowing governments in
several countries, through economic sabotage and disruption of elections.
Finally, Beck charged Soros with using these same techniques in an effort to
destabilize the United States.
"... By Mark Ames, founding editor of the Moscow satirical paper The eXile and co-host of the Radio War Nerd podcast with Gary Brecher (aka John Dolan). Subscribe here . Originally published at The Exiled ..."
"... Can hugely rich new capitalists weather a backlash from the angry masses? ..."
"... Great piece. Mark Ames and his former eXile comrades Yasha Levine and Matt Taibbi write some of the most honest and ideologically neutral critiques of the current political and economic clusterfuck. The Guardian, OTOH, is pure neoliberal establishment propaganda. ..."
"... 'Why do I get the feeling that this "playbook" is being resurrected to manage a "privatization" of the American "safety net?" ..."
Posted on
April 27, 2017 by
Yves
Smith Yves here. At the end, Ames explains why this sudden handwringing
about Russian inequality is newsworthy:
Without any of this context, it's as though Russia's extremes of inequality
that Credit Suisse just reported on suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as
a manifestation of Vladimir Putin's innate evil. As though nothing preceded
him-the 1990s had never happened, and our Establishment has always sincerely
cared about how Russians must suffer from inequality and corruption. Erasing
history like this has a funny way of making America look exceptionally good,
and Russia look exceptionally bad.
As anyone who knows a smidge about this sordid history could tell you, the
US's neoliberal reforms set the stage for a plutocratic land grab, with members
of the Harvard team advising the State Department feeding at the trough in a
big way. As we've written, the fact that Harvard paid $26.5 million in fines,
yet Larry Summer not merely failed to sanction the professor who headed the
team, his personal friend Andrei Shleifer, but actually protected him
was the proximate cause of the ouster of Summers as Harvard president .
The Guardian just published a piece on
Russia's inequality problem - first and worst in the world, according to
a new
Credit Suisse report . Funny to see Credit Suisse wringing its hands over
Russian inequality, given that bank's active complicity in designing and profiting
off the privatization of Russia in the early-mid 1990s. Shortly before Credit
Suisse arrived in Russia, it was the most equal country on the planet; a few
years after Credit Suisse arrived and pocketed up to hundreds of millions in
profits, Russia was the most unequal country on earth, and it's pretty much
been that way since.
Credit Suisse's new Russia branch was set up in 1992, and it was led by a
young twenty-something American banker named Boris Jordan, the grandson of wealthy
White Russian emigres. Jordan was key to the bank's success, thanks to his cozy
relationships with Russia's neoliberal "young reformers" in charge of privatizing
the former Communist country. In the first wave of voucher privatization-when
all Russians were issued vouchers which they could then either convert into
shares in a newly-privatized company, or sell off-Credit Suisse's Boris Jordan
gobbled up
17 million of Russia's privatization vouchers, over 10 percent of the total.
Inside connections were the key. While working for Credit Suisse, Jordan
advised the Yeltsin government on how to implement its Russia's disastrous voucher
privatization scheme. Jordan worked together with the two of the most powerful
US-backed Russian free-marketeers: Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar, architect of
the shock therapy program that led to the mass impoverishment of tens of millions
of Russians; and Anatoly Chubais, architect of Russia's privatization program,
which created Russia's new billionaire oligarch class. Gaidar's shock therapy
confiscated wealth from the masses; Chubais' privatization concentrated wealth
in a few hands. And Jordan's Credit Suisse advised, traded off, and profited
from this wealth transfer. This was the trio that played a central role in creating
the inequality that Credit Suisse is now wringing its hands over. (You can read
an
interview with Jordan about how he co-advised the voucher implementation
in 1992, which is stunning for a lot of reasons- he admits they sped up its
implementation of voucher privatization to make sure that Russia's parliament,
i.e. representative democracy, couldn't interfere with it. Democracy was not
something anyone involved in Russia's privatization in the 1990s gave a shit
about.)
The conflicts-of-interest here were so over-the-top, they were almost impossible
to wrap your head around: Credit Suisse banker Boris Jordan helped implement
the voucher privatization scheme with Russia's top political figures; and Credit
Suisse massively profited off this same privatization scheme. And it was all
done with the full backing and support of the US Treasury Department and the
IMF.
(Another major beneficiary of Russian privatization vouchers was a murky
hedge fund run by the billionaire Chandler brothers. They made a killing snapping
up vouchers cheap, converting them into stakes in key Russian industries, and
selling their stakes for huge profits. I
wrote about them a couple of years ago because one of the Chandler brothers
plowed some of his Russia loot into something called the
Legatum Institute -a Dubai-based neocon front group that's been bankrolling
the
"Russia disinformation panic!" for
several years now, issuing
report after
report after
report on the Kremlin disinformation scare by their protege
Peter Pomerantsev . You have to let these vulture-capitalist billionaires
wet their beaks a little, or they'll raise an army of human rights activists
to regime-change your ass.)
Shock therapy, first implemented in 1992 and not really ended until Russia's
devastating financial crash in 1998, was politically useful in that by confiscating
the Russian middle-class's and lower-class's savings, it created a massively
unequal society. And that alone drove Russia further from its Communist recent
past, which was the political goal that justified everything.
In 1994, this same young Credit Suisse banker, Boris Jordan,
told Forbes' Paul Khlebnikov about a scheme he was trying to sell to the
Yeltsin regime. It was called "loans-for-shares" and when it was finally adopted
at the end of 1995, it resulted in what many considered the single largest plunder
of public wealth in recorded history: The crown jewels of Russian industry-oil,
gas, natural resources, telecoms, state banks-given away to a tiny group of
connected bankers. It was this scheme, first devised by a Credit Suisse banker,
that created Russia's world-famous oligarchy.
The scheme went something like this: The Yeltsin regime announced in late
1995 auctions under which bankers would lend the government money in exchange
for "temporary" control over the revenue streams of Russia's largest and most
valuable companies. After a period, the government would "repay" the "loans"
and the banks would give the their large stakes back to the government.
In reality, every single "auction" was rigged by the winning bank, which
paid next to nothing for its control over an oil company/nickel company/etc.
Even the little money paid by this bank was often stolen from the state. That's
because Russia used a handful of private banks as authorized treasury institutions
to transfer government salaries and other funds around the country. This allowed
the same bankers who were authorized as state treasury banks to keep those funds
for themseles rather than distribute them to the teachers, doctors and scientists
as salaries-so they did what was in their rational self-interest and kept the
money, delaying salary payments for months or even years at a time, while they
used the funds for themselves to speculate, or to buy up assets in auctions
they rigged for themselves. It was pure libertarian paradise on earth-everything
von Hayek and von Mises dreamed of-in practice.
By the time the loans-for-shares was actually put into effect in late 1995,
Credit Suisse's Boris Jordan joined up with an anointed banker-oligarch, Vladimir
Potanin, to set up their own investment bank, Renaissance Capital. They raised
their first private equity fund, Sputnik Capital-with George Soros and Harvard
University as co-investors-and Sputnik Capital went on to take advantage of
the loans-for-shares investment opportunities, which had even more help from
the fact that Yeltsin made Potanin his Finance Minister in 1996.
This sudden mass wealth transfer from the many to the few had a devastating
effect on Russia's population. Inflation in the first two years of shock therapy
and voucher privatization ran at 1,354% in 1992, and 896% in 1993, while real
incomes plunged 42% in 1992 alone; real wages in 1995 were half of where they
were in 1990 (pensions in 1995 were only a quarter in real terms of where they
were in 1990). According to very conservative official Russian statistics, GDP
plunged 44% from 1992-1998 - others put the GDP crash even higher, 50% or more.
By comparison the Soviet GDP fell 24% during its war with Nazi Germany, and
the US's GDP fell 30% during the Great Depression. So what happened in the 1990s
was unprecedented for a major developed country-by the end of the decade and
all of the Washington/financial industry-backed reforms, Russia was a basket
case, a third-rate country with an even bleaker future. Capital investment had
collapsed 85% during that decade-everyone was stripping assets, not investing
in them. Domestic food production collapsed to half the levels during perestroika;
and by 1999, anywhere from a third to half of Russians relied on food grown
in their own gardens to eat. They'd reverted to subsistence farming after a
decade of free market medicine.
All of this had a catastrophic effect on Russians' health and lives. Male
Russian life expectancy dropped from 68 years during the late Soviet era, to
56 in the mid-1990s, about where it had been a century earlier under the Tsar.
Meanwhile, as births plunged and child poverty and malnutrition soared, Russia's
death-to-birth ratio reached levels not seen in the 20th century. According
to Amherst economist David Kotz, over 6 million Russians died prematurely during
the US-backed free-market reforms in the 1990s. What's odd is how little pity
or empathy has ever been shown for those Russians who were destroyed by the
reforms we backed, advised funded, bribed, coerced, and were accessory to in
every way. They weren't entirely America's fault; Yeltsin and his US-backed
"market bolsheviks" had their own cynical, ideological and political reasons
to restructure Russia's political economy in the most elitist, hierarchical
unequal manner possible. But if the US had acted differently, given how much
influence the Clinton Administration had with the Yeltsin regime, things could
certainly have turned out differently. The point is-they didn't. The inequality
was the surest sign of success. It only became something to wring our hands
about later, a soft-power weapon to smack them with, now that we have little
to zero influence over Russia.
It's interesting that our literature is filled with plenty of official empathy
for Weimar German victims of that country's hyperinflation, but nothing of the
sort for Russians of the 1990s, who were, it was argued, being ennobled and
lifted up by the linear thread of liberal history-they were heading towards
the bright market-based future, can't let a few knocks and scratches distract
us! Can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs, as the West's Stalin apologists
used to say.
Here, for example, is a typical cheerleader story about the new Russian inequality,
published in
Businessweek in 1996-a fluff job on Boris Jordan's Russian backer, Vladimir
Potanin. Notice how the headline/subheader make clear that the hero of this
narrative is the Russian billionaire, and the villains are the "angry masses"
of poor envious Russians:
The Battle for Russia's Wealth
Can hugely rich new capitalists weather a backlash from the angry
masses?
Russia's answer to J.P. Morgan could not be less like the eccentric,
bulbous-nosed original. Vladimir O. Potanin is a shy, athletic man of
35. Holding court in his rosewood-paneled office on Moscow's Masha Poryvaeva
Street, the president of Oneximbank quietly gives instructions to two
strapping bodyguards at his door. Cool and controlled, Potanin is a
standout in a group of dynamic businessmen who have seized huge slices
of the economy.
Which reads a lot like this fluff job in the Los Angeles Times, published
around the same time, headlined
"Whiz-Kid Banker Named to Russian Cabinet" . Which reads a lot like
a Businessweek followup up with even more shameless hagiography, headlined
"The Most Powerful Man in Russia" . You can try reading that last one
if you want, but I recommend keeping a vomit bag close by-and a cyanide
pill for good measure.
So this is the sordid and depressing backstory to the Credit Suisse report
on Russian inequality-the story you definitely won't and don't read about
in Credit Suisse's own account. They're a bank; their reports, while perhaps
truthful, are far from The Truth-more like marketing pamphlets than serious
scholarship.
Credit Suisse made a killing in Russia in the early-mid 1990s,
dominating two-thirds of Russia's capital markets deals-while tens of
millions sank into desperate poverty. That too is inequality.
Jordan himself remained a
powerful celebrity-investor through the early Putin era. In 1997, Boris
Jordan was caught up in a major scandal surrounding the privatization of
the national telecoms concern, Svyazinvest-which was won by a consortium
that included Soros, Harvard, and a bank owned by Finance Minister Potanin
and his partner, Mikhail Prokhanov, who today owns the Brooklyn Nets. The
scandal was this: The government official in charge of auctioning off the
telecoms to Soros-Harvard-Potanin-Jordan consortium, Alfred Kokh, had been
given a shady $100,000 book advance by a shady Swiss company connected to
Potanin's bank. The book had not been written; the advance was unusually
high; and the Swiss "publisher" which had never published a book before
was itself incorporated and led by none other than Boris Jordan's cousin,
Tikhon Troyanos.
The revelations led to scandals, and Yeltsin was forced to fire his privatization
chief Alfred Kokh, along with a handful of other corrupt US-backed "young
reformers" caught getting paid on the eve of a rigged auction.
But what did it really matter? What really mattered to everyone who matters
was the political structure of Russia's economy. No longer egalitarian,
no longer a threat to the neoliberal order-it now had the world's most unequal
society, and that was a good thing, because the new elites would identify
their interests more with the interests of their Davos counterparts than
with the interests of the "backwards" Russian masses, whose fate was their
problem, not ours. This is when racist caricatures of the "backwards" Russian
masses help-you don't have to empathize with them, history is sending them
to the trash heap of history, not you. The world was safe for business,
and that was all the affirmation anyone needed to hear.
At the end of the Yeltsin era, I visited the sprawling suburban Moscow
"compound" owned by Potanin and his banking partner, Mikhail Prokhorov,
as well as Renaissance Capital-the bank first founded with Boris Jordan
in the mid-1990s. It was a huge gated compound with several buildings, a
mini-hotel, and a nightclub/concert hall. One of the first things I saw
entering the gaming hall building was two familiar-looking men in track
suits playing backgammon: Vladimir Potanin, billionaire oligarch; and Alfred
Kokh, the fired, disgraced head of Yeltsin's privatization committee.
The financial crisis of 1998 left Russia's in complete tatters, and Boris
Jordan was never the big shot that he had been before. His real value was
providing cover for the new boss Vladimir Putin as he re-centralized power
under Kremlin control. The first upstart oligarch that Putin took down was
Vladimir Gusinsky. He was briefly jailed and then exiled to Israel. His
once-respected opposition TV station, NTV, was "bought" by Gazprom, and
Gazprom, needing a western-friendly face for its hostile takeover,
hired Boris Jordan as the new general director of the network-and his
old partner-in-crime, Alfred Kokh, the disgraced ex-privatization chief,
as chairman of NTV's board. Almost immediately, 25 NTV journalists- half
the staff-
"resigned" . Jordan's job was to blunt western criticism of the Kremlin
as it destroyed the lone critical voice on Russian television, and two years
later, his job done, he moved on.
Without any of this context, it's as though Russia's extremes of inequality
that Credit Suisse just reported on suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as
a manifestation of Vladimir Putin's innate evil. As though nothing preceded
him-the 1990s had never happened, and our Establishment has always sincerely
cared about how Russians must suffer from inequality and corruption. Erasing
history like this has a funny way of making America look exceptionally good,
and Russia look exceptionally bad.
Great piece. Mark Ames and his former eXile comrades Yasha Levine and
Matt Taibbi write some of the most honest and ideologically neutral critiques
of the current political and economic clusterfuck. The Guardian, OTOH, is
pure neoliberal establishment propaganda. It really went downhill after
Katherine Viner replaced Allan Rusbridger as chief editor. If the Snowden
affair happened today they would probably be loudly calling for his arrest.
Why do I get the feeling that this "playbook" is being resurrected to
manage a "privatization" of the American "safety net?" When it happened
in Russia, the Russians ended up with Vladimir Vladimirovitch rising to
stem the tide of officially sanctioned criminality. One could say that Russia
has had precious little experience with "representational" governance, and
thus a return to some form of autocracy was understandable. America, on
the other hand, has, supposedly, a storied history of representative governance.
So far, that "story" isn't showing signs of turning out so well for the
"angry masses" of the Homeland. What, then, will America "put up with" to
see the mere appearance of social justice? This is where the supposed "opposition"
party, the Democrats, have fallen down. They aren't even "talking" a good
game today. The longer these tensions continue, and increase, the greater
the damage from the eventual unwinding will be.
The job of the Dems is to herd the sheep in the right direction. They
do this by pretending to be lefties while keeping the true alternative,
socialism, in its box. One could argue the whole history of the 20th century
after WW1 was about keeping socialism in its box. Funny how the end of the
Evil Empire–at least notionally committed to socialism–has made the situation
in the West so much worse. It's almost a though those 20th century progressive
reforms were only intended to keep the commies at bay. Now the plutocrats
don't have to pretend any more.
Ambrit wrote: 'Why do I get the feeling that this "playbook" is being
resurrected to manage a "privatization" of the American "safety net?"
Because many of the same sociopaths who learned how to loot a collapsing
empire after the fall of the USSR took the lessons learned and applied them
over here.
Well this is to be expected isn't it. The same banks that go around the
world selling their brand of "market based reforms" then turn around and
wring their hands when the post-reform economy has been stratified in favour
of the 1%. It's almost as if registering their concern about the inequality
levels they had a hand in creating somehow assuages their guilt. In my own
country South Africa, one of the most unequal societies in the world, we
are drowning in a constant, ad nauseum barrage of media commentary about
how orthodox neoliberal thinking is the only thing that will save the country.
Such stories of how orthodoxy itself plunged a country like Russia into
economic anarchy are sadly lacking, in fact speaking ill of orthodoxy is
anathema and one suspects that journalists are either infected with terminal
gullibility vis a vis neoliberal thinking or are towing the line to stay
in their jobs
Thanks for this great article It looks like Popper's positivism did
wonders for George Soros. As he would say: "I made a killing". Sure nothing
a couple of his humanitarian NGO's can not fix!
I suppose we'll never forgive the Russians for how bad they let neoliberal
capitalism look.
I think that in some circles there's a deeply seated viral antagonism
toward Russia and Russians that goes far beyond, and is far more deeply
laid, than the liberal-v-not-liberal clash of civilizations du jour. Like
herpes, this particular disease bubbles to the surface under certain conditions,
such as a the Ukraine coup. Perhaps the virus first broke out around the
time of the Venetian
Sack of Constantinople ?
Ask a Russian. If you ask a Western liberal and you'll get nothing but
a blank stare. Of course Russia bad . That's all we need to known.
Full stop. My Western liberal conscience is clean.
The rank hypocrisy involved reminds one of Obama's
gratuitous Russia bashing . And who is more iconically Western, more
iconically liberal, than President Obama? Obama is nothing if not cool,
and Western liberalism is coolness itself.
I've wondered what a better alternative would have looked like – instead
of looting and refitting Russia to join a neoliberal capitalist world. Wasn't
it Jeffrey Sachs, now reformed, who said shock therapy would be the fastest
and least painful way to get Russia up and running? And Putin has been a
tightrope walker all along and seems to be very sensible. Almost too sensible.
He has his nationalist opponents on one side (the late, great Boris Nemtsov
was one) who say he is giving Russian wealth away to the West and his western-neoliberal
detractors one the other side who call him a nationalist tyrant. In between
he has the backing of the Russian people. Very agile.
The obvious alternative way would be the various routes followed by the
former Iron Curtain countries. Most had some form of shock therapy, if none
as extreme as that in Russia, probably because they don't have the easy
to grab mineral resources. None have done as well as hoped, but some have
been moderately successful by steering a middle course – The Czech Republic
and Poland have done reasonably well over the past 20 years. In general,
I would say that those which opted for slower and gentler market reform
did better than the 'get it over quick' ones. The one country that tried
not to change – Belarus – is still standing, if a bit of a basket case.
Keep in mind the EU played a much more constructive role back then. The
elites at the time really wanted integration and modernization to work,
especially in the Central European countries like those ones you listed.
Not directly related, but for wider context, very similar programs happened
in Mexico during the Salinas administration (1988-1994) around the same
time. NAFTA in 1994 was the 'reward' for the Mexican elites doing as they
were told.
Here's an old NYT article which aims for a tone of 'cheerleading with
reservations', but does give you a sense of the corruption involved during
the biddings, especially around TelMex and the resulting problems.
Of course, we know how the story ends in Mexico with the 1994-5 Tequila
Crisis, much like the story ended in Russia with the 1998 default which
crushed the LTCM hedgies.
I've wondered what a better alternative would have looked like – instead
of looting and refitting Russia to join a neoliberal capitalist world. Wasn't
it Jeffrey Sachs, now reformed, who said shock therapy would be the fastest
and least painful way to get Russia up and running? And Putin has been a
tightrope walker all along and seems to be very sensible. Almost too sensible.
He has his nationalist opponents on one side (the late, great Boris Nemtsov
was one) who say he is giving Russian wealth away to the West and his western-neoliberal
detractors one the other side who call him a nationalist tyrant. In between
he has the backing of the Russian people. Very agile.
My one minor quibble is the assertion that those in the West put the
blame of the downfall of the Russian masses on the masses themselves. Most
of those in the West are either ignorant, or in denial, of how bad it got
for the average Russian in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union.
They were taught that the USSR was a hellhole where everyone lived in horrific
poverty except for the party leaders. So they saw the horrible conditions
under Yeltsin and company as a continuation of how things had always been.
Some even argue it got better, painting any report showing things were better
under the USSR as communist propaganda.
PGL puts the blame on Yeltsin and this is what Stiglitz writes:
"I believe what we are confronting is partly the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's transition.
This framework's influences was reflected in the tremendous emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it was done,
with speed taking precedence over everything else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed to make a market
economy work."
Larry Summers and Jeffrey Sachs were involved in this. It would be nice if they wrote mea culpas.
"Many in Russia believe that the US Treasury pushed Washington Consensus policies to weaken their country. The deep corruption
of the Harvard University team chosen to "help" Russia in its transition, described in a detailed account published in 2006 by
Institutional Investor, reinforced these beliefs.
I believe the explanation was less sinister: flawed ideas, even with the best of intentions, can have serious consequences.
And the opportunities for self-interested greed offered by Russia were simply too great for some to resist. Clearly, democratization
in Russia required efforts aimed at ensuring shared prosperity, not policies that led to the creation of an oligarchy."
Just look at what the West did to Iraq. Like Stiglitz I think it is more incompetence and ideology than a sinister plan to
destroy Iraq and Russia. And we are reaping the results of that incompetence.
2008 was also incompetence, greed and ideology not some plot to push through "shock doctrines."
If the one percent were smart they would slowly cook the frog in the pot, where the frog doesn't notice, instead of having
these crises which backfire.
I believe what we are confronting is partly the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's transition.
This framework's influences was reflected in the tremendous emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it was done,
with speed taking precedence over everything else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed to make a market
economy work....
The term Washington Consensus was coined in 1989 by English economist John Williamson to refer to a set of 10 relatively specific
economic policy prescriptions that he considered constituted the "standard" reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing
countries by Washington, D.C.–based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the US Treasury
Department. The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect
to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.
Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
Redirection of public spending from subsidies toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary
education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
Competitive exchange rates;
Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing,
etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
Privatization of state enterprises;
Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on
safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
PGL blames Yeltsin but even Stiglitz writes that it was the Washington Consensus which was to blame for the poor transition and
disastrous collapse of Russia. Now we are reaping the consequences. Just like with Syria, ISIL and Iraq.
Suppose though the matter with privatization is not so much speed but not understanding what should not be subject to privatizing,
such as soft and hard infrastructure.
That a Washington Consensus approach to Russian development proved obviously faulty is important because I would argue the approach
has repeatedly proved faulty from Brazil to South Africa to the Philippines... When the consensus has been turned away from as
in Brazil for several years the development results have dramatically changed but turning from the approach which allows for severe
concentrations of wealth has proved politically difficult as we find now in Brazil.
The range in real per capita GDP growth from 1990 to 2015 extends from 15.8% to 19.8% to 41.1% to 223.1% to 789.1%. This range
needs to be thoroughly analyzed in terms of reflective policy.
The range in total factor productivity growth or decline from 1990 to 2014 extends from a decline of - 16.9% to - 12.2% to - 5.1%
to growth of 40.9% and 76.4%. Again, this range needs to be thoroughly analyzed in terms of reflective policy.
The persuasiveness of the Washington Consensus approach to development strikes me as especially well illustrated by the repeated,
decades-long insistence by Western economists that Chinese development is about to come to a crashing end. The insistence continues
with an almost daily repetition in the likes of The Economist or Financial Times.
I would suggest the success of China thoroughly studied provides us with remarkable policy prescriptions.
"... Too much liberal swamp gas [In Stiglitz's book] ..."
"... I love joe. His technical intuition is peerless. But he is mushy at heart. Social values involved. Unlike say chomsky ..."
"... It may eventually prove to be generous to describe Russia's misfortune as "the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that
shaped Russia's transition" according to Stiglitz. It may prove rather to be "the legacy of *intentionally* flawed consensus". ..."
I've been encouraging folks to read his 1997 book - in particular chapter 5. When I do, the Usual Suspects decided to attack by
questioning Stiglitz's credential.
One of them cited Wikipedia noting it relied on World Bank research. Of course, Stiglitz headed the World Bank back then. Go
figure.
It may eventually prove to be generous to describe Russia's misfortune as "the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that
shaped Russia's transition" according to Stiglitz. It may prove rather to be "the legacy of *intentionally* flawed consensus".
"... Could Russia's post-communist transition have been managed better? We can never answer such questions definitively: history
cannot be re-run. But I believe what we are confronting is partly the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's
transition. ..."
"... This framework's influences was reflected in the tremendous emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it was
done, with speed taking precedence over everything else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed to make a market
economy work. Fifteen years ago, when I wrote Globalization and its Discontents, I argued that this "shock therapy" approach to economic
reform was a dismal failure. ..."
"... Today, more than a quarter-century since the onset of transition, those earlier results have been confirmed, and those who
argued that private property rights, once created, would give rise to broader demands for the rule of law have been proven wrong. Russia
and many of the other transition countries are lagging further behind the advanced economies than ever. GDP in some transition countries
is below its level at the beginning of the transition." ..."
"... In the matter before us – the question of the many billions in capital that fled Russia to Western shores via the Bank of New
York and other Western banks – we have had a window thrown open on what the financial affairs of a country without property rights,
without banks, without the certainty of contract, without an accountable government or a leadership decent enough to be concerned with
the national interest or its own citizens' well-being looks like. ..."
"... And there is no mistake as to who the victims are, i.e. Western, principally U.S., taxpayers and Russian citizens' whose national
legacy was stolen only to be squandered and/or invested in Western real estate and equities markets ..."
"In terms of per capita income, Russia now ranks 73rd (in terms of purchasing power parity) – well below the Soviet Union's
former satellites in Central and Eastern Europe. The country has deindustrialized: the vast majority of its exports now come from
natural resources. It has not evolved into a "normal" market economy, but rather into a peculiar form of crony-state capitalism
.
Many had much higher hopes for Russia, and the former Soviet Union more broadly, when the Iron Curtain fell. After seven decades
of Communism, the transition to a democratic market economy would not be easy. But, given the obvious advantages of democratic
market capitalism to the system that had just fallen apart, it was assumed that the economy would flourish and citizens would
demand a greater voice. What went wrong? Who, if anyone, is to blame?
Could Russia's post-communist transition have been managed better? We can never answer such questions definitively: history
cannot be re-run. But I believe what we are confronting is partly the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's
transition.
This framework's influences was reflected in the tremendous emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it
was done, with speed taking precedence over everything else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed to make
a market economy work. Fifteen years ago, when I wrote Globalization and its Discontents, I argued that this "shock therapy" approach
to economic reform was a dismal failure.
But defenders of that doctrine cautioned patience: one could make such judgments only with a longer-run perspective. Today,
more than a quarter-century since the onset of transition, those earlier results have been confirmed, and those who argued that
private property rights, once created, would give rise to broader demands for the rule of law have been proven wrong. Russia and
many of the other transition countries are lagging further behind the advanced economies than ever. GDP in some transition countries
is below its level at the beginning of the transition."
Stiglitz is not saying markets cannot work if the rules are properly constructed. He is saying that the Yeltsin rules were
not as they were crony capitalism at their worse. And it seems the Putin rules are not much better. He mentions his 1997 book
which featured as chapter 5 "Who Lost Russia". It still represents an excellent read.
"Shleifer also met his mentor and professor, Lawrence Summers, during his undergraduate education at Harvard. The two went on
to be co-authors, joint grant recipients, and faculty colleagues.[5]
During the early 1990s, Andrei Shleifer headed a Harvard project under the auspices of the Harvard Institute for International
Development (HIID) that invested U.S. government funds in the development of Russia's economy.
Schleifer was also a direct advisor to Anatoly Chubais, then vice-premier of Russia, who managed the Rosimushchestvo (Committee
for the Management of State Property) portfolio and was a primary engineer of Russian privatization. Shleifer was also tasked
with establishing a stock market for Russia that would be a world-class capital market.[14]
In 1996 complaints about the Harvard project led Congress to launch a General Accounting Office investigation, which stated
that the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID) was given "substantial control of the U.S. assistance program."[15]
In 1997, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) canceled most of its funding for the Harvard project after investigations
showed that top HIID officials Andre Schleifer and Johnathan Hay had used their positions and insider information to profit from
investments in the Russian securities markets. Among other things, the Institute for a Law Based Economy (ILBE) was used to assist
Schleifer's wife, Nancy Zimmerman, who operated a hedge fund which speculated in Russian bonds.[14]
In August 2005, Harvard University, Shleifer and the Department of Justice reached an agreement under which the university
paid $26.5 million to settle the five-year-old lawsuit. Shleifer was also responsible for paying $2 million worth of damages,
though he did not admit any wrongdoing
"He has held a tenured position in the Department of Economics at Harvard University since 1991 and was, from 2001 through
2006, the Whipple V. N. Jones Professor of Economics."
My impression is that Andrei Shleifer was a marionette, a low level pawn in a big game.
The fact that he was a greedy academic scum, who tried to amass a fortune in Russia probably under influence of his wife (his
wife, a hedge fund manager, was GS alumnae and was introduced to him by Summers) is peripheral to the actual role he played.
Jeffey Sacks also played highly negative role being the architect of "shock therapy": the sudden release of price and currency
controls, withdrawal of state subsidies, and immediate trade liberalization within a country, usually also including large-scale
privatization of previously public-owned assets.
In other words "shock therapy" = "economic rape"
As Anne Williamson said:
"Instead, after robbing the Russian people of the only capital they had to participate in the new market – the nation's
household savings – by freeing prices in what was a monopolistic economy and which delivered a 2500% inflation in 1992, America's
"brave, young Russian reformers" ginned-up a development theory of "Big Capitalism" based on Karl Marx's mistaken edict that
capitalism requires the "primitive accumulation of capital". Big capitalists would appear instantly, they said, and a broadly-based
market economy shortly thereafter if only the pockets of pre-selected members of their own ex-Komsomol circle were properly
stuffed.
Those who hankered for a public reputation were to secure the government perches from which they would pass state assets
to their brethren in the nascent business community, happy in the knowledge that they too would be kicked back a significant
cut of the swag. The US-led West accommodated the reformers' cockeyed theory by designing a rapid and easily manipulated voucher
privatization program that was really only a transfer of title and which was funded with $325 million US taxpayers' dollars.
"
"Many in Russia believe that the US Treasury pushed Washington Consensus policies to weaken their country. The deep corruption
of the Harvard University team chosen to "help" Russia in its transition, described in a detailed account published in 2006
by Institutional Investor, reinforced these beliefs."
This was not a corruption. This was the intent on Clinton administration. I would think about it as a planned operation.
The key was that the gangster capitalism model was enforced by the Western "Washington consensus" (of which IMF was an integral
part) -- really predatory set of behaviors designed to colonize Russia and make is US satellite much like Germany became after
WWII but without the benefit of Marshall plan.
Clinton consciously chose this criminal policy among alternatives: kick the lying body. So after Russian people get rid of
corrupt and degraded Communist regime, they got under the iron hill of US gangsters from Clinton administration.
My impression is that Clinton was and is a criminal. And he really proved to be a very capable mass murderer. And his entourage
had found willing sociopaths within Russian society (as well as in other xUUSR republics; Ukraine actually fared worse then Russia
as for the level of plunder) who implemented neoliberal policies. Yegor Gaidar was instrumental in enforcing Harvard-designed
"shock therapy" on Russian people. He also create the main neoliberal party in Russia -- the Democratic Choice of Russia - United
Democrats. Later in 1990s, it became the Union of Right Forces.
Before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the United States House of Representatives
September 21, 1999
In the matter before us – the question of the many billions in capital that fled Russia to Western shores via the Bank
of New York and other Western banks – we have had a window thrown open on what the financial affairs of a country without property
rights, without banks, without the certainty of contract, without an accountable government or a leadership decent enough to
be concerned with the national interest or its own citizens' well-being looks like. It's not a pretty picture, is it?
But let there be no mistake, in Russia the West has truly been the author of its own misery. And there is no mistake as
to who the victims are, i.e. Western, principally U.S., taxpayers and Russian citizens' whose national legacy was stolen only
to be squandered and/or invested in Western real estate and equities markets
... ... ...
A lot of people, especially pensioners, died because of Clinton's gangster policies in xUUSR space.
I am wondering how Russian managed to survive as an independent country. The USA put tremendous efforts and resources in destruction
of Russian economy and colonizing its by creating "fifth column" on neoliberal globalization.
all those criminal oligarchs hold moved their capitals to the West as soon as they can because they were afraid of the future.
Nobody persecuted them and Western banks helped to extract money from Russia to the extent that some of their methods were clearly
criminals.
Economic devastation was comparable with caused by Nazi armies, although amount of dead was less, but also in millions.
Questionable figures from the West flowed into Russia and tried to exploit still weak law system by raiding the companies.
Some of them were successful and amassed huge fortunes. Some ended being shot. Soros tried, but was threatened to be shot by Berezovsky
and choose to leave for the good.
Especially hard hit was military industrial complex, which was oversized in any case, but which was an integral part of Soviet
economy and employed many highly qualified specialists. Many of whom later emigrated to the West. At some point it was difficult
to find physics department in the US university without at least a single person form xUSSR space (not necessary a Russian)
"... U.S. assistance to Chubais continued even after he was dismissed by Yeltsin as First Deputy Prime Minister in January 1996.
Chubais was placed on the HIID payroll, a show of loyalty that USAID Assistant Administrator Thomas A. Dine said he supported. ..."
"... Bill Clinton was all out after Russia, Talbot and his neocon advisors! ..."
"... The look the other way when the united Germany sent a brigade size armored set to Croatia to do Serbs. ..."
"... In Jul 1997 Poland, Hungary and Czech republic were entered in to NATO. ..."
"... Regarding Russia, Clinton was more interested in domination that development...a consistent theme in US history since its beginning.
..."
"... Instead of promoting democracy, the US rigged the 1996 election in favor of the drunkard Yeltsin. ..."
"... To hear the all the whining of Democrats and of the security state, the chickens may have come home to roost. ..."
"...Many people (myself included) have regretted that the Clinton administration has failed to seize the moment at the end
of the Cold War to create a more just international order that would be based on the rules of law, would not be dichotomic or
even Manichean one with its origin in the Cold War, and would include Russia rather than leave it out in the cold..."
[Was "Clinton administration has failed" a typo or a subtle semantic choice? Whereas "Clinton administration HAD failed" would
have past perfect tense, "has failed" is present perfect tense, suggesting the subject "Clinton administration" is the continuum
of compassionate conservatism beginning with Bill Clinton and ending with Barrack Obama. Semantics is why spelling is important.
It is also why reading is important.]
I personally have no idea what Branko Milanovic is going on about there. As far as I can tell Russia chose to be "out in the cold",
it wasn't excluded.
When the Soviet Union abruptly ceased to exist on December 25, 1991, it seemed that the West, particularly the U.S., finally
had what it had always wanted–the opportunity to introduce quick, all-encompassing economic reform that would remake Russia in
the West's own image.
By Janine Wedel, September 1, 1998.
Key Points
Since 1992, the U.S. and other donors have provided Russia billions of dollars in aid for radical economic "reforms," largely
defined as privatization of state-owned assets.
The chief beneficiary of these reforms has been a small clique of political and economic powerbrokers.
The Chubais clique typically instituted reforms through top-down presidential decree and a network of aid-funded "private"
organizations which has circumvented Russia's legislature.
When the Soviet Union abruptly ceased to exist on December 25, 1991, it seemed that the West, particularly the U.S., finally
had what it had always wanted–the opportunity to introduce quick, all-encompassing economic reform that would remake Russia in
the West's own image. To this end, the U.S., over the past seven years, has embarked upon a fairly consistent course of economic
relations with Russia. Three interrelated policies characterize this course: 1) the urging of radical economic "reforms," defined
largely as the privatization of state-owned assets, to restructure the economy; 2) the backing of a particular political-economic
group, or "clan," to do so; and 3) the provision of billions of dollars in U.S. and other Western aid, subsidized loans, and rescheduled
debt.
The United States has consistently supported President Boris Yeltsin and a Russian cadre of self-styled economic "reformers"
to conduct Western aid-funded economic reforms and negotiate economic relations with the West. U.S. support for Anatoly Chubais,
Yegor Gaidar, and the so-called "Chubais Clan" (a group of savvy operators dominated by a clique from St. Petersburg) has bolstered
the Clan's standing as Russia's chief brokers with the West and the international financial institutions. This support continues
to the present. And, the Chubais Clan–not the Russian economy as a whole–has been the chief beneficiary of economic restructuring
funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Throughout the 1990s, Chubais has been a useful figure for Russian president Boris Yeltsin: beginning in November 1991 as head
of Russia's new privatization agency, the State Property Committee (GKI), then additionally as first deputy prime minister in
January 1994, and later as the lightning rod for complaints about economic policies after the communists won the Russian parliament
(Duma) election in December 1995. Chubais made a comeback in 1996 as head of Yeltsin's successful reelection campaign and was
named chief of staff for the president. In March 1997, Western support and political maneuvering catapulted him to first deputy
prime minister and minister of finance. Although fired by Yeltsin in March 1998, Chubais was reappointed in June 1998 to be Yeltsin's
special envoy in charge of Russia's relations with international lending institutions.
Working closely with Harvard University's Institute for International Development (HIID), the Chubais Clan controlled, directly
and indirectly, millions of dollars in U.S. aid through a variety of institutions and organizations set up to perform privatization,
economic-restructuring, and related activities. Between 1992 and 1997, HIID received $40.4 million from USAID in noncompetitive
grants for work in Russia and was slated to receive another $17.4 million until USAID suspended HIID's funding in May 1997, citing
evidence that HIID principals were engaged in "activities for personal gain." In addition to receiving millions in direct funding,
HIID and the Clan helped steer and coordinate USAID's $300 million economic reform portfolio, which encompassed privatization,
legal reform, development of capital markets, and the creation of a Russian securities and exchange commission.
The preferred method of economic reform was top-down presidential decree orchestrated by Chubais. Shortly after Yeltsin became
the elected president of the Russian Federation in June 1991, the Federation's Supreme Soviet passed a law mandating privatization.
After several schemes were floated, the Supreme Soviet passed a program in 1992 intended to prevent corruption, but the one Chubais
eventually implemented contained none of the safeguards and was designed to encourage the accumulation of property in a few hands.
This program opened the door to widespread corruption and was so controversial that Chubais ultimately had to rely largely on
presidential decrees, not parliamentary approval, for implementation.
Instead of encouraging market reform, this rule by decree frustrated many market reforms as well as democratic decisionmaking.
Some reforms, such as lifting price controls, could be achieved by decree. But many other reforms advocated by USAID, the World
Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), including privatization and economic restructuring, depended on changes in law,
public administration, or mindsets, and required working with the full spectrum of legislative and market participants-not just
one group. The "reformers" set up still other means of bypassing democratic processes, including a network of aid-funded "private"
organizations controlled by the Chubais Clan and HIID. These organizations enabled reformers to bypass legitimate bodies of government,
such as ministries and branch ministries, and to circumvent the Duma.
Problems with Current U.S. Policy
Key Problems
U.S. officials and a team of Harvard advisers have embraced the "reformers'" dictatorial political methods, arguing they
alone are capable of instituting swift privatization and other economic restructurings.
While professing to support simply economic reform, U.S. policies have consolidated political and economic power in the
hands of one clique.
The $11.2 billion IMF bailout in July 1998 will intensify these abuses and has failed to stem Russia's financial crisis.
The privatization drive that was supposed to reap the fruits of the free market instead helped to create a system of tycoon
capitalism run for the benefit of a corrupt political oligarchy that has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars of Western
aid and plundered Russia's wealth.
Despite evidence of corruption and lack of popular support, many Western investors and U.S. officials embraced the "reformers"
dictatorial modus operandi and viewed Chubais as the only man capable of keeping the nation heading along the troublesome road
to economic reform. As Walter Coles, a senior adviser in USAID's Office of Privatization and Economic Restructuring program, said,
"If we needed a decree, Chubais didn't have to go through the bureaucracy," adding, "There was no way that reformers could go
to the Duma for large amounts of money to move along reform."
While this approach sounds good in principle, it is less convincing in practice because it is an inherently political decision
disguised as a technical matter. As Chubais Clan member Maxim Boycko himself acknowledged in a 1995 co-authored book on privatization,
"Aid can change the political equilibrium by explicitly helping free-market reformers to defeat their opponents . Aid helps reform
not because it directly helps the economy–it is simply too small for that–but because it helps the reformers in their political
battles."
In a 1997 interview, U.S. aid coordinator to the former Soviet Union, Ambassador Richard L. Morningstar, stood by this approach:
"If we hadn't been there to provide funding to Chubais, could we have won the battle to carry out privatization? Probably not.
When you're talking about a few hundred million dollars, you're not going to change the country, but you can provide targeted
assistance to help Chubais."
U.S. assistance to Chubais continued even after he was dismissed by Yeltsin as First Deputy Prime Minister in January 1996.
Chubais was placed on the HIID payroll, a show of loyalty that USAID Assistant Administrator Thomas A. Dine said he supported.
Much of this feels familiar to Russians raised in the Communist practice of political control over economic decisions–the quintessence
of the discredited Communist system. While professing simply to support reform, U.S. policies afforded one group a comparative
advantage and allowed much aid to be used as the tool of this group. Ironically, far from helping to separate the political and
economic spheres, U.S. economic aid has instead reinforced the interdependency of these spheres. Indeed, the activities of HIID
in Russia provide some cautionary lessons on abuse of trust by supposedly disinterested foreign advisers, on U.S. arrogance, and
on the entire policy of support for a single Russian group of so-called reformers.
The July 1998 IMF bailout of Russia represents an intensification of the very policies that have produced such abuses. The
$11.2 billion aid package for 1998, (with another $7.8 billion funds over three years pledged if Russia "stays on track"), is
supposed to put an end to Russia's financial crisis. Yet only a very few certain political-economic players–not the population
at large, including workers who have gone without wages for months–stand to reap any benefits.
Among those who spoke out against the bailout was Veniamin Sokolov, head of the Chamber of Accounts of the Russian Federation,
Russia's equivalent of the U.S. General Accounting Office. Sokolov, who has investigated the destination of some previous monies
from international lending institutions and aid organizations, argued, "All loans made to Russia go to speculative financial markets
and have no effect whatsoever on the national economy." And it is the Russian people who are responsible for repaying those loans.
The very call for an IMF bailout is a commentary on the failure of previous economic aid to Russia: If aid had been effective,
why were billions in IMF loans needed to prevent the country from falling into crisis? The IMF loan and accompanying hype were
intended to revive confidence in Russia's plummeting markets and give the government time to get its financial markets under control.
However, just weeks after the IMF deal was approved, investor confidence hit a new low and the Russian government was forced to
devalue the ruble.
For its part, USAID, which provided Russia with $95.7 million in economic aid in 1997 and another $129.1 million estimated
for 1998, is requesting from Congress $225.4 million in economic aid for Russia in 1999.
Toward a New Foreign Policy
Key Recommendations
In order to support its stated objectives of fostering sound economic development and democratic institutions, the U.S.
needs to reverse its current policies and practices in Russia.
The United States must accept that the future shape of Russia must and will be determined by the Russian people and adhere
to its basic principles such as participatory democracy and the rule of law.
Washington should recognize that a healthy banking and financial system depends on a revival of production and distribution
within Russia and should use its considerable influence with the World Bank and IMF to promote policies that address these
fundamental problems.
Given the continuing socioeconomic deterioration of Russia, what should the United States do? If the U.S. government wants
to adhere to its own declared objectives and help promote in Russia sound economic development and equitable growth as well as
viable and transparent democratic institutions, it has no option than to reverse its current policies and practices.
The U.S. role in creating a system of tycoon capitalism and the current economic meltdown, coupled with military policies such
as NATO expansion, have fueled anti-American sentiment in Russia. The first thing we should do, as Joseph Stiglitz, a leading
World Bank economist, correctly suggests, is to adopt "a greater degree of humility . (and) acknowledgement of the fact that we
do not have all of the answers." Washington must also accept that the future shape of Russia society will and must be determined
by the Russian people. U.S. policy should at least try to adhere to some of the principles that it preaches, such as participatory
democracy and the rule of law or even "no taxation without representation." In line this with, the U.S. must stop its policy of
support-at-all-costs for Yeltsin and the Chubais Clan, not only in USAID targets but also in U.S. influence in IMF and World Bank
lending.
Second, the U.S. government should recognize that a healthy banking and financial system cannot arise without a revival of
production and distribution in the "real" economy. Measures which emphasize increases in tax collections and reductions in government
expenditures under the current extremely depressed conditions simply guarantee accelerated decline of the real economy and social-political
chaos. The United States should use its great influence on the IMF andWorld Bank to reduce their pressure on Russia to pursue
such suicidal policies. Not only did the IMF bailout fail to restore confidence, but the business of international aid has been
fundamentally ill-conceived. As Veniamin Sokolov warned: "Giving more loans to the Yeltsin government is comparable to giving
a drug addict a fresh supply of narcotics. Any new loans will only go to the realm of financial speculation and to prop up support
for Boris Yeltsin. Russia does not need any further such lending." In sum, further aid will go to the same corrupt niches and
is likely to make the situation worse, not better.
Third, the U.S. should embark on a broad-based policy to encourage governance and the rule of law. It is essential that the
United States discontinue support of non-inclusive organizations and the bypassing of democratic process through decree. Some
U.S. aid funds have gone for "democracy building," including strengthening and revamping the judiciary. However, these efforts
have been a low priority and have been compromised and undermined by the practice of U.S. economic advisers encouraging the Chubais
Clan to enact swift economic reforms without approval of the Duma, Russia's popularly elected legislature.
The U.S. needs to adopt a pro-democracy stance that encourages institution-building and as broad a range of democratic positions
as possible. We must cease to select specific groups or individuals as the recipients of uncritical support, which both corrupts
our "favorites" and delegitimizes them in the eyes of their fellow citizens.
Fourth, President Clinton himself, other U.S. officials, and economic advisers need to establish contact and ties with a wide
cross-section of the Russian leadership–politicians, economists, and social and political activists–and not only with Yeltsin
and his allies. How Russian elites perceive the efficacy of U.S. aid programs and policies should be a source of concern, especially
because many Russians have questioned American intentions. Although a reversal of policy will require a long and resolute process
of diplomacy, Clinton administration officials can take steps by, for example, making efforts to meet with members of the Duma
and a diversity of Russian elites.
[What the US largely did at that point was disengage aid to Russia and set them adrift.]
It is not clear what Milanovic was trying to get at, but what Janine Wedel wrote about was how I came to understand the story.
Your writing makes Milanovic seem cogent. I am talking about your organization of ideas and your semantics, as well as his. Neither
of you get much across for the effort. Wedel can actually write. Whether she is right or not, I cannot say, but it is how I have
heard the story told from the beginning.
Looks like there was a desire to completely destroy Russian economics and turn Russia into vassal state by the USA ruling elite.
So the policy was not to help, but help to destroy.
Huge profits were made by devouring Russia and all xUSSR region and plunging the population into abject poverty. But eventually
it backfired.
Wow - Anne is not going to like this suggestion that Yeltsin was a drunkard. Of course you missed the real problem - his regime
of crony capitalism was incredibly corrupt. Stiglitz covered the damage that was done in a chapter entitled "Who Lost Russia".
Something else you never bothered to read.
Yeltsin's "regime of crony capitalism was incredibly corrupt"...Clinton's regime on a grander scale...which was why Clinton wanted
to rig the Russian election for Yeltsin?
Having been is Strategic Air Command, as well as a long time in the technical side of NORAD's mission I find Milanovic's concluding
statement utterly misguided.
"But note that the Cold War had one good feature: it was "Cold".
"Civilization"* could have ended in less than the time to watch an NFL football game.
My experiences in the cold war were really great!! The nuclear forces I supported were on 'immediate' launch alert, several
rumors abide about close calls from 'sensor errors and communication black out". Any of SAC's bomb wings could have its alert
Buffs in the air in single digit minutes!
It is safer to move NATO right up to Moscow! Neocon hyperbole from Milanovic selling the US military industrial complex' marketing
plans. Look how secure and prosperous the 'west' has been under the umbrella of $28T in US war spending.
It don't cause any concerns that NATO has organized former Warsaw pact against Russia.
It will be deceptively "Cold" until it goes thermonuclear over that brigade level trip wire.
ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , -1
Obama on cornering Russia is an extension of Wm Clinton.
Its from World Socialist Web Site by thier analysys
does contain some valid points. Especially about betrayal of nomenklatura, and, especially, KGB nomenklatura,which was wholesale bought
by the USA for cash.
Note that the author is unable or unwilling to use the tterm "neoliberalism". Looks like orthodox Marxism has problem with this
notion as it contradict Marxism dogma that capitalism as an economic doctrine is final stage before arrival of socialism. Looks like
it is not the final ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Russia Since 1980 ..."
"... History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men ..."
"... The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing in 1990, aptly known as catastroika. ..."
"... In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. ..."
"... The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required access to the resources of the world economy. ..."
"... For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. ..."
"... In other words, the integration of the USSR into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy, but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. ..."
"... The Fourth International ..."
"... The End of the USSR, ..."
"... The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class defense. ..."
"... Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism and Karl Marx. [p. 25] ..."
This analysis has been vindicated by scholarly investigations into the causes of the Soviet economic collapse that facilitated
the bureaucracy's dissolution of the USSR. In Russia Since 1980, published in 2008 by Cambridge University Press, Professors
Steven Rosefielde and Stefan Hedlund present evidence that Gorbachev introduced measures that appear, in retrospect, to have been
aimed at sabotaging the Soviet economy. "Gorbachev and his entourage," they write, "seem to have had a venal hidden agenda that caused
things to get out of hand quickly." [p. 38] In a devastating appraisal of Gorbachev's policies, Rosefielde and Hedlund state:
History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance
the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers
into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to
themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men. [p. 40]
Instead of displaying due diligence over personal use of state revenues, materials and property, inculcated in every Bolshevik
since 1917, Gorbachev winked at a counterrevolution from below opening Pandora's Box. He allowed enterprises and others not only
to profit maximize for the state in various ways, which was beneficial, but also to misappropriate state assets, and export the proceeds
abroad. In the process, red directors disregarded state contracts and obligations, disorganizing inter-industrial intermediate input
flows, and triggering a depression from which the Soviet Union never recovered and Russia has barely emerged. [p. 47]
Given all the heated debates that would later ensue about how Yeltsin and his shock therapy engendered mass plunder, it should
be noted that the looting began under Gorbachev's watch. It was his malign neglect that transformed the rhetoric of Market Communism
into the pillage of the nation's assets.
The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin
to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing
in 1990, aptly known as catastroika.
In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for
death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists
maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer
materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. [p. 49]
The analysis of Rosefielde and Hedlund, while accurate in its assessment of Gorbachev's actions, is simplistic. Gorbachev's policies
can be understood only within the framework of more fundamental political and socioeconomic factors. First, and most important, the
real objective crisis of the Soviet economy (which existed and preceded by many decades the accession of Gorbachev to power) developed
out of the contradictions of the autarkic nationalist policies pursued by the Soviet regime since Stalin and Bukharin introduced
the program of "socialism in one country" in 1924. The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required
access to the resources of the world economy. This access could be achieved only in one of two ways: either through the spread
of socialist revolution into the advanced capitalist countries, or through the counterrevolutionary integration of the USSR into
the economic structures of world capitalism.
For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working
class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it
could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. This second course, moreover, opened for the leading sections
of the bureaucracy the possibility of permanently securing their privileges and vastly expanding their wealth. The privileged caste
would become a ruling class. The corruption of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and their associates was merely the necessary means employed by
the bureaucracy to achieve this utterly reactionary and immensely destructive outcome.
On October 3, 1991, less than three months before the dissolution of the USSR, I delivered a lecture in Kiev in which I challenged
the argument-which was widely propagated by the Stalinist regime-that the restoration of capitalism would bring immense benefits
to the people. I stated:
In this country, capitalist restoration can only take place on the basis of the widespread destruction of the already existing
productive forces and the social- cultural institutions that depended upon them. In other words, the integration of the USSR
into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy,
but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those
that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. When one examines the various schemes hatched by proponents of
capitalist restoration, one cannot but conclude that they are no less ignorant than Stalin of the real workings of the world capitalist
economy. And they are preparing the ground for a social tragedy that will eclipse that produced by the pragmatic and nationalistic
policies of Stalin. ["Soviet Union at the Crossroads," published in The Fourth International (Fall- Winter 1992, Volume
19, No. 1, p. 109), Emphasis in the original.]
Almost exactly 20 years ago, on January 4, 1992, the Workers League held a party membership meeting in Detroit to consider the
historical, political and social implications of the dissolution of the USSR. Rereading this report so many years later, I believe
that it has stood the test of time. It stated that the dissolution of the USSR "represents the juridical liquidation of the workers'
state and its replacement with regimes that are openly and unequivocally devoted to the destruction of the remnants of the national
economy and the planning system that issued from the October Revolution. To define the CIS [Confederation of Independent States]
or its independent republics as workers states would be to completely separate the definition from the concrete content which it
expressed during the previous period." [David North, The End of the USSR, Labor Publications, 1992, p. 6]
The report continued:
"A revolutionary party must face reality and state what is. The Soviet working class has suffered a serious defeat. The bureaucracy
has devoured the workers state before the working class was able to clean out the bureaucracy. This fact, however unpleasant, does
not refute the perspective of the Fourth International. Since it was founded in 1938, our movement has repeatedly said that if the
working class was not able to destroy this bureaucracy, then the Soviet Union would suffer a shipwreck. Trotsky did not call for
political revolution as some sort of exaggerated response to this or that act of bureaucratic malfeasance. He said that a political
revolution was necessary because only in that way could the Soviet Union, as a workers state, be defended against imperialism." [p.
6]
I sought to explain why the Soviet working class had failed to rise up in opposition to the bureaucracy's liquidation of the Soviet
Union. How was it possible that the destruction of the Soviet Union-having survived the horrors of the Nazi invasion-could be carried
out "by a miserable group of petty gangsters, acting in the interests of the scum of Soviet society?" I offered the following answer:
We must reply to these questions by stressing the implications of the massive destruction of revolutionary cadre carried out within
the Soviet Union by the Stalinist regime. Virtually all the human representatives of the revolutionary tradition who consciously
prepared and led that revolution were wiped out. And along with the political leaders of the revolution, the most creative representatives
of the intelligentsia who had flourished in the early years of the Soviet state were also annihilated or terrorized into silence.
Furthermore, we must point to the deep-going alienation of the working class itself from state property. Property belonged to
the state, but the state "belonged" to the bureaucracy, as Trotsky noted. The fundamental distinction between state property and
bourgeois property-however important from a theoretical standpoint-became less and less relevant from a practical standpoint. It
is true that capitalist exploitation did not exist in the scientific sense of the term, but that did not alter the fact that the
day-to-day conditions of life in factories and mines and other workplaces were as miserable as are to be found in any of the advanced
capitalist countries, and, in many cases, far worse.
Finally, we must consider the consequences of the protracted decay of the international socialist movement...
Especially during the past decade, the collapse of effective working class resistance in any part of the world to the bourgeois
offensive had a demoralizing effect on Soviet workers. Capitalism assumed an aura of "invincibility," although this aura was merely
the illusory reflection of the spinelessness of the labor bureaucracies all over the world, which have on every occasion betrayed
the workers and capitulated to the bourgeoisie. What the Soviet workers saw was not the bitter resistance of sections of workers
to the international offensive of capital, but defeats and their consequences. [p. 13-14]
The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing
up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class
defense.
In every part of the world, including the advanced countries, the workers are discovering that their own parties and their own
trade union organizations are engaged in the related task of systematically lowering and impoverishing the working class. [p. 22]
Finally, the report dismissed any notion that the dissolution of the USSR signified a new era of progressive capitalist development.
Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea
that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle
in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in
the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive
struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism
and Karl Marx. [p. 25]
The aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR: 20 years of economic crisis, social decay, and political reaction
According to liberal theory, the dissolution of the Soviet Union ought to have produced a new flowering of democracy. Of course,
nothing of the sort occurred-not in the former USSR or, for that matter, in the United States. Moreover, the breakup of the Soviet
Union-the so-called defeat of communism-was not followed by a triumphant resurgence of its irreconcilable enemies in the international
workers' movement, the social democratic and reformist trade unions and political parties. The opposite occurred. All these organizations
experienced, in the aftermath of the breakup of the USSR, a devastating and even terminal crisis. In the United States, the trade
union movement-whose principal preoccupation during the entire Cold War had been the defeat of Communism-has all but collapsed. During
the two decades that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the AFL-CIO lost a substantial portion of its membership, was reduced
to a state of utter impotence, and ceased to exist as a workers' organization in any socially significant sense of the term. At the
same time, everywhere in the world, the social position of the working class-from the standpoint of its influence on the direction
of state policy and its ability to increase its share of the surplus value produced by its own labor-deteriorated dramatically.
Certain important conclusions flow from this fact. First, the breakup of the Soviet Union did not flow from the supposed failure
of Marxism and socialism. If that had been the case, the anti-Marxist and antisocialist labor organizations should have thrived in
the post-Soviet era. The fact that these organizations experienced ignominious failure compels one to uncover the common feature
in the program and orientation of all the so-called labor organizations, "communist" and anticommunist alike. What was the common
element in the political DNA of all these organization? The answer is that regardless of their names, conflicting political alignments
and superficial ideological differences, the large labor organizations of the post-World War II period pursued essentially nationalist
policies. They tied the fate of the working class to one or another nation-state. This left them incapable of responding to the increasing
integration of the world economy. The emergence of transnational corporations and the associated phenomena of capitalist globalization
shattered all labor organizations that based themselves on a nationalist program.
The second conclusion is that the improvement of conditions of the international working class was linked, to one degree or another,
to the existence of the Soviet Union. Despite the treachery and crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the existence of the USSR, a
state that arose on the basis of a socialist revolution, imposed upon American and European imperialism certain political and social
restraints that would otherwise have been unacceptable. The political environment of the past two decades-characterized by unrestrained
imperialist militarism, the violations of international law, and the repudiation of essential principles of bourgeois democracy-is
the direct outcome of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
The breakup of the USSR was, for the great masses of its former citizens, an unmitigated disaster. Twenty years after the October
Revolution, despite all the political crimes of the Stalinist regime, the new property relations established in the aftermath of
the October Revolution made possible an extraordinary social transformation of backward Russia. And even after suffering horrifying
losses during the four years of war with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union experienced in the 20 years that followed the war a stupendous
growth of its economy, which was accompanied by advances in science and culture that astonished the entire world.
But what is the verdict on the post-Soviet experience of the Russian people? First and foremost, the dissolution of the USSR set
into motion a demographic catastrophe. Ten years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russian population was shrinking at an
annual rate of 750,000. Between 1983 and 2001, the number of annual births dropped by one half. 75 percent of pregnant women in Russia
suffered some form of illness that endangered their unborn child. Only one quarter of infants were born healthy.
The overall health of the Russian people deteriorated dramatically after the restoration of capitalism. There was a staggering
rise in alcoholism, heart disease, cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. All this occurred against the backdrop of a catastrophic
breakdown of the economy of the former USSR and a dramatic rise in mass poverty.
As for democracy, the post-Soviet system was consolidated on the basis of mass murder. For more than 70 years, the Bolshevik regime's
dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918-an event that did not entail the loss of a single life-was trumpeted as an
unforgettable and unforgivable violation of democratic principles. But in October 1993, having lost a majority in the popularly elected
parliament, the Yeltsin regime ordered the bombardment of the White House-the seat of the Russian parliament-located in the middle
of Moscow. Estimates of the number of people who were killed in the military assault run as high as 2,000. On the basis of this carnage,
the Yeltsin regime was effectively transformed into a dictatorship, based on the military and security forces. The regime of Putin-Medvedev
continues along the same dictatorial lines. The assault on the White House was supported by the Clinton administration. Unlike the
dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the bombardment of the Russian parliament is an event that has been all but forgotten.
What is there to be said of post-Soviet Russian culture? As always, there are talented people who do their best to produce serious
work. But the general picture is one of desolation. The words that have emerged from the breakup of the USSR and that define modern
Russian culture, or what is left of it, are "mafia," "biznessman" and "oligarch."
What has occurred in Russia is only an extreme expression of a social and cultural breakdown that is to be observed in all capitalist
countries. Can it even be said with certainty that the economic system devised in Russia is more corrupt that that which exists in
Britain or the United States? The Russian oligarchs are probably cruder and more vulgar in the methods they employ. However, the
argument could be plausibly made that their methods of plunder are less efficient than those employed by their counterparts in the
summits of American finance. After all, the American financial oligarchs, whose speculative operations brought about the near-collapse
of the US and global economy in the autumn of 2008, were able to orchestrate, within a matter of days, the transfer of the full burden
of their losses to the public.
It is undoubtedly true that the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991 opened up endless opportunities for the use of American
power-in the Balkans, the Middle East and Central Asia. But the eruption of American militarism was, in the final analysis, the expression
of a more profound and historically significant tendency-the long-term decline of the economic position of American capitalism. This
tendency was not reversed by the breakup of the USSR. The history of American capitalism during the past two decades has been one
of decay. The brief episodes of economic growth have been based on reckless and unsustainable speculation. The Clinton boom of the
1990s was fueled by the "irrational exuberance" of Wall Street speculation, the so-called dot.com bubble. The great corporate icons
of the decade-of which Enron was the shining symbol-were assigned staggering valuations on the basis of thoroughly criminal operations.
It all collapsed in 2000-2001. The subsequent revival was fueled by frenzied speculation in housing. And, finally, the collapse in
2008, from which there has been no recovery.
When historians begin to recover from their intellectual stupor, they will see the collapse of the USSR and the protracted decline
of American capitalism as interrelated episodes of a global crisis, arising from the inability to develop the massive productive
forces developed by mankind on the basis of private ownership of the means of production and within the framework of the nation-state
system.
Harvard mafia actions were, of cause, a crime of the century. The collapse of the Russian economy exceeded the worst declines
in the West during the 1930s depression almost twice. But truth be told the system was rotting from within and they could operate
only by relying on the local "fifth column" of neoliberalization (Gaidar, Yakovlev, etc).
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less
formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers
rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in
accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts
of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects
the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."
Marcus Tullius Cicero
"USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to neoliberal elite, that the transition in
1991 was almost seamless." Yes, well, it is impossible for someone as limited as myself to comment on your spiritual knowledge.
But on a more earthly plane, it is not so obvious that the oligarchs and their favored employees are (or were) drawn from the
nomenklatura, that there was no change in personnel in the rulers of the new Russia. Gennady Zyuganov and his KPRF of course are
the prime recruiting grounds for adminstration, and the favored home of Russian businessment. But, quite aside from the gaping
seam of the attempted removal of Gorbachev in 1991, there are quite a few other seams. Yeltsin's attack on parliament, for instance,
strikes me as seamy indeed. But you may feel this sort of thing is just law enforcement. Your insistence that the old CP members
never noticed a change, except they had official title, seems an extraordinary needing rather more support. A this point, it appears
to be non-factual.
Will G-R @421 "One doesn't even have to compare different types of government to grasp this point, when in still-existing Communist
Party regimes like the People's Republic of China, the party cadres are the neoliberal capitalist elites, no political transition
required at all. It's George Orwell's final ironic revenge on those who would conscript his Animal Farm into service as a procapitalist
propaganda tract: they forget that the final lines aren't just an indictment of the pigs (Communist nomenklatura) for being no
better than the men (capitalists) but also of the men for being no better than the pigs."
Two issues arise. First, there are rather obvious transitional points even to reaching today's regime in China. Although such
events as the Ching Ming disturbances, the Democracy Wall protests, the slow motion journee at Tian An Men square may have formally
failed their aims, there is little reason to doubt powerful effects. The coup that overthrew the so-called Gang of Four was however
a huge and extremely obvious transition. Deng's invasion of Vietnam to seal the opening to the US was notable as well.
Not so long ago, the current leadership purged Bo Xilai relying on testimony from people in admitted contact with foreign powers.
How this sort of thing doesn't count is a mystery to me.
What is not so mysterious is the belief that China is now a capitalist country with the essence of Communism, dictatorship
as opposed to the glorious benefits of classless American-style democracy. It is to be expected that any admirer of Orwell would
firmly believe, without a moment's hesitation, that a capitalist economy can abolish the business cycle. I think that's silly,
but then, I'm not an admirer of Orwell.
Second, the final lines of Animal Farm are a prediction about the real world. The point about the men being no better than
pigs is irrelevant. The point is that the pigs were men, i.e., the same as capitalist oppressors. Aside from being manifest nonsense,
this prediction was of course falsified by history. Any notion that the late USSR was a totalitarian terror regime was nonsense.
But even if it were, the execution of Beria, Zhukov's coup against the so-called anti-party group, the removal of Khrushchev,
the shenanigans of Gorbachev, give the lie to the notion that Stalinism was unchangeable. As for the notion that Soviet socialism
was the same as capitalism? Only virulent anti-Communism could make such nonsense acceptable for a minute.
The final lines have to be read in context with early lines as well. In those lines, Orwell compares the horrors of the Great
War to a farm getting run down. It takes a vile human being to do that.
Lee, if all you're willing to do is compose minor variations on the theme of "you're a fundamentalist! Marxism is a religion!",
you don't seem ready to sit at the big-kids' discussion table. I alluded to the idea of Marxist doctrine as dogmatic catechism
in an ironic way back @ the second paragraph of #208, but the more serious point from that graf seems relevant here too.
Steven, you seem to be confused as to what point I was actually making, albeit understandably so because I wasn't entirely
clear (which is perhaps a natural outcome of spending too much time trying to get through to liberals). The point isn't that literally
no political events have taken place at all in the modern People's Republic of China, it's that the transition from state socialism
to neoliberal capitalism didn't require an outright abolition of centralized Party control the way it did in the former USSR.
I entirely agree with you about the nonsensical contradictions of the typical Cold Warrior critique, especially when it comes
to the USSR: in particular, the economic dynamism of Stalin's time and the relatively dialed-down political repression after the
Khrushchev thaw are typically minimalized in order to emphasize the brutality of the Stalin era and the post-Stalin economic stagnation,
with no effort to coherently account for any real political or economic shifts within the formal framework of Soviet state socialism.
I didn't intend to make such a simpleminded critique, although again I can see how it might have come across that way.
And neither did I claim to be any great admirer of George Orwell; everything else about his political line aside, nobody who
rats out fellow leftists to Red Scare witch-hunters can deserve too much esteem, especially when this involves outing people as
gay in the UK in the 1940s. Still, to the extent that he was a leftist critic of actually existing socialisms and has been anachronistically
beatified by liberal Cold Warriors as a critic of all socialist projects as inherently repressive, it's hard to deny that liberals'
adoption of Animal Farm into their ideological canon has a certain poetic kick given that today's most prominent remaining
"actually existing socialists" are among the most ruthless and effective administrators of global imperial capitalism.
stevenjohnson,
@427
likbez@415 " But on a more earthly plane, it is not so obvious that the oligarchs and their favored employees are (or were) drawn
from the nomenklatura, that there was no change in personnel in the rulers of the new Russia."
This is a topic way too complex for the posts like this one, but considerable part of new Russian neoliberal elite did come
from nomenklatura. The most brutal, the most criminal oligarchs came from academia (Berezovsky) and Komsomol elite ( Khodarkovski,
in Ukraine Turchinov - who actually was the head of propaganda department of Komsomol )
Gennady Zyuganov and his KPRF of course are the prime recruiting grounds for adminstration, and the favored home of Russian
businessment.
This is simply wrong. This is a statement, completely disconnected with reality.
But, quite aside from the gaping seam of the attempted removal of Gorbachev in 1991, there are quite a few other seams.
Yeltsin's attack on parliament, for instance, strikes me as seamy indeed.
You are mixing two events which are on completely opposite sides of barricades.
Attempt to remove Gorbachov (which might well be initiated by Gorbachov himself, who became afraid that he went too far)
was attempt by anti-neoliberal forces to stop and reverse neoliberalization of Russia. It failed because the train already
left the station and neoliberal forces became quite strong in Russia.
Yeltsin's attack on parliament was essentially a successful attempt to suppress forces that were against neoliberalization
and plundering of Russia (as well as threats to personal power f Yeltsin as Pinochet style dictator). Kind of Russian variant
of the Night of the Long Knives.
Your insistence that the old CP members never noticed a change, except they had official title, seems an extraordinary needing
rather more support. A this point, it appears to be non-factual.
You completely misunderstood and misinterpreted my point. The essence was that certain substratas of Soviet nomenklatura mainly
connected with KGB, Komsomol, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Trade, Academia ( and a couple of other institutions)
changed camps and become turncoats fighting tooth and nail for the establishing neoliberal regime in Russia by using "color revolution"
mechanisms and relying on support and financing from the USA and other foreign powers (to the tune on one billion in cash) and
then helping foreign powers to plunder Russia (which was favorite pastime of many members of Clinton criminal administration;
for example Summers).
Kind of Russian variation of Chicago boys. Or like a bunch of US Trotskyites which became neocons.
This reminds me to yet once again mention
How Harvard Lost
Russia where Summers is a featured supporting character. Best read it now; copies of it seem to be evaporating from the
Net for some reason. A crucial document.
This is pretty idealized account of Harvard mafia criminal activities but it touched on several important topics and first of all
criminality of Clinton administration which intended to weaken and, if possible, dismember Russia (via Chechen trump card as the first
move) converting it into vassal state.
Notable quotes:
"... Shleifer's involvement was more intimate. Traveling frequently to Moscow, he was directing key elements of the reform effort
under the banner of the renowned Harvard Institute for International Development. ..."
"... in 2004, after protracted legal wranglings, a judge in federal district court in Boston ruled that the university had breached
its contract with the U.S. government and that Shleifer and an associate were liable for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. ..."
"... Harvard, Shleifer and associates agreed to pay the government $31 million-plus to settle the case. Shleifer and Zimmerman were
forced to mortgage their house to secure their part of the settlement. ..."
"... Summers was positioned uniquely to influence Shleifer's career path, to shape U.S. aid to Russia and Shleifer's role in it
and even to shield Shleifer after the scandal broke. Though Summers, as Harvard president, recused himself from the school's handling
of this case, he made a point of taking aside Jeremy Knowles, then the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences, and asking him to protect
Shleifer. ..."
"... Months after Harvard was forced to pay the biggest settlement in its history, largely because of his misdeeds, Shleifer remains
on the faculty. No public action has been taken against him, nor is there any sign as this magazine goes to press in late December that
any is contemplated. ..."
"... "The relativism with which Harvard has dealt with the Shleifer case undermines Harvard's moral authority over its students."
..."
Since being named president of Harvard University in 2001, former U.S. Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers has sparked a series
of controversies that have grabbed headlines. Summers incurred the wrath of African-Americans when he belittled the work of controversial
religion professor Cornel West (who left for Princeton University); last year he infuriated faculty and students alike when he seemed
to disparage the innate scientific abilities of women at a Massachusetts economic conference, igniting a national uproar that nearly
cost him his job; last fall brought the departure of Jack Meyer, the head of Harvard Management Co., which oversees the school's
endowment but had inflamed some in the community because of the multimillion-dollar salaries it pays some of its managers.
Then, in quiet contrast, there is the case of economics professor Andrei Shleifer, who in the mid-1990s led a Harvard advisory
program in Russia that collapsed in disgrace. In August, after years of litigation, Harvard, Shleifer and others agreed to pay at
least $31 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the U.S. government. Harvard had been charged with breach of contract, Shleifer
and an associate, Jonathan Hay, with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government.
Shleifer remains a faculty member in good standing. Colleagues say that is because he is a close longtime friend and collaborator
of Summers.
In the following pages investigative journalist David McClintick, a Harvard alumnus, chronicles Shleifer's role in the university's
Russia Project and how his friendship with Summers has protected him from the consequences of that debacle inside America's premier
academic institution.
ff duty and in swimsuits, the mentor and his protégé strolled the beach at Truro. For years, with their families, they had summered
together along this stretch of Massachusetts' famed Cape Cod. Close personally and professionally, the two friends confided in each
other the most private matters of family and finance. The topic of the day was the former Soviet Union.
"You've got to be careful," the mentor, Lawrence Summers, warned his protégé, Andrei Shleifer. "There's a lot of corruption in
Russia."
It was late August 1996, and Summers, 42, was deputy secretary of the U.S. Treasury. Shleifer, 35, was a rising star in the Harvard
University economics department, just as Summers had been 15 years earlier when he had first taken Shleifer under his wing.
Summers' warning rose out of their pivotal roles in a revolution of global consequence -- the attempt to bring the Russian economy
out from the ruins of communism into the promise of Western-style capitalism. Summers, as Treasury's second-in-command, was the architect
of U.S. efforts to help Russia. Shleifer's involvement was more intimate. Traveling frequently to Moscow, he was directing key
elements of the reform effort under the banner of the renowned Harvard Institute for International Development.
Working on contract for the U.S., HIID advised the Russian government on privatizing its economy and creating capital markets
and the laws and institutions to regulate them. Shleifer did not report formally to Summers but rather to the State Department's
Agency for International Development, or AID, the spearhead of the U.S.'s foreign aid program.
Personal affection as much as official concern prompted Summers' admonition. He had come to know that Shleifer and his wife, Nancy
Zimmerman, a noted hedge fund manager, had been investing in Russia. Though he didn't know specifics, he understood just enough to
worry that the couple might run afoul of myriad conflict-of-interest regulations that barred American advisers from investing in
the countries they were assisting.
Summers did not restrict his warnings to Shleifer.
"There might be a scandal, and you could become embroiled," Summers told Zimmerman. "You should make sure you're clear with everybody.
People might want to make Andrei a problem some day. The world's a shitty place."
Summers' warnings proved at once prophetic and ineffectual. Even as Shleifer and his wife strove to reassure their friend, they
were maneuvering to make an investment in Russia's first authorized mutual fund company. Within eight months their private Russian
dealings, together with those of close associates and relatives, would explode in scandal -- bringing dishonor to them, Harvard University
and the U.S. government. The Department of Justice would deploy the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office
in Boston to launch a criminal investigation that would uncover evidence of fraud and money laundering, as well as the cavalier use
of U.S. government funds to support everything from tennis lessons to vacation boondoggles for Harvard employees and their spouses,
girlfriends and Russian pals. It would, in the end, be an extraordinary display of an overweening "best and brightest" arrogance
toward the laws and rules that the Harvard people were supposed to live by.
Says one banker who was a frequent visitor to Russia in that era, "The Harvard crowd hurt themselves, they hurt Harvard, and they
hurt the U.S. government."
Mostly, they hurt Russia and its hopes of establishing a lasting framework for a stable Western-style capitalism, as Summers himself
acknowledged when he testified under oath in the U.S. lawsuit in Cambridge in 2002. "The project was of enormous value," said Summers,
who by then had been installed as the president of Harvard. "Its cessation was damaging to Russian economic reform and to the U.S.-Russian
relationship."
Reinventing Russia was never going to be easy, but Harvard botched a historic opportunity. The failure to reform Russia's legal
system, one of the aid program's chief goals, left a vacuum that has yet to be filled and impedes the country's ability to confront
economic and financial challenges today (see box, page 77).
Harvard vigorously defended its work in Russia, but in 2004, after protracted legal wranglings, a judge in federal district
court in Boston ruled that the university had breached its contract with the U.S. government and that Shleifer and an associate were
liable for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Last August, nine years after Summers and his protégé took their stroll along that
Truro beach, Harvard, Shleifer and associates agreed to pay the government $31 million-plus to settle the case. Shleifer and
Zimmerman were forced to mortgage their house to secure their part of the settlement.
Russia's struggles today certainly don't result entirely from Harvard's misdeeds or Shleifer's misconduct. There is plenty of
blame to share. It is difficult to overstate the challenge of transforming the economic and legal culture, not to mention the ancient
pathologies, of a huge, enigmatic nation that once spanned one sixth of the earth's land surface, 150 ethnicities and 11 time zones.
The Marshall Plan, by comparison, was simple.
Summers wasn't president of Harvard when Shleifer's mission to Moscow was coming apart. But as a Harvard economics professor in
the 1980s, a World Bank and Treasury official in the 1990s and Harvard's president since 2001, Summers was positioned uniquely
to influence Shleifer's career path, to shape U.S. aid to Russia and Shleifer's role in it and even to shield Shleifer after the
scandal broke. Though Summers, as Harvard president, recused himself from the school's handling of this case, he made a point of
taking aside Jeremy Knowles, then the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences, and asking him to protect Shleifer.
Months after Harvard was forced to pay the biggest settlement in its history, largely because of his misdeeds, Shleifer remains
on the faculty. No public action has been taken against him, nor is there any sign as this magazine goes to press in late December
that any is contemplated.
Throughout the otherwise voluble university community, there has been an odd silence about the entire affair. Discussions mostly
have taken place sotto voce in deans' offices or in local Cambridge haunts, such as the one where a well-connected Harvard personage
expressed deep concern, telling II: "Larry's handling of the Shleifer matter raises very basic questions about the way he
governs Harvard. This is fraught with significance. It couldn't be more fraught."
The silence is now beginning to break, thanks to the leadership of academic worthies like former Harvard College dean Harry Lewis,
who is finishing a book about the university to be published in the spring by Perseus Public Affairs. Lewis agreed to show II
the manuscript, in which he asserts, "The relativism with which Harvard has dealt with the Shleifer case undermines Harvard's
moral authority over its students."
Whether this new questioning will erupt into yet another crisis engulfing Summers and the university remains unclear. What is
certain, though, is that the story of Harvard and its representatives' malfeasance, told in full for the first time over the following
pages, shows how much damage can be done when the considerable power and resources of the U.S. government are placed in the wrong
hands.
THE SEEDS OF RUSSIAN REFORM WERE planted in the late 1980s -- when Russia was the Soviet Union and Harvard hadn't yet arrived.
The U.S.S.R.'s seven-decade experiment with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism lay in shambles. By 1989, even as the Berlin Wall fell
in Germany, the Soviet Union and its economy were imploding.
Reform-minded Mikhail Gorbachev, the last general secretary of the Communist Party, strove to introduce limited economic and political
change. The first competitive elections for the Congress of People's Deputies were held in March 1989. In May 1990, Gorbachev's populist
rival, the maverick Boris Yeltsin, was elected chairman of the Russian Republic's Parliament. A month later Russia declared itself
independent of the Soviet Union.
That summer Gorbachev and Yeltsin ordered two economists to draw up a "500 Days" plan for converting the Soviet Union to a market
economy based on private property. Gorbachev also sought advice from the West. In October 1990 the then-chairman of the New York
Stock Exchange, John Phelan Jr., led a group of U.S. securities lawyers and academics to Moscow to begin showing the Soviets how
to form capital markets. The meeting was organized by the Big Board's Russian-speaking legal counsel, Richard Bernard, then 40.
"... Of course, the Cato Institute, Heritage, and Team Republican economists are proud that their
opinions are bought and paid for. ..."
"... Most (all?) academic types are keenly aware of the importance of grantsmanship as a basic
skill. Knowing the appropriate funding sources and, in some cases, the interests and biases of
funding sources, is stock in trade. Scientific research has become so capital intensive that large
grants from government and large foundations are necessary to carry it out. For the most part,
the biases of the granting institutions are known and discounted. ..."
Is Money Corrupting Research?: The integrity of research and expert opinions in Washington
came into question last week, prompting the resignation of Robert Litan ... from his position
as a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Senator Elizabeth Warren raised the issue
of a conflict of interest in Mr. Litan's testimony before a Senate committee... Senator Warren
was herself criticized by
economists and
pundits, on the left and right. ... But at stake is the integrity of the research process
and the trust the nation puts in experts, who advise governments and testify in Congress. Our
opinions shape government policy and judicial decisions. Even when we are paid to testify...,
integrity is expected from us. ...
Yet it is disingenuous for anybody (especially an economist) to believe that reputational incentives
do not matter. Had the conclusions not pleased the Capital Group, it would probably have found
a more compliant expert. And the reputation of not being "cooperative" would have haunted Mr.
Litan's career as a consultant. ...
Reputational ... concerns do not work as well with sealed expert-witness testimony or paid-for
policy papers that circulate only in small policy groups. ... A scarier possibility is that reputational
incentives do not work because the practice of bending an opinion for money is so widespread as
to be the norm. ...
He goes on to suggest some steps to strengthen the reputational incentive.
pgl said in reply to Larry...
"Businesses sometimes finance policy research much as advocacy groups or other interests
do," the economists wrote. "A reader can question the source of the financing on all sides,
but ultimately the quality of the work and the integrity of the author are paramount." They
praised Litan's quality and integrity as having been "impeccable over a career of four decades."
The fact of the matter is that funding comes from all sorts of places. One should always disclose
the sourcing of funding and then let one's writings stand scrutiny.
Of course, the Cato Institute, Heritage, and Team Republican economists are proud that their
"opinions" are bought and paid for.
Brookings fellow resigns after Senator Warren accuses him of conflicts
By SARAH N. LYNCH - Reuters
WASHINGTON
A prominent Brookings Institution fellow resigned on Tuesday, after Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth
Warren accused him of failing to fully disclose industry funding tied to a study that criticized
the U.S. Labor Department's plan to regulate brokerages.
The resignation of Robert Litan came just one day after Warren, a Democrat, sent Brookings'
president a letter demanding to know more about the think tank's policies on financial conflicts
and details about the communications between Litan and Capital Group, an investment firm that
funded his research paper.
"He has acknowledged that he made a mistake in not following Brookings regulations designed
to uphold the independence of the institution," Brookings President Strobe Talbott said in a statement
provided to Reuters.
Warren's concerns center a study that Litan and researcher Hal Singer jointly conducted which
examined a controversial plan by the Labor Department to try and rein in conflicts posed by brokers
who offer retirement advice.
The proposal has garnered fierce opposition from Wall Street, and Litan's study concluded that
the plan could harm consumers.
Litan testified about the study's findings in a July hearing before a U.S. Senate panel, in
which he represented himself as a fellow at Brookings.
The study was conducted by Litan and Singer in their capacity as staffers for Economists, Inc.,
a consulting firm.
Although his testimony and his study did disclose that Capital Group provided funding, Warren
said that she later learned this was not the full story.
In a series of follow-up questions Warren sent to Litan after the hearing, she said he disclosed
that Capital Group also provided feedback and editorial comments on a draft.
This, she said, ran counter to his claim at the hearing that he and Singer were "solely responsible"
for the study's conclusions.
In addition, he disclosed that Capital Group had paid Economists Inc $85,000 for the study,
and his share was $38,800.
In her letter to Brookings, Warren said the lack of disclosure raises "significant questions
about the impartiality of the study and its conclusions."
Litan, a former top official in the Clinton administration, did not respond to an email seeking
comment.
He is a well-known economics expert in Washington who has authored or co-authored over 25 books.
"We greatly appreciate all the good work Bob has done for Brookings over the 40-plus years
he has been connected to this institution," Talbott said.
According to Reuters, he failed to disclose his relationships
when presenting his report and when testifying, and seems to have lied:
"Although his testimony and his study did disclose that Capital Group provided funding, Warren
said that she later learned this was not the full story.
"In a series of follow-up questions Warren sent to Litan after the hearing, she said he disclosed
that Capital Group also provided feedback and editorial comments on a draft.
"This, she said, ran counter to his claim at the hearing that he and Singer were "solely responsible"
for the study's conclusions."
Can I edit anything you write and claim as solely your own work? I want to have my point of
view endorsed by a much larger group of writers, and the best way is for me to fix their writings.
It was not Litan being paid that was the problem, but the fact he claimed the words written
for him were his own as an "independent" authority.
Second Best said...
Money corrupts research as sure as the Pope is Catholic...
This is the actual paper of the model, but do not be afraid. Here are the highlights:
" HANDY is a 4-variable thought-experiment model for interaction of humans and nature.
The focus is on predicting long-term behavior rather than short-term forecasting.
Carrying Capacity is developed as a practical measure for forecasting collapses.
A sustainable steady state is shown to be possible in different types of societies.
But over-exploitation of either Labor or Nature results in a societal collapse."
There are equations. And graphs. The concluding paragraph of the abstract:
"The measure "Carrying Capacity" is developed and its estimation is shown to be a practical
means for early detection of a collapse. Mechanisms leading to two types of collapses are discussed.
The new dynamics of this model can also reproduce the irreversible collapses found in history.
Collapse can be avoided, and population can reach a steady state at maximum carrying capacity
if the rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level and if resources are distributed
equitably."
This made the press about a year and a half ago, was commented on, but has since been ignored.
Google "Handy Model" for popular presentations and critiques.
You decide whether it should continue to be ignored, given the remarkable progress the world
has made towards remedying inequality, conserving resources, and controlling population growth.
(That's sarcasm.)
reason said...
There is another solution to this issue. Financing should never be direct to the researcher.
That way there is a funding body (say a university) that decides who researches what, and the
funding is channeled through them (through a public application process). If a firm is really
interested in disinterested research, no problem.
If it wants to control the research, they have a problem. Of course the whole funding body
could be corrupted but if there is a public review process that can be minimised.
cm said in reply to reason...
It is more subtle than asking for or implying a preference for specific results. Regardless
how the funding is distributed, except perhaps by lottery, there is the issue of "repeat business"
or expert shopping (cherry-picking research organizations that are known to fall in a particular
camp).
Then there is the issue of fads - even in relatively apolitical tech science, funding and research
flocks to certain hot topics, as people hunt for funding by trying to tie their proposal to the
current hot topics. But then this is perhaps more a consequence of an already corrupted funding
process that only supports R&D that conforms to current preconceived notions and business interests.
bakho said...
Money supports bias.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said...
Money is power. Power corrupts.
mrrunangun said...
Most (all?) academic types are keenly aware of the importance of grantsmanship as a basic
skill. Knowing the appropriate funding sources and, in some cases, the interests and biases of
funding sources, is stock in trade. Scientific research has become so capital intensive that large
grants from government and large foundations are necessary to carry it out. For the most part,
the biases of the granting institutions are known and discounted.
Even in science, when research into a controversial area has been ambiguous enough for sustained
disagreement, it is common to find that a given research shop's work consistently comes down on
one side of the controversy and another shop's work consistently on the opposing side of the controversy.
In such cases, only people who follow the research in the area closely are likely to be aware
of this. Usually time and technical improvements in measuring equipment puts controversies to
rest, but the time is often measured in years. In these cases, the biases come from the leaders
of the research shops rather than the grantors.
There are politics among granting institutions as well. These are less often political biases
and more often they are of a personal nature, and since the people on a granting committee are
necessarily expert in the field that the grantee will be working in, they will often be personally
acquainted with the grant applicants. Not uncommonly, former students of the members of the committee.
Economics and long range climate science are necessarily model-based. Their short-term predictions
are often proven wrong which casts doubt on the reliability of their long-term predictions. As
a result, there may be legitimate differences of opinion as to the applicability of a particular
model to a particular situation.
In the case of Mr Litan, the fact that he acknowledged that his study was funded by Capital
and that he was testifying on behalf of the industry announce his bias.
GeorgeK said...
Tainted research is the norm in most industries, research dollar come from corporations that
expect their interest to be served. Currently Monsanto emails show how heavy handed this pay for
research problem has become. ...""Professors/researchers/scientists have a big white hat in this
debate and support in their states, from politicians to producers," Bill Mashek, a vice president
at Ketchum, a public relations firm hired by the biotechnology industry, said in an email to a
University of Florida professor. "Keep it up!"...
The antidote to this kind of crap is the public funded University with tenured professors and
sufficient resources (endowed Chairs) to conduct research without need to go out and get external
funding for a study. As the public funding is reduced in order to give tax cuts to the rich plutocrats
such truly independent research become more rare -and the plutocrats increasingly manage to own
the facts.
... For the old lions, Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman, the '80s meant a bittersweet departure
from the center stage of economics after forty years of dominating the scene. The two had entered
their sixties; neither was out of steam. But the leaders of the next generation had become apparent:
Lucas, in macroeconomics; Kenneth Arrow in nearly everything else.
The election of Ronald Reagan was a triumph for Friedman; they had known each other since Friedman
spent a quarter at the University of California at Los Angeles, shortly after Reagan had been
elected Governor of California.He was invited to lecture in China. And the international success
of Free to Choose kept Friedman in the public eye.
But Paul Volcker took a different approach to monetary policy from the one Friedman advocated,
and Friedman's forecasts became markedly worse. The editorial page of The Wall Street Journal
adopted as its champion Friedman's long-time rival in currency matters, Robert Mundell, now teaching
at Columbia University, and went all in for Mundell's young associate, consultant Arthur Laffer.
A research appointment at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco was not the same platform
as the University of Chicago. Friedman still had his membership on the President's Economic
Policy Board, but after he "savaged" Volcker to his face before the president in a meeting
in 1983, both men lost influence. Pointing a finger at Volcker, Friedman said (according to Newsweek's
account), "because of the policies of the Fed under that man we have had an inflationary surge
in the money supply that is going to have to be corrected." Volcker was not reappointed. Edward
Nelson, of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is writing a
scientific
biography of Friedman. It will make interesting reading when it is done.
In March 1981, Friedman wrote his Newsweek column in the form of a letter to Philip Handler,
president of the National Academy of Sciences, advocating major cuts in the budget of the National
Science Foundation, as a step towards the abolition of the NSF. The Reagan administration
had proposed sharp cuts in the economics program. Friedman argued the government shouldn't
pay for any scientific research. True, the NSF had funded much good science; but it had paid for
much bad science, too, including, he wrote, overmuch mathematical economics. The great scientists
of the past had done without NSF funding. Einstein did his work in a government patent office;
general relativity might never have made it past a peer-review panel. "The innovative ideas
that have stirred controversy in economics since NSF funding of economics began two decades ago
owe little or nothing to NSF funding," he wrote.
Thus did Friedman dismiss the agency that Paul Samuelson had brought to life in 1945.
Perhaps more important, by extension he dismissed the program of government fellowships, awarded
by competitive exam, that had sent Samuelson to graduate school in 1935, all expenses paid
– and countless others since, many of them as impecunious as Friedman had been in 1932.
The NSF ran similar programs in mathematics and many ciences, and the principle had been extended,
by Sen. Jacob Javits (R-NY) to humanities. NSF research grants funding had helped build
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology into a powerhouse to rival Harvard, and played a similar
role at many other public and private universities.
No Samuelson column followed Friedman's. Samuelson never wrote again for Newsweek . He resigned
the column he written for fifteen years. When, many years later, I asked him about his timing,
he firmly denied that it had anything to do with Friedman's column, and wrote me a letter for
the file the next day repeating what he had said. I have always wondered if he sought to defuse
the matter out of habit. That he and Friedman had remained on civil terms for seventy-five years
was clearly a source of pride, though privately he grew less tolerant of his rival after
1980.
Samuelson, too, was in mild recession in the '80s. Keynesian economics hadn't yet rebounded
from the biting criticism of the New Classicals in the '70s. Tensions were growing within the
MIT department over appointments and the direction of future research. Samuelson formally
retired in 1985, at 70, to make room for others. He had plenty to engage his professional attention.
Commodities Corp., which had discovered such natural traders as Paul Tudor Jones and Bruce Kovner,
was winding down, but Samuelson's interest in Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway was gearing up.
The Vanguard Group, whose godfather he had been ever since founder John Bogle introduced the first
index fund, was thriving. Samuelson's friends and colleagues James Tobin, Franco Modigliani,
and Robert Solow received Nobel Prizes.
Young Lions at Large
To the young lions of Keynesian economics in the '80s, rational- expectations macroeconomics
and real business cycle theory posed a considerable bar. To work in the new traditions required
a considerable investment in new tools and mathematical techniques, and, even fully teched-up,
didn't seem to speak very directly to policy. A strong corps of economists went to work to fashion
a "new Keynesian" version of the latest general equilibrium economics. But gradually one rising
star of saltwater economics after another left academia for a policy job.
Martin Feldstein, of Harvard University, was the first. As something of an acolyte of Milton
Friedman, Feldstein was never very high in salinity, but he demonstrated plenty of professional
backbone as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Ronald Reagan for two years in
the early days of the controversies over deficits before returning in 1984 to Harvard and his
position as president of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Stanley Fischer, of MIT,
was next, wrapping up a highly successful research career in order to serve as chief economist
of the World Bank (a path that led to leadership positions in the International Monetary Fund,
governor of the Bank of Israel and, currently, vice chairman of the Fed). Lawrence
Summers, Feldstein's student, served as campaign economist to Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis
in the 1988 presidential campaign and succeeded Fischer at the World Bank before joining the Clinton
administration, where he advanced to Secretary of the Treasury.
Soon the flood was on: Jeffrey Sachs, Joseph Stiglitz, Olivier Blanchard, Kenneth Rogoff,
Gregory Mankiw, Glen Hubbard, and Christina Romer were among those MIT- or Harvard-trained economists
who served in government jobs or NGO positions. Paul Krugman retooled as a journalist.
Lists of MIT and Harvard graduates in high positions in European, South American, and Asian
governments were even longer. Did this differ in kind, and not degree, from the trajectory
of academic economists dating back to to the New Frontier, if not the New Deal? I think
so.
In 2006, Harvard's Mankiw, in an
article for
the Journal of Economic Perspectives argued, as I did in a book, that the differences in interests
among economists were best understood as being similar to those between scientists and engineers.
The early macroeconomists, led by Samuelson and Friedman, had resembled engineers seeking to solve
practical problems, Mankiw wrote; macroeconomists of the past several decades, led by Tjalling
Koopmans, Jacob Marschak, Kenneth Arrow, and others had been more interested in developing analytic
tools and establishing theoretical principles. Their students the '80s had joined teams along
similar lines. "Recently Paul Romer, of New York University, introduced a different distinction
to elucidate some of the controversies in present-day macro – between
bench science and clinical medicine. Both analogies will get plenty of elaboration in future
years, for this is what changed in kind in the '80s: economics developed a clinical/engineering
wing.
... ... ...
likbez said...
Due to his role in neoliberal transformation of Chile after Pinochet coup of 1973, Friedman
can be viewed as a one of the first economic hitman for multinationals, member of organized
crime disguised as an economist. According to the 1975 report of a United States Senate Intelligence
Committee investigation, the Chilean economic plan was prepared in collaboration with the CIA.
In 1987 45% of Chile's population was below poverty line. From Wikipedia:
==Start of quote ===
Milton Friedman gave some lectures advocating free market economic policies in Universidad
Católica de Chile. In 1975, two years after the coup, he met with Pinochet for 45 minutes,
where the general "indicated very little indeed about his own or the government's feeling"
and the president asked Friedman to write him a letter laying out what he thought Chile's economic
policies should be, which he also did.[26] To stop inflation, Friedman proposed reduction of
government deficits that had increased in the past years and a flat commitment by government
that after six months it will no longer finance government spending by creating money. He proposed
relief of cases of real hardship among poorest classes.[2] In October 1975 the New York Times
columnist Anthony Lewis declared that "the Chilean junta's economic policy is based on the
ideas of Milton Friedman…and his Chicago School".[26]
=== End of quote ===
In her book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein criticized Friedman's recipe for neoliberal
scheme of the economic rape of the countries under disguise of transformation toward "free"
market economics -- the neoliberal restructuring that followed the military coups in several
countries using suspiciously similar schemes. She suggested that the primary role of
neoliberalism was to be an ideological cover for capital accumulation by multinationals. Chilean
economist Orlando Letelier considered that the main driving force behind Pinochet's dictatorship
violence toward opponents was the level of opposition to Chicago School policies in Chile.
And Friedman himself was a coward who never personally acknowledged his role in the events.
After a 1991 speech on drug legalization, Friedman answered a question on his involvement with
the Pinochet regime, saying that he was never an advisor to Pinochet (also mentioned in his
1984 Iceland interview), but that only his students (Chicago boys) were involved.
He was followed by Harvard mafia with their economic rape of Russia in early 90th. Probably
also prepared in collaboration with the CIA...
It is interesting that the paper does not mention Galbraith who was important opponent of
Friedman (see "Friedman on Galbraith, and on curing the British disease", 1977) . In those
two lectures Friedman disagrees with Galbraith's four most popular works: "Countervailing Power,"
"The Great Crash of 1929," "The Affluent Society," and "The New Industrial State". Friedman
consistently repeats the neoliberal dogma that it is unfettered free market, with minimal rules
and regulations, is the best economic system.
So it might be useful to distinguish between two instances of Friedman: the first is Friedman
before "Capitalism and Freedom" and the second is after. Friedman after Capitalism and Freedom
is a pitiful figure of a prostitute to power that be.
chris herbert said...
The best observation was the one by Wojnilower that the animals in the zoo were let out
of their cages.. They are still roaming around, not yet put back in their regulatory cages.
The list of financial crises beginning in the 1980s looks as bad and as frequent as those of
the 1800s. Technology gives a sheen to the past 35 years or so, but underneath there's been
immense intellectual damage. A degradation of morals and honesty. Today, greed is good. I'll
be gone, you'll be gone (IBGUBG), rules politics and finance today. The animals are still lose,
more trouble will visit the Kingdom.
bakho said...
Interesting history lesson.
Needs more links.
Friedman's spat with Volcker:
In Friedman's view, Volcker was too vulnerable to political pressures from Congress and
the White House, Condemned by liberals and conservatives for plunging the country into recession
and worried that continued high interest rates would cause massive default by Third World debtors,
Volcker in mid-1982 shifted his sights away from the monetarist approach, loosening the Fed's
targets for money growth and restoring interest-rate manipulation as a policy tool. In the
five months before the November 1984 elections, the Fed increased the money supply to bring
down interest rates and thus fuel the recovery to better Reagan's chances at re-election. After
Reagan's reelection victor in November, the Fed again tightened the money supply, "This is
not monetarist policy," Friedman says, "The key element of monetarism is to define what you
are going to do and then stick with it."
For any Fed chairman, Friedman thinks, the temptation to linker with money-supply targets
is probably irresistible. According to the monetarist doctrine, the Fed chairman's job is purely
technical, "a matter of every month looking at the money base and making sure it increases
by about a quarter of one percent," Friedman explains, "If the Fed chairman were to do a good
job, he would become an unknown, a faceless bureaucrat."
I wonder if so many of the young economist went into policy because the people involved:
Volcker, Friedman, Laffer etc were pretty clueless and made bad predictions.
bakho said...
Just how wrong was Friedman?
DARPA turned the internet over to NSF and NSF spun it off into a large commercial engine.
NSF funds high risk investment, the kind that most corporations cannot. High risk research
means many projects that don'r pan out, a small pool of winners and a handful that hit jackpot.
It takes a large organization with very deep pockets to fund enough high risk research over
long periods to have a good likelihood of getting a large hit. Industry cannot fund at that
level, government can.
Another example: NSF funded obscure biochemistry into esoteric research on enzymes that
could degrade DNA. That research became the foundation of genetic engineering. Who could have
known?
pgl said in reply to Paine ...
Warsh did write an incredible amount of BS in this silly essay. I didn't think Mundell ever
endorsed Laffer's stupid cocktail napkin.
Lafayette said...
REAGANOMICS
From WikiP: {According to Keynesian economists, a combination of deficit spending and
the lowering of interest rates slowly led to economic recovery. However, conservatives insist
that the significantly lower tax rates caused the recovery. From a high of 10.8% in December
1982, unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% on Election Day in 1984.}
Even Reagan, a good friend of Friedman, when push-came-to-shove, indulged is stimulus spending
to get his presidency out of the deep-doodoo.
Which the Replicants stonewalled in 2010 when a Great Recession was in full sway, but the PotUS
was a Democrat ...
pgl said in reply to Lafayette...
Wikipedia gets another wrong. It was Reagan's 1981 tax cut (deficit spending) that led Volcker
to do round 2 of his tight money. Volcker kept trying to make a deal withe White House - reverse
the fiscal stimulus in exchange for lower interest rates. The White House did not even know
what was going on. And Wikipedia does not either.
"... This reminds me of the "we create reality" stuff from the neo-cons. Maybe it's just more infection
of Straussian "ethics" at UofC (see Shadia Drury).
Paul Krugman follows up on Paul Romer's latest attack on "mathiness":
Freshwater's Wrong Turn (Wonkish): Paul Romer
has been writing a series of posts on the problem he calls "mathiness", in which economists write
down fairly hard-to-understand mathematical models accompanied by verbal claims that don't actually
match what's going on in the math. Most recently, he has been recounting the pushback he's getting
from freshwater macro types,
who seem him as allying himself with evil people like me - whereas he sees them as having turned
away from science toward a legalistic, adversarial form of pleading.
You can guess where I stand on this. But in his latest, he notes some of the freshwater types
appealing to their glorious past, claiming that Robert Lucas in particular has a record of intellectual
transparency that should insulate him from criticism now. PR replies that Lucas once was like
that, but no longer, and asks what happened.
Well, I'm pretty sure I know the answer. ...
It's hard to do an extract capturing all the points, so you'll likely want to read the
full post, but in summary:
So what happened to freshwater, I'd argue, is that a movement that started by doing interesting
work was corrupted by its early hubris; the braggadocio and trash-talking of the 1970s left its
leaders unable to confront their intellectual problems, and sent them off on the path Paul now
finds so troubling.
Recent tweets, email, etc. in response to posts I've done on mathiness reinforce just how unwilling
many are to confront their tribalism. In the past, I've blamed the problems in macro on, in part,
the sociology within the profession (leading to a less than scientific approach to problems as
each side plays the advocacy game) and nothing that has happened lately has altered that view.
When I first heard this Lucas island - also known as Friedman-Phelps - story about business cycles
being driven by unanticipated inflation, it initially stuck me as interested. Then I thought about
the fact that the Rational Expectations version would have trouble explaining why nominal shocks
affect real events for more than a few months.
No - it did not take long to realize that this nice neat model could not explain the real world.
But what we usually got back then is a large parade of statistical techniques that just confused
matters even more.
At which I began to wonder what I was interested in macroeconomics in the first place.
eightnine2718281828mu5 said in reply to pgl...
---
the braggadocio and trash-talking of the 1970s left its leaders unable to confront their intellectual
problems
---
iow, assigning a higher value to their accumulated research (reputation?) than it was actually
worth.
sticky prices indeed.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to eightnine2718281828mu5...
:<)
[For most of us then:]
"...Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
Nothing don't mean nothing honey, if it ain't free
Feeling good was easy, Lord, when he sang the blues
You know, feeling good was good enough for me
Good enough for me and my Bobby McGee..."
ARTIST: Kris Kristofferson
TITLE: Me and Bobby McGee
*
[For most of them then freedom is just a matter of low-regulation low-tax supply side economic
policy. TO which end their statistics demand many degrees of "freedom" and they have taken increasingly
more extensive "freedoms" with their theories ever since Uncle Milty taught us about "Capitalism
and Freedom," why the initial conclusions reached by Keynes were all wrong, and why monetarism
was sacred. (barf)
I remember the 1970's well. The terminal punctuation was Reagan's election in 1980. When I
was drafted in 1969 I still retained some hope, although much diminished since MLK was murdered
a year earlier. By the time I returned from Viet Nam it was just one slap in the face after another.
All our (the social movement that happened alongside the hippies) hopes from the 60's were dashed.
Blacks were to be "locked" into ghettos by public policy and the working class was to be sacrificed
on the alter of corporatism one merger or outsource at a time. ]
Real business cycle theory models (RBC theory) are a class of New classical macroeconomics
models in which business cycle fluctuations to a large extent can be accounted for by real (in
contrast to nominal) shocks. Unlike other leading theories of the business cycle, RBC theory sees
business cycle fluctuations as the efficient response to exogenous changes in the real economic
environment. That is, the level of national output necessarily maximizes expected utility, and
governments should therefore concentrate on long-run structural policy changes and not intervene
through discretionary fiscal or monetary policy designed to actively smooth out economic short-term
fluctuations.
The Trouble With Being Abstruse (Slightly Wonkish)
By Paul Krugman
Political scientists who write clearly for a broader audience are upset * with Nick Kristof
** for saying that political scientists no longer write for a broader audience. I'm not going
to get into that fight. I do want to register one point, however: In my field there is indeed
a problem with abstruseness, with the many academics who never even try to put their thoughts
in plain language.
And what is the nature of that problem? It's not that laypeople don't understand what the academics
are saying. It is, instead, that the academics themselves don't understand what they're saying.
Don't get me wrong: I like mathematical modeling. Mathematical modeling is a friend of mine.
Math can be a powerful clarifying tool. So, in some cases, can jargon, which used right can both
save time and add clarity to the discussion. If I talk about Dixit-Stiglitz preferences, or for
that matter the zero lower bound, technically trained economists immediately know whereof I speak,
where plain English would both take longer and leave room for misunderstanding.
But it's really important to step away from the math and drop the jargon every once in a while,
and not just as a public service. Trying to explain what you're doing intuitively isn't just for
the proles; it's an important way to check on yourself, to be sure that your story is at least
halfway plausible.
Take real business cycle theory – I know it's a horse I beat a lot, but it's not dead, and
it's a prime example within economics of what I have in mind. I still want to spend at least some
time explaining that theory to my undergrads, so I've been looking for a simple, intuitive explanation
by an RBC theorist of what's going on. And I haven't been able to find one!
I mean, I could do it myself. Strip the story down to basics – make it a steady-state model,
not a growth model, and drop the capital accumulation; what you're left with is fluctuations in
the marginal productivity of labor, which have a magnified impact on output because workers choose
to work less when the technology is bad and more when the technology is good. As I've written
before someplace, it's the story of a farmer who stays inside when it's raining and puts in extra
hours when the sun is shining.
But the RBC theorists never seem to go there; it's right into calibration and statistical moments,
with never a break for intuition. And because they never do the simple version, they don't realize
(or at any rate don't admit to themselves) how fundamentally silly the whole thing sounds, how
much it's at odds with lived experience.
I once talked to a theorist (not RBC, micro) who said that his criterion for serious economics
was stuff that you can't explain to your mother. I would say that if you can't explain it to your
mother, or at least to your non-economist friends, there's a good chance that you yourself don't
really know what you're doing.
Math is good. Sometimes jargon is good, too. But plain language and simple intuition are important
to keep you grounded.
Freshwater economists, free lunch economists, speak very clearly.
Its too good to be true which
makes everyone who wants a free lunch to believe it.
For example, free lunch economists say lower prices are achieved by lower wages, fewer workers,
tax cuts, and higher profits, which creates wealth, and the unemployed and working poor spend
more using money the will never pay back because of the wealth effect, with mathiness to backup
their claims.
What they never do is put them all together like I have done so the words are revealed as nonsense
and the math is 1+2-3 = 10 and thus obviously bogus.
Note fresh water economists NEVER state that consumer spending is driven by wage income, as
in real wage income, not the income from capital gains which sorta lots like wages but is really
rent seeking aka private tax on the savings of workers.
How can lower wages to get lower prices ever result in higher GDP without lots of debt that
can never be repaid?
{PK: with the many academics who never even try to put their thoughts in
plain language.}
Ha! I like that!
Tis True. How many times do we see the word "exogenous". Many. How often, "endogenous"? Never.
Anybody for a hard look at the "endogenous" factors causing economic cyclicity? How about the
human ability to "ape" one another's consumer habits that builds patterns increasing in intensity
- until the "bubble" bursts? ("Cyclicity"? Wow! Nice word? Hardly used! Here we go again!!!;^)
Like lemmings falling off a cliff - cyclic in nature but deadly in consequence.
DeDude said...
When your math is incompatible with the observations from the real world - its the math that's
wrong. I don't have a 3 page formula, but just trust me on this one.
Science advances one funeral at a time. - Max Planck
They are too invested in their mistakes
to accept criticism.
The next generation of economists will accept that they were wrong.
likbez said...
Before becoming columnist Krugman was mathiness practioner ;-)
reason said...
Anne
"That is, the level of national output necessarily maximizes expected utility"
We could stop right there. Clear nonsense. (You can always INCREASE utility by redistributing
from rich to poor - at least with any sensible definition of utility.
Here it comes: the sexit
Comment on 'Freshwater's Wrong Turn'
There is political economics and theoretical economics. In political economics it suffices
to tell a plausible story, in theoretical economics scientific standards are observed. Because
economists since Adam Smith pursued these two hares simultaneously, coherence got eventually lost.
As a result, economists never developed a theory about how the market economy works that satisfies
the scientific criteria of material and formal consistency (Klant, 1994, p. 31).
Economics is a failed science. Therefore, Paul Romer is in for a second big surprise. Until
now he thought: "As you would expect from an economist, the normative assertion in 'X is wrong
because it undermines the scientific method' is based on what I thought would be a shared premise
..."
Now he learns: "In conversations with economists who are sympathetic to the freshwater economists
... it has become clear that freshwater economists do not share this premise. What I did not anticipate
was their assertion that economists do not follow the scientific method, so it is not realistic
or relevant to make normative statements of the form 'we ought to behave like scientists'."
What is the difference between political and theoretical economics?
"A genuine inquirer aims to find out the truth of some question, whatever the color of that
truth. ... A pseudo-inquirer seeks to make a case for the truth of some proposition(s) determined
in advance. There are two kinds of pseudo-inquirer, the sham and the fake. A sham reasoner is
concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to make a case for some immovably-held preconceived
conviction. A fake reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to advance
himself by making a case for some proposition to the truth-value of which he is indifferent."
(Haack, 1997, p. 1)
The fact of the matter is that theoretical economics has from the very beginning been hijacked
by the agenda pushers of political economics. Smith and Mill were agenda pushers against feudalism.
Marx and Keynes were agenda pushers and so were Hayek and Friedman. However, all these economists
insisted that they were doing science. This has changed now: "... the evidence ... suggests that
freshwater economists differ sharply from other economists."
The freshwater economists simply state the obvious, that is, that they are committed to politics
and not to science. This marks the beginning of a voluntary scientific exit (sexit for short).
What Romer has not yet realized is that most saltwater economists have to leave through the same
door.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Haack, S. (1997). Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism. Skeptical Inquirer,
21(6): 1–7. URL http://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_scientism_and_anti-science_in_the_age_of_preposterism.
Klant, J. J. (1994). The Nature of Economic Thought. Aldershot, Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.
lagarita said...
This reminds me of the "we create reality" stuff from the neo-cons. Maybe it's just more infection
of Straussian "ethics" at UofC (see Shadia Drury).
Lafayette said in reply to lagarita...
APART FROM BERNIE
{"we create reality"}
Their entire existence revolves around such vapid, empty simplisms because they have no theoretical
substance to their politics. It is either their lack of intelligence or their selfish perfidy
that reduces their theoretical foundation of political views.
They are hooked on the fallacy of wealth-creation as the sole credible goal/consequence of
an economy. Piketty put that thought to shame in his work on Income Disparity, as did Domhoff
on Wealth Disparity. The statistical facts (ie., the "numbers") could not be more clear.
What should bother us most is not only the generation of enormous wealth, and the influence
it has on a moneyed electoral system, but the dynastic tendency of such riches. The Koch Bros
are already the first generation - will we be contending with the political antics of second,
or third, or fourth generations?
The last time historically that happened in Europe, called Inheritance Aristocracy, it all
came apart in bloodshed.
And yet the better notion of Social Justice, which supposes that all humans are created with
the equal right to fairness and equitability, has taken decades upon decades to come to the fore.
It is still no where near dominating political thought in America. Apart from Bernie, that
is ...
Lafayette said...
LOOK IN THE MIRROR
{the braggadocio and trash-talking of the 1970s}
Of the 1970s?
This type is still the mainstay of American parlance, whether political or business or just
blogging. The aggressiveness of the language employed knows no bounds.
The intent in commentary, whether verbal or written, whether political or otherwise, is overly
combative and largely "ad hominem". The real subject of controversy is lost in the personalization
of the rebuttals. The issues that largely determine the political consensus thus become secondary
and confused.
Really 'n truly puerile ... like the children they were and they remain, particularly in politics.
Propelled by one and only one goal - to win, win, win.
And without politics or politicians, what is a democracy? It's an autocracy. With them, its
a manifested willfulness by a moneyed few to dominate electoral outcomes - and we are pawns in
the game.
My point? As an electorate, the people we chose to represent us personify as well the kind
of people we are. So, complaining about the politicos in LaLaLand on the Potomac is useless.
Eager to pile the looting of Russia in 1990s on Vladimir Putin and his KGB friends Applebaum omits the role played by western
reformers and banks. No room for pro-western corruption in Applebaum narrative
Anne Applebaum's article about Vladimir Putin, "How He and His Cronies Stole Russia," should have a few words added to the title:
"And How The West Drove The Getaway Car." To suggest that looting occurred independently of the corrupt offshore system organized
by Western banks finesses the truth.
Applebaum refers to KBG officers who acted as the Soviet Union seemed near collapse in the
1980s. "Assisted by the unscrupulous international offshore banking industry, they stole money that belonged to the Russian state,
took it abroad for safety, reinvested it in Russia, and then, piece by piece, took over the state themselves."
She writes that KGB leaders began transferring money that belonged to the Soviet Communist Party out of the Soviet Union and into
offshore accounts tended by Swiss or British bankers. But American banks were also involved.
Applebaum notes that in 1999, the German Federal Intelligence Agency (BND) accused the St. Petersburg Real Estate Holding Company
(SPAG) linked to Putin, of laundering money for Russian and Colombian criminals. "Among other things, the BND said that SPAG took
money that had been sent out of Russia and was parked "offshore," and helped its owners-among them the leaders of the Tambov gang,
part of the St. Petersburg mafia, repatriate it back through purchase of property and other assets.
SPAG was registered in Germany and laundered money though Liechtenstein. According to a confidential BND document I obtained,
"The Liechtenstein lawyers Dr. Eugen Heeb and Rudolf Ritter participate in a network of firms in Liechtenstein, Europe and overseas.
They make this network available -amongst others – to South American drug cartels, e. g. the Ochoa clan and to the new Russian clientele."
She writes about Mikhail Khodorkovsky as "the most famous victim of Russia's arbitrary justice." And about a favored "reformer,"
William Browder," she says, "After he turned out to be an annoyingly activist shareholder," Browder was barred from Russia in 2005.
But she ignores the offshore connection between Khodorkovsky and Browder. Khodorkovsky's company Menatep used TMC, a phony Isle
of Man "sales" company, to buy the output of Avisma, his titanium sponge company, at fake low prices and sell it on the market at
real prices, cheating minority shareholders and Russian taxpayers.
When Browder and his partners, billionaire investor Kenneth Dart and New York investor Francis Baker, bought Avisma from Khodorkovsky
in 1997, they agreed the corrupt profit skimming would continue.
Baker told me that the Bank of New York moved the stolen money. He said that "monies put in one end of the machine came out totally
clean at the other end of the machine," adding that, "It was not a piddling amount." He said, "They moved it through about 20 entities."
So when Applebaum says, "while constantly speaking of "reform" in Western capitals, Putin was systematically destroying the nascent
institutions of liberal democratic society, I wonder what society she is talking about. It sure wasn't "liberal democratic," but
Putin was using that great Western institution, the crooked offshore bank and corporate secrecy system, as global criminals and Western
corporations still do, to loot Russia.
Indeed, Putin and his collaborators looted Russia. But to suggest that this occurred independently of the corrupt offshore system
organized by Western banks and in spite of allegedly well-meaning Western advisors the U.S. sent to Russia is a distortion of the
truth.
Anne Applebaum's
article with my comments interspersed and parts of the article bold-faced to point out what I cite:
How He and His Cronies Stole Russia by Anne Applebaum
"For twenty years now, the Western politicians, journalists, businessmen, and academics who observe and describe the post-Soviet
evolution of Russia have almost all followed the same narrative. We begin with the assumption that the Soviet Union ended in 1991,
when Mikhail Gorbachev handed over power to Boris Yeltsin and Russia, Ukraine, and the rest of the Soviet republics became independent
states. We continue with an account of the early 1990s, an era of "reform," when some Russian leaders tried to create a democratic
political system and a liberal capitalist economy. We follow the trials and tribulations of the reformers, analyze the attempts
at privatization, discuss the ebb and flow of political parties and the growth and decline of an independent media."
Reform? Liberal capitalism? The "loans for shares" scam, invented by "reformer" Anatoly Chubais, made it possible for the "oligarchs"
to loot Russia. They "lent" money to the Yetsin government, which used it for an upcoming election campaign. When Yetsin & co did
not pay back the loans, the oligarchs got Russia's mineral and factory wealth at bargain prices. Such "reformers' were lauded by
the Clinton Administration and the Western press, because privatization by any means necessary was the ideological goal.
"Mostly we agree that those reforms failed, and sometimes we blame ourselves for those failures: we gave the wrong advice,
we sent naive Harvard economists who should have known better, we didn't have a Marshall Plan. Sometimes we blame
the Russians: the economists didn't follow our advice, the public was apathetic, President Yeltsin was indecisive, then drunk,
then ill. Sometimes we hope that reforms will return, as many believed they might during the short reign of President Dmitry Medvedev."
"Whatever their conclusion, almost all of these analysts seek an explanation in the reform process itself, asking whether
it was effective, or whether it was flawed, or whether it could have been designed differently. But what if it never
mattered at all? What if it made no difference which mistakes were made, which privatization plans were sidetracked, which piece
of advice was not followed? What if "reform" was never the most important story of the past twenty years in Russia at all?"
Naïve Harvard economists? Could she be referring to Andrei Shleifer and Jonathan Hay of the Harvard Institute for International
Development who went to Russia to help set up capital markets and had their US AID grant cancelled in 1997. According to AID, Shleifer
and Hay had improperly used U.S.-funded staff and resources for the benefit of investment projects run by Shleifer's wife, Nancy
Zimmerman, and Hay's girlfriend, Beth Hebert. The U.S. sued Shleifer, Hay and Harvard. They settled for at least $31 million.
Shleifer is still at Harvard because of the power of his krysha (roof), protector, Lawrence Summers who was then Harvard's president.
Hay sought reduced notoriety in London. Naïve is not the word for what they did.
Applebaum wonders if the "reform process" was flawed. Well, yes, if you send "reformers" who are crooks. Yes, Putin would continue
the corruption, but the "reformers" promoting the corrupt "loans for shares" laid the groundwork. The inventor of that scam, Anatoly
Chubais, went to work for Shleifer and Hay when Yeltsin fired him.
Karen Dawisha's Putin's Kleptocracy is not the first book to ask this question. Indeed, she makes extensive use of the work
of others, both fellow political scientists as well as journalists working across the US and Europe. Some have found fault with
this method, but the resulting work has a certain admirable relentlessness. For by tying all of these disparate investigations
together so thoroughly, so pedantically, and with so many extended footnotes-and by tracking down Western copies of documents
that vanished from Russia long ago-the extent of what has always been a murky story suddenly becomes more clear. In her introduction,
Dawisha, a professor of political science at Miami University in Ohio, explains:
Instead of seeing Russian politics as an inchoate democratic system being pulled down by history, accidental autocrats, popular
inertia, bureaucratic incompetence, or poor Western advice, I conclude that from the beginning Putin and his circle sought to
create an authoritarian regime ruled by a close-knit cabal…who used democracy for decoration rather than direction.
In other words, the most important story of the past twenty years might not, in fact, have been the failure of democracy, but
the rise of a new form of Russian authoritarianism. Instead of attempting to explain the failures of the reformers and intellectuals
who tried to carry out radical change, we ought instead to focus on the remarkable story of one group of unrepentant, single-minded,
revanchist KGB officers who were horrified by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the prospect of their own loss of influence.
In league with Russian organized crime, starting at the end of the 1980s, they successfully plotted a return to power. Assisted
by the unscrupulous international offshore banking industry, they stole money that belonged to the Russian state, took it abroad
for safety, reinvested it in Russia, and then, piece by piece, took over the state themselves. Once in charge, they brought back
Soviet methods of political control-the only ones they knew-updated for the modern era.
That corruption was part of the Russian system from the beginning is something we've long known for a long time, of course.
In her book Sale of the Century (2000), Chrystia Freeland memorably describes the moment when she realized that the confusing
regulations and contradictory laws that hog-tied Russian business in the 1990s were not a temporary problem that would soon be
cleaned up by some competent administrator. On the contrary, they existed for a purpose: the Russian elite wanted everybody to
operate in violation of one law or another, because that meant that everybody was liable at any time to arrest. The contradictory
regulations were not a mistake, they were a form of control.
Dawisha takes Freeland's realization one step further. She is arguing, in effect, that even before those nefarious rules were
written, the system had already been rigged to favor particular people and interest groups. No "even playing field" was ever created
in Russia, and the power of competitive markets was never unleashed. Nobody became rich by building a better mousetrap or by pulling
himself up by his bootstraps. Instead, those who succeeded did so thanks to favors granted by-or stolen from-the state. And when
the dust settled, Vladimir Putin emerged as king of the thieves.
To tell this story, Dawisha uses many sources, including the evidence presented in several major court cases, a number of which
fizzled out for political reasons; material collected by Russian and European investigative reporters, some of which has now vanished
from the Web; and Russian legal journals, many of which are now out of print. She has also conducted dozens of interviews with
businessmen and bankers all over the world. As noted, some of what she digs up has been described elsewhere, not only in Masha
Gessen's emotive account of Putin's rise to power, The Man Without a Face (2012), but also in Clifford Gaddy and Fiona Hill's
Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin (2013) and Peter Baker and Susan Glasser's Kremlin Rising (2005).1
Dawisha doesn't, like Gessen, seek to convey the emotions of Russian politics, and she is less interested than Hill and Gaddy
were in Putin's personal biography. Instead, she turns a relentless focus on the financial story of Putin's rise to power: page
after page contains the gritty details of criminal operation after criminal operation, including names, dates, and figures. Many
of these details had never been put together before-and for good reason. Cambridge University Press declined to publish this book
after initially agreeing to do so for fear of violating UK libel laws. Although she soon found a US publisher-US libel laws are
less constricting-Dawisha's troubles give some hint of the difficulties faced by many who try to write about Russia, and particularly
those who try to describe the corrupt practices of men with very deep pockets and very expensive lawyers on their payroll.
Using this mass of evidence, Dawisha nevertheless argues that the KGB's return to power begins not in 2000, when Putin became
president, but in the late 1980s. At that time, the then leaders of the KGB, who distrusted Gorbachev, began transferring
money that belonged to the Soviet Communist Party out of the Soviet Union and into offshore accounts tended by Swiss or British
bankers. At least initially, these transfers took place with the Party's knowledge. In August 1990, the Central Committee
called for measures to protect the Party's "economic interests," including the construction of an "invisible" structure, accessible
only to "a very narrow circle of people." KGB operatives who already had experience with managing foreign bank accounts-they'd
been funding foreign Communist parties for decades-were put in charge.
By the autumn of 1991-after the KGB-led coup in August to overthrow Gorbachev had failed-almost $4 billion belonging to the
Party's "property management department" had already been distributed to hundreds of Party-, Komsomol-, and KGB-managed banks
and companies that were swiftly establishing themselves in Russia and abroad. This was an enormous amount of capital in a country
that had, at the time, a scarcely functioning economy and hardly any foreign currency reserves at all. In due course, these funds,
and the people who managed them, were to become the real foundation for the economy of post-Soviet Russia. Again, this was not
robber baron capitalism, or indeed capitalism at all: instead, a small group was enriched by the state and thereby given the means
of acquiring its property.
Applebaum, who otherwise writes with detail, refers sketchily to the KBG officers who as the Soviet Union seemed near collapse
in the 1980s, plotted a return to power.
"Assisted by the unscrupulous international offshore banking industry, they stole money that belonged to the Russian state,
took it abroad for safety, reinvested it in Russia, and then, piece by piece, took over the state themselves."
She writes, "That corruption was part of the Russian system from the beginning is something we've long known for a long time,
of course." She points out that "leaders of the KGB, who distrusted Gorbachev, began transferring money that belonged to the Soviet
Communist Party out of the Soviet Union and into offshore accounts tended by Swiss or British bankers.
Why not more detail? American banks played a role. The Bank of New York was heavily involved in moving Russian money. And
driving the getaway car makes one an accomplice.
Top KGB official Yevgeny Primakov oversaw sending money out of Russia. Trading companies sold state resources and put the money
in Western tax havens from Switzerland to Hong Kong and from Cyprus to the Cayman Islands. Some of that money would be used to set
up the new Russian banks, including Menatep, whose titular head was Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
The Russians started creating shell companies at a California post office box in the late 1980s. They liked being able to put
cash in the Caribbean, perhaps the British Virgin Islands, and then move it back to Russia through the U.S. as "American" investments.
From the very beginning, Russia's current president had a part in this process. In the late 1980s, Putin was a KGB officer
in Dresden, East Germany. There are conflicting accounts of what he was doing there. In his official and unofficial biographies,
Dawisha writes, quoting Putin's German biographer Alexander Rahr, this period is covered in a "thick fog of silence." But there
is some evidence that he may have been helping the KGB prepare for what it feared could be the imminent demise of the Soviet empire.
Indeed, when he became president in 2000, German counterintelligence launched an investigation into whether or not Putin had been
recruiting agents who would remain loyal to the KGB even after the collapse of communism. As Dawisha explains, "the Germans were
concerned that Putin had recruited a network that lived on in united Germany."
The scale of this effort is not known, but certainly a few of his Dresden contacts have become startlingly successful in the
decades since 1989. Matthias Warnig, a Stasi colleague of Putin's, opened Dresdner Bank's first branch in St. Petersburg in 1991,
by which time Putin was living there. By 2000 he headed all of the bank's operations in Russia. In 2003, the bank participated
in the dismemberment of Yukos, the oil company owed by the jailed magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Since 2006, Warnig
has been managing director of the Russian–German Nord Stream pipeline project, a company that won permission to operate during
the term of German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, and that later hired ex-Chancellor Schröder to serve on its board. In 2012, among
other high posts, Warnig became a member of the board of directors of Bank Rossiya, one of the Russian banks now under US sanctions.
I am especially interested in the parts about Khodorkovsky, who is described with sympathy. Applebaum writes that Dresdner Bank's
first branch in St. Petersburg in 2003, "participated in the dismemberment of Yukos, the oil company owed by the jailed magnate Mikhail
Khodorkovsky, who she describes as "the most famous victim of Russia's arbitrary justice." She points out that he was "arrested in
2003, after which his oil company, Yukos, was liquidated. Yukos's assets were then transferred to another company, Rosneft, which
happened to be owned by another one of Putin's friends. Khodorkovsky's arrest was intended as a lesson to others: here is what will
happen, even to the richest men, if they step out of line."
She neglects to mention the Isle of Man transfer pricing scheme that Khodorkovsky used to siphon profits from Yukos. Not an excuse
for seizing the company, but MBK was hardly an honest innocent.
The other victim she cites is William Browder, who she points out set up a Russian investment fund that invested heavily in Gazprom.
Based on the complimentary tweets and other writings Applebaum and Browder have posted in recent years, they admire each other greatly.
Applebaum writes, "After he turned out to be an annoyingly activist shareholder -he kept asking why the company's accounts were
so untransparent - Browder was barred from the country in 2005. His companies in Russia were subsequently destroyed by a particularly
Putinist form of corporate raiding: tax officials and police attacked their offices, reregistered them, declared them bankrupt, stole
their money, and arrested and harassed their employees."
She doesn't point out an interesting connection between Khodorkovsky and Browder. It concerns AVISMA, a Russian titanium sponge
company that Khodorkovsky obtained for kopeks on the ruble in the corrupt Yeltsin "loans for shares" scam promoted by that other
"reformer," Anatoly Chubais.
Khodorkovsky's company Menatep bought a piece of Valmet, an offshore incorporator in the Isle of Man, which set up TMC, a phony
"sales" company that would buy AVISMA's output at fake low prices and sell it on the market at real prices, cheating minority shareholders
and Russian taxpayers. (It was the same scheme he used for Yukos.)
When Browder and his partners, billionaire investor Kenneth Dart and New York investor Francis Baker, bought AVISMA from Khodorkovsky
in 1997, the deal was that the corrupt profit skimming would continue. In fact, when Isle of Man middleman Peter Bond failed to turn
over the purloined cash, Browder and his partners went to court in the Isle of Man declaring that they were owed that cash. Their
legal papers detailed the scam. (Curiously, one of the names on the suit was Jonathan Hay. Browder et al had trades AVISMA shares
for stock in a Russian firm, VSMPO. Then they put Hay and two others on the VSMPO board.) Browder and his colleagues got a settlement
from Bond.
But when VSMPO's American lawyer discovered the profit-skimming, the company sought to recover the stolen cash. Its suit pointed
out that Valmet "funneled these monies through bank accounts maintained at BoNY (Bank of New York) to entities unknown." It said
accounts at the Bank of New York "were established with the assistance of a BoNY officer Natasha Gurfinkel Kagalovsky" who knew about
the fraud because she was married to the vice-chairman of Menatep Bank, Konstantin Kagalovsky. She was fired when the Bank of New
York money laundering scandal was exposed in 1999.
Baker acknowledged to me that the Bank of New York moved the stolen money. He said that "monies put in one end of the machine
came out totally clean at the other end of the machine," adding that, "It was not a piddling amount." And, "When it got to our shores,
there was the old Bank of New York," he said. "They moved it through about 20 entities. The bank was very complicit with that." VSMPO
got a settlement.
After leaving Germany, Putin returned to St. Petersburg, eventually making his way, with KGB patronage, into the St. Petersburg
city government, where he was responsible for "foreign liaisons"-and where he could put some of his foreign contacts to immediate
use. In 1991, Marina Salye, a member of the St. Petersburg city council, accused Putin of having knowingly entered into dozens
of legally flawed contracts on behalf of the city, exporting hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of commodities-timber, coal,
steel-in exchange for food that never arrived. Her attempts to censure him came to nothing: the council called for his resignation
but nothing happened. At a higher level, Putin had protectors. Salye, spooked by threats, went into hiding and disappeared from
Russian politics.
Not that it mattered much, since Putin and his friends had other irons in the fire. Back in this very early post-Soviet moment-when
Western advisers were still streaming into the country to give lectures on the rule of law and judicial reform-Putin
personally organized, or helped organize, several institutions that exist to this day. One of the best known is Bank Rossiya,
which was founded in St. Petersburg in 1990, using money from the Communist Party's Central Committee. From the beginning, according
to Spanish police investigators, Bank Rossiya facilitated cooperation between Putin, other city officials, and Russian organized
crime, allowing the two groups to invest together.
Rule of law? Promoted by Shleifer and Hay?
Dawisha also describes the origins of the Ozero Dacha Consumer Cooperative, a small group, again including Putin, that conducted
property investments but soon branched into other businesses, making use of mysterious sources of cash. At a time when others
had no access to capital, they were flush. Most of the members of the cooperative are now millionaires and several are billionaires.
The St. Petersburg Real Estate Holding Company (SPAG) was a third institution linked to Putin. In 1999, the German Federal
Intelligence Agency (BND) completed an investigation into SPAG, and published a report that accused the organization of laundering
money for Russian and Colombian criminals. Among other things, the BNDsaid that SPAG took money that had been sent out of Russia
and was parked "offshore," and helped its owners-among them the leaders of the Tambov gang, a part of the St. Petersburg mafia-repatriate
it back into the country through the purchase of property and other legitimate assets. Notably, when Schröder became chancellor
of Germany, this investigation was slowed down; Putin's name had, in any case, been kept out of it. Several other company founders
were indicted by courts in Liechtenstein. Vladimir Kumarin, the former Tambov gang leader, has been in prison since 2012.
Applebaum notes that the St. Petersburg Real Estate Holding Company (SPAG) linked to Putin, was accused in 1999, by the German
Federal Intelligence Agency (BND) of laundering money for Russian and Colombian criminals. "Among other things, the BND said that
SPAG took money that had been sent out of Russia and was parked "offshore," and helped its owners-among them the leaders of the Tambov
gang, a part of the St. Petersburg mafia-repatriate it back into the country through the purchase of property and other legitimate
assets.
Offshore? What Western banks did that? SPAG was registered in Germany and laundered money though Liechtenstein. According to a
confidential BND document I obtained, "The Liechtenstein lawyers Dr. Eugen Heeb and Rudolf Ritter participate in a network of firms
in Liechtenstein, Europe and overseas. They make this network available -amongst others -to South American drug cartels, e. g. the
Ochoa clan, and to the new Russian clientele." It noted that, "Rudolf Ritter is the brother of the Vice Head of Government and Minister
for the Interior, the Economy, Health and Social Matters, Dr. Michael Ritter."
And she says, "According to Russia's own Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Twentieth Trust received money from the budget of the
city of St. Petersburg and subsequently transferred that money abroad. Abroad? How, via Western offshore banks? Worth mentioning.
And of course there was $7.5 billion allegedly funneled through the Bank of New York, in 1999 with the help of two executives
of its Eastern European Division. One of them was Natasha Gurfinkel Kagalovsky whose husband just happened to be an official of Bank
Menatep, run by Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Dawisha also describes the origins of the Twentieth Trust, a "construction company" also linked to Putin. According to Russia's
own Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Twentieth Trust received money from the budget of the city of St. Petersburg and subsequently
transferred that money abroad. Novaya Gazeta, a Russian newspaper, discovered that the company had purchased property in Spain
where it constructed villas using Russian army labor. These kinds of reports led Spanish police to become suspicious of Russian
activity in Spain, and in the 1990s they began monitoring the Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky, as well as several well-known
leaders of Russian organized crime, all of whom had houses on the southern coast of Spain. In 1999, to their immense surprise,
their recorders picked up an unexpected visitor: Putin. He had arrived in Spain illegally, by boat from Gibraltar, having eluded
Spanish passport control.
By the time he made this secret visit to Spain-apparently one of many-Putin had already graduated to the next phase of his
career: until August 1999, he was the boss of the FSB, the KGB's successor organization. He had moved from St. Petersburg to Moscow,
taking many of his cronies and all of his criminal connections with him. At that time, they were not the only such group to have
parlayed state and KGB money into wealth. President Yeltsin had also in effect given his blessing to the creation of several large
fortunes, including that of Boris Berezovksy. But as Yeltsin became increasingly ill and unavailable, Putin persuaded Berezovsky
and others in the Yeltsin inner circle that he and his FSB colleagues would be the guarantors of their wealth in the event of
Yeltsin's demise.
They duly anointed Putin prime minister and then president-the wishes of voters and democratic process had little to do with
it. But having obtained high office, he turned the tables on them. Soon after taking over, he made it clear that he intended to
remove the Yeltsin-era elite and to put a new elite in its place-mostly from St. Petersburg, equally corrupt, but loyal exclusively
to him. Among others, he removed the CEO and chairman of Gazprom-the old Soviet gas ministry, now a private company-and replaced
them with Dmitry Medvedev, a St. Petersburg lawyer and Putin's colleague since his days in the St. Petersburg mayor's office,
and Aleksei Miller, his former deputy at the St. Petersburg Committee for Foreign Liaison. Very quickly, Gazprom became a source
of personal funds for Putin's projects, useful, for example, when he needed a large chunk of money to bribe the president of Ukraine.
Gazprom's new leadership grew in wealth and power, and they knew exactly who they had to thank for it. This was not the first
time this kind of policy had been deployed in Russia: "Change the elite" is an old Stalinist tactic too.
But having changed the elite, having taken hold of the most important Russian companies, and having established himself as
godfather to all of the other oligarchs, Putin did not change his ways. After he became president in 2000, it is true that Putin
did preserve some of the language of "reform" in his public statements. He appointed "reformers" to top jobs. He kept open lines
of communication with the West, particularly after September 11, 2001, when he saw the possibility of a tactical alliance with
the West against Muslim radicalism in Central Asia. He remained open to relationships with NATO and with American and European
leaders. In 2004, he even declared that "if Ukraine wants to join the EU and if the EU accepts Ukraine as a member, Russia, I
think, would welcome this because we have a special relationship with Ukraine." He regularly attended meetings of the G8, an organization-including
the US, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, the UK, and Russia-whose rules and raison d'etre had been altered specifically
in order to allow Russia to join.
He also carried off an extraordinary public relations coup, and one with far-reaching significance: for four years, between
2008 and 2012, Putin put a seemingly pro-Western, apparently business-friendly, decoy president in charge of the Kremlin. The
reassuring presence of Dmitry Medvedev not only inspired Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's "reset" in American foreign policy,
but lulled almost everyone in Europe into accepting a gangster state as a difficult but legitimate partner. During the four years
of the Medvedev presidency NATO's military readiness declined further, Western financial institutions became more dependent on
Russian money, and Western politicians turned their attention to other matters.
Yet during this same period, as during his own presidency, Putin never abandoned the mafia methods Dawisha has so painstakingly
described. Instead, he reshaped Russia's political system in order to ensure that they could continue. Though Dawisha argues that
Putin always intended to recreate an authoritarian, expansionist Russia, one could also argue that an authoritarian, expansionist
Russia was the inevitable result of Putin's need to protect himself, his cronies, and their money.
Either way, no one now doubts that, despite the talk of "reform," he made no attempt to encourage truly entrepreneurial capitalism
inside Russia or to create a legal system that would allow small businesses to grow. Courts became increasingly politicized and
markets ever more distorted. Oligarchs and businessmen at all levels who did not play by his rules were destroyed. The most famous
victim of Russia's arbitrary justice was Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was arrested in 2003, after which his oil company, Yukos, was
liquidated. Yukos's assets were then transferred to another company, Rosneft, which happened to be owned by another one of Putin's
friends. Khodorkovsky's arrest was intended as a lesson to others: here is what will happen, even to the richest men, if they
step out of line.
During what seemed at the time to be a golden era of Russian–Western political relations, the economic picture for foreign
investors was also mixed. Some Western businesses flourished in Russia, but only so far as it suited Putin and his cronies. Westerners
who annoyed the regime-or Westerners whose businesses were coveted by powerful Russians-could be destroyed with tax demands, lawsuits,
and worse.
This was the fate of Bill Browder-grandson of Earl Browder, leader of the American Communist Party-who set
up a Russian investment fund that invested heavily in Gazprom. After he turned out to be an annoyingly activist shareholder-he
kept asking why the company's accounts were so untransparent-Browder was barred from the country in 2005. His companies in Russia
were subsequently destroyed by a particularly Putinist form of corporate raiding: tax officials and police attacked their offices,
reregistered them, declared them bankrupt, stole their money, and arrested and harassed their employees. Browder's lawyer, Sergey
Magnitsky, was eventually beaten to death by guards in a Russian prison.
Browder is discussed earlier in the report of how he took over Khodorkovsky's profit-skimming operation and cheated Russian citizens
and minority shareholders (including Americans) of profits from AVISMA.
At the same time-while constantly speaking of "reform" in Western capitals-Putin was systematically destroying the
nascent institutions of liberal democratic society. Whatever embryonic political movements had come to life in the 1990s
were crushed in the 2000s. Refusing to tolerate any real political opposition, Putin instead sponsored phony political parties
whose leaders were ultimately loyal to himself. He eviscerated independent media, especially television, which he considered to
be an essential tool of social manipulation. Although he left a few very small "dissident" newspapers open, presumably in order
to placate the tiny middle class, he pushed back hard when they went too far. Anna Politkovskaya, an extraordinarily brave reporter
who wrote about Putin's war in Chechnya, was one of several Russian journalists to be brutally killed in gangland-style murders.
When Applebaum says, "while constantly speaking of "reform" in Western capitals, Putin was systematically destroying the nascent
institutions of liberal democratic society, I wonder what society she is talking about. Well, maybe it's not "liberal democratic,"
but Putin was using that great old Western institution, the offshore bank and corporate secrecy system, as the rest of the globalized
criminal system does and as Western corporations do to cheat shareholders and taxpayers.
Anyone who thinks that Putin and the West have not had an active partnership is wrong.
(end of my comments)
With the media out of the way, Putin also took on "civil society," meaning any charitable, educational, or advocacy organizations
over which he did not exert direct control. This included the slow suffocation of apolitical groups such as Memorial, the historic
human rights organization that has produced internationally admired accounts of the crimes of Stalin, the history of the Gulag,
and more generally the history of repression in Russia. Because Memorial had received foreign funding-from organizations such
as the Ford Foundation-it was told that it had to be registered as a "foreign agent," a phrase that heavily implies foreign espionage.
More recently, the Russian Justice Ministry has filed a lawsuit that seeks to shut down Memorial altogether, on spurious administrative
grounds.2
In place of a genuine media and a real civil society, Putin and his inner circle slowly put into place a system for manufacturing
disinformation and mobilizing support on a new and spectacular scale. Once the KGB had retaken the country, in other words, it
began once again to act like the KGB-only now it was better funded and more sophisticated. Today's Russian "political technologists"
make use of their state-owned media, including English-language outlets such as the TV news channel Russia Today; armies of paid
social media "trolls" who post on newspaper comment pages, as well as on Twitter, Facebook, and other sites; fake "experts" whose
quotes can be presented with fake authority; and real experts to whom Putin's officials have granted special access, or have simply
paid. Former Western ambassadors to Moscow, businessmen who have been recruited to Russian company boards, European politicians
as high-ranking as Schröder and Silvio Berlusconi-all have been well compensated, directly or indirectly, for offering their support.
Using these different sources, the Kremlin began putting out messages designed not necessarily to make Russia look good, but
rather to undermine the Western establishment and Western institutions, including the European Union and NATO. Using both money
and information, they seek to empower the Western far right, the anti-establishment left, and the international business community
all at the same time. Thus Russia Today supports Occupy Wall Street. A Russian oligarch organizes a meeting in Vienna attended
by the French National Front, Hungary's nationalist political party Jobbik, and Austria's Freedom Party.3
Whispering campaigns, conducted in the world's financial capitals-especially Frankfurt and the City of London-hint at the dire
things that will happen if sanctions against Russia are not lifted. In an article recently published by The Interpreter, an online
publication dedicated to exposing Kremlin disinformation, the journalists Peter Pomerantsev and Michael Weiss argue that since
at least 2008 Kremlin military and intelligence thinkers have been talking about information not in the familiar terms of "persuasion,"
"public diplomacy" or even "propaganda," but in weaponized terms, as a tool to confuse, blackmail, demoralize, subvert and paralyze.4
This is not a system, in other words, that has come about spontaneously, in reaction to events on Kiev's Maidan, although to
those who haven't followed the evolution of Russian politics over the past twenty years-or to those who have followed only the
narrative of "failed reforms"-it might perhaps appear that way. Indeed, in the months since Putin's invasion of Crimea, it has
become fashionable to suggest that the harder-line face that Putin has more recently shown to the world is somehow, once again,
the West's "fault," that we have provoked Russia into autocratic behavior through our talk of democracy in Ukraine or that-once
again-the "reform process" was somehow brought to a halt because the Russians felt threatened by the expansion of NATO or by Western
policy in the Balkans.
But after reading Dawisha's book, and after absorbing the implications of the stories she has so carefully pulled together
from so many sources, it is simply not possible to take this argument seriously. Since 2000, Russia has been ruled by a revanchist,
revisionist elite with origins in the old KGB. This elite had been working its way back to power since the late 1980s, using theft
on a grand scale, taking advantage of the secrecy provided by Western offshore havens, and cooperating with organized crime.
Once in power, the new elite sought to maintain control using the same methods that the KGB always used to maintain control:
through the manipulation of public emotion, and by undermining the institutions of the West, and the ideals of the West, in any
way that it can. Based on its record so far, it has every reason to expect continued success.
A letter exchange in response to Janine Wedel's "Tainted Transactions: Harvard, Russia and the Chubais Clan" (Spring
2000). Participants: Jeffrey Sachs, Anders Aslund, Marek Dabrowski, Peter Reddaway, Igor Aristov, Wayne Merry, Michael Hudson, David
Ellerman, Steven Rosefielde and Janine Wedel.
Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the Center for International Development, Harvard University:
Janine Wedel, for the umpteenth time, repeats her phony diatribes against me ("Tainted Transactions: Harvard, the Chubais Clan
and Russia's Ruin", Spring 2000). Please permit me to correct the record.
Despite Dr. Wedel's weird insinuations that I had no advisory role with the Russian government, I was an official adviser to
that government, but only for two years and two months, from December 1991 to January 1994. I worked closely with Anders Åslund
during this period. President Yeltsin officially designated us as advisers during a meeting with us on December 13, 1991, and
we received offices in the Council of Ministers during 1992 and in the Ministry of Finance during 1993. During the period until
the end of 1992, Åslund and I mainly advised acting Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar, and in 1993 we led a unit within the Russian
Finance Ministry advising Deputy Prime Minister Boris Fedorov. (The most bizarre and entertaining fiction is Dr. Wedel's additional
suggestion that I somehow secretly worked with the IMF during 1992.)
During this entire period, there were notoriously heated divisions within the Russian government, and between the Russian government
on one side and the Duma and Central Bank on the other. The reformers, led by Gaidar and Fedorov, did what they could to pursue
needed reforms, but very often they were blocked. Unlike my experience in many other countries, such as Poland, little of what
I recommended was actually enacted. It wasn't pleasant being blamed for high inflation and other ills that resulted from the very
opposite of the advice that Åslund and I were giving (such as when the Central Bank ran a disastrous hyperinflationary monetary
policy in 1992 and 1993), but it was still worth the effort of supporting the brave reformers fighting an uphill battle. Åslund
and I publicly resigned in January 1994, days after Gaidar and Fedorov left the government. We were concerned about the takeover
of the government by the "industrial lobby", with a foreshadowing of the mega-corruption that was to follow, especially in the
disgraceful state giveaways of the lucrative natural resource enterprises, mainly during 1994–96. I was also particularly distressed
by the lack of appropriate Western advice and assistance, a point that I made repeatedly in writings and speeches at that time
and afterward.
Somehow in this maelstrom some people came to assume (or at least claimed to assume) that whatever happened was what I had
recommended, even though I was publicly and privately critical of the lawlessness and lack of reform progress. For a few people
this has continued despite the fact that I have not advised the Russian government for six years or even been to Russia for five
years. Wedel writes in just this nonsensical vein. For many years I have publicly and repeatedly denounced the scandals of privatization
such as the "shares for loans" deals, and published articles and books describing and criticizing the lawlessness and corruption
in Russia (including The Rule of Law and Economic Reform in Russia, 1997).
Dr. Wedel deliberately and systematically mixes personal references to me, the Harvard Institute for International Development
(HIID) and other Western advisers, so that she can rope me into her phony conspiracy theories. The HIID projects she refers to
were directed by Professor Andrei Shleifer at Harvard, and I had no role in those projects. She seemingly can't understand that
I had a completely separate project, and that I resigned from advising the Russian government as of January 1994. One and one
half years later, I became director of HIID in July 1995, and Professor Shleifer's project was one of sixty or so ongoing HIID
projects around the world. During the period in which I directed HIID (1995–99), I stayed completely away from any personal involvement
in any Russian advisory work, consistent with my public resignation in 1994. Moreover, when dubious practices in Professor Shleifer's
project came to the attention of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and myself in the spring of 1997, USAID
and I worked together to close the project immediately.
Dr. Wedel writes darkly that "it is unclear who paid Sachs and his team." As I have explained repeatedly to her, and to anyone
else that had the slightest interest, I received my academic salary for my work in Russia, with my leave time from Harvard University
covered mainly by the United Nations University in Helsinki in early 1992, and thereafter by the advisory project supported by
the Ford Foundation and the Swedish government during 1992–93. USAID supported a small amount of my summer academic salary, probably
a total of a month or two. Of course, I never invested a penny in Russia, or in any other country in which I have served as an
economic adviser. Nor did I engage in any consulting services for private businesses or investors involved with the Russian economy.
Dr. Wedel also accuses me of somehow improperly promoting myself to the Russians as a person "facilitating access to Western
money." As any mildly interested observer of the Russian reforms would know from my writings and speeches, I strongly believed
and publicly argued in 1992 that the West should provide large-scale assistance to Russia to support the early days of market
reforms and stabilization, something the West manifestly declined to do. There was nothing sinister, surreptitious or secretive
about any of this: I simply believed (and continue to believe) that timely Western help in 1992 and 1993 could have played an
important role in helping real reforms and democratization to take hold, but of course it did not come. The Russian reformers
and I knew that the chances for the needed large-scale support were not high, but we felt the effort was worth making anyway.
Wedel's twisting of facts and outright misrepresentations go on and on. What I find hard to understand is how The National
Interest could publish this nonsense without even doing an iota of fact-checking.
Anders Åslund, senior associate, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
A decade after the collapse of the communist system, history has demonstrated that those post-communist countries that aggressively
pursued market economic and democratic reforms are rapidly improving the lives of their citizens. In her article in The National
Interest, Janine Wedel ignores this reality and seems more intent on denigrating those who have advocated and actively promoted
such radical reform. She appears to lack an analytical framework, and her assertion of facts is inaccurate.
The stars among the post-communist countries are Poland and Estonia, which are generally acknowledged as the most radical market
reformers. According to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, they also have the least corruption. Russia attempted
a radical reform, but unfortunately it stumbled. Even so, Russian citizens are better off than Ukrainians, who saw a much later
reform and less privatization, not to mention the poor Belarusians, who suffer under a frightful dictatorship in a Soviet theme
park. Market reform and democracy go together in the post-communist world. Russia's problem is not too radical reform, but too
little reform.
For the past decade, Janine Wedel has been going after leading advocates of radical market economic reform and privatization
in former communist countries. Since the shortcomings of her gossip journalism are so obvious, nobody seems to have bothered to
answer her as yet, but when a respectable magazine, such as The National Interest, publishes an article of hers, this mixture
of lies, half-lies, sly allusions and sheer misunderstandings needs to be exposed.
In 1990 she started pursuing Jeffrey Sachs and David Lipton for having destroyed the Polish economy through their "ideology
. . . of radical privatization and marketization", which soon turned Poland into a stunning success. Poland's President Alexander
Kwasniewski recently bestowed a high Polish order on Sachs and on Lipton in gratitude for their services to Poland.
What is her alternative? In her book, Collision and Collusion: The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe 1989–1998
(1998), she revealed her ideological preferences by repeatedly citing the old-style Soviet communist Leonid Abalkin with sympathy
in his criticism of liberal reformers. She seems to advocate U.S. assistance to such communists: "In short, donors, by equating
Western-oriented Russians with reform agendas and traditionalist or communist Russians with anti-reform agendas, created stereotypes."
Wedel is patently contradictory. She criticizes Western consultants for their "[l]ack of the understanding of the Russian cultural
context", but the particular persons she assails know Russia well. She attacks the major Western economic advisers in Russia for
being both ineffective and too influential. You cannot have it both ways.
Similarly, she regrets large amounts of aid to consultants, but she has focused on one institution, namely, the Harvard Institute
for International Development, which received less than 1 percent of total USAID assistance to Russia. She ignores the many other
general contractors for USAID that received much more money.
The major problem, however, is Wedel's inability to evaluate the accuracy of her sources. She mainly relies on interviews,
going around talking to admittedly many people, but she only records vicious and tendentious allegations often made by single
individuals. She makes no attempt to check their truthfulness, ulterior motives or even whether her interviewees can know what
they say. The Soviet Union was an empire of lies, and systematic lying remains common. Wedel seems unaware of this, revealing
her limited understanding of the Russian cultural context.
Sometimes, though, Wedel seems aware of her absence of evidence, but instead of retracting she adds, for instance, ". . . as
well as a number of additional reports and sources in Russia, Ukraine, Sweden and Washington."
In a review of Collision and Collusion in Comparative Economic Studies, Jozef van Brabant, an economist who has persistently
opposed radical market reform, concluded: "The book is marred by all too many other inaccuracies some of which are attributable
to the author's ignorance."
From a personal perspective, I can say that Wedel's portrayal of my work is simply wrong. She alleges: "Åslund seemed at once
to represent and speak on behalf of American, Russian and Swedish governments and authorities." This statement is absurd. I left
the Swedish foreign service in 1989. I served as economic adviser to the Russian government from November 1991 until January 1994.
I have never been employed by the U.S. government. Although my employments have varied over time, they have never involved conflicts
of interest, and I have always made clear what I am doing.
Wedel also complains that "he always presented himself [in op-ed articles] as an objective analyst, despite his many promotional
roles." When working with the Russian government and later the Ukrainian government, I always mentioned that. Some may disagree
with me, but I have hardly ever been accused of being unclear about what I stand for.
Wedel claims: "Åslund was also involved in business activities in Russia and Ukraine", and in her Demokratizatsiya article:
"He had 'significant' business investments in Russia." The truth is that while advising any government, I have never been involved
in business activities or invested in that country, though I have given lectures and briefings on the state of their economies.
She complains that two of my associates, who worked for Chubais, set up an investment bank after having finished their work
for Chubais. So what? High U.S. Treasury officials often come from and go to investment banks.
In her Demokratizatsiya article, Wedel claimed: "Åslund helped to deliver Swedish government monies to the [Russian Privatization
Center]." I would have been happy to do so, but I did not. Wedel writes that I attended a dacha in Arkhangelskoe when the Gaidar
team prepared its government program there, but I have never visited that dacha. Nor is it true that my assignment in Ukraine
"explicitly included public relations on behalf of that country."
In public appearances, Wedel has asserted that I have made a huge amount of money on USAID, but USAID has never financed any
advisory work of mine. Nor have I worked for HIID, which she also has alleged. My work in Russia was financed by the Swedish government
and the Ford Foundation through the Stockholm Institute of East European Economics.
This is a long list of allegations that I know to be wrong because they involve me personally. There is no reason to believe
that she is more truthful about anything else, as Wedel's text abounds with inaccuracies. Aleksander Bevz has never headed the
Gaidar Institute. Maxim Boycko replaced Alfred Kokh as chairman of the State Property Committee, not the other way around, as
Wedel reports. Jeffrey Sachs and David Lipton were rarely in Moscow together, and so on.
Many of these facts can be easily checked. Most of Wedel's claims have been made three or four times in almost identical wording,
as she is in the habit of republishing the same article many times, so it is not a matter of typographical errors.
In short, Wedel's main shortcoming is that she lacks the faculty to distinguish truth.
Marek Dabrowski, former first deputy minister of finance of Poland, currently vice chairman of the Center for Social and Economic
Research, Warsaw:
I found Janine Wedel's article deeply wrong in its description and interpretation of East European and Russian transition processes,
and of the role of foreign aid to this region.
My impression is that the author intentionally and consciously manipulates facts and sources of information in order to support
her conspiracy theory and address far-fetched and certainly unfair personal insinuations against key Russian reformers such as
Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais, and leading Western experts trying to help Eastern Europe and Russia such as Jeffrey Sachs,
David Lipton and Anders Åslund. Her style of writing and methods of work remind me of the worst instances of Communist Party propaganda,
which I had occasion to experience not so long ago as an East European national.
The best example of such practices is footnote 33 of her article where she quotes me as the source of the opinion that ". .
. Åslund was engaged in public relations activities. His assignment in Ukraine, where he was funded by George Soros, explicitly
included public relations on behalf of that country, according to other Soros-funded consultants who worked with Åslund there."
It is true that I worked with Anders Åslund in Ukraine (and in Russia), but I did not formulate such an opinion, and, what
is more important, I never gave Wedel permission to use any fragment of our two conversations as the source of quotation in her
publications.
Wedel met me once in 1995 with the purported reason to ask me about a paper I had presented on foreign assistance to transition
countries. It seemed a normal academic conversation. Then, she called me on the phone several months later. When she started to
put her questions, I quickly realized that she was in the grip of some conspiracy theory, and she tried to provoke me to speak
against Jeffrey Sachs and David Lipton. She was not ready to listen to my answers because she knew better what the "truth" was,
and she wanted me only to confirm her crazy interpretation of events. At the beginning I tried to convince her that she was wrong,
but when I realized that this was a hopeless task, I stopped the conversation. I asked her never to call me again, and not to
use any part of our conversation in her work, a request she has not respected.
Peter Reddaway, professor of political science, George Washington University:
Janine Wedel's powerful article focuses mainly on the negative effects of "transactorship" on Russian-Western relations.
These contributed to other problems that, taken together, mean that the West has helped to create in Russia a much bigger
long-term problem for our foreign policy than most observers have yet grasped.
In my view, the attempted imposition of shock therapy (or "the Washington consensus") on Russia by Boris Yeltsin and the West
has been a textbook example of doctrinaire social engineering. It has been based on a mixture of ignorance and arrogance.
As I have argued since before the process began in 1991, such an approach was bound-given the legacy of Russian and Soviet history-to
be, at the least, premature and dangerous. Russia is not Poland or Estonia. No matter what tricks Yeltsin and his foreign backers
used, it was politically impossible to fully apply shock therapy in the Russia of the early 1990s. Any government that might have
tried to do so would have provoked chaos and fierce opposition-and been thrown out. Governments do not deliberately commit suicide.
The repeated complaints of people like Jeffrey Sachs and Anders Åslund that Yeltsin and Yegor Gaidar "lacked the political
will to go the whole way" demonstrate, at best, political naivety. At worst, the complaints look like an attempt to divert attention
from the incompetence of the advice given by these individuals to the Kremlin, the IMF and Western governments.
The second part of the tragedy is that when, by 1994, it was crystal clear that the "reforms" were not working, the imf, the
G-7, Sachs, Åslund and others continued - for four more long years - to pressure Yeltsin into largely futile efforts to push ahead
with them. This compounded failure. For most Russians, such doctrinaire obstinacy put an end to the hopes of better living conditions
that had been aroused by the fall of communism.
The pattern was this: the West kept offering loans in return for Kremlin promises to reduce inflation and the budget deficit,
privatize industry, appoint Anatoly Chubais to run the economy, circumvent the parliament through presidential decrees, and so
on. However, as Dmitri Glinski and I will show in our forthcoming book, The Tragedy of Russia's Reforms: Market Bolshevism
Against Democracy (2000), not only did these Western recipes fail to stabilize the ruble, halt the steep plunge in investment,
and get workers paid on time; they also created a humiliating dependency on the West's aid and foreign policy, promoted crony
capitalism, fostered massive crime, corruption and capital flight, eroded state capacity all around, and destroyed what basis
remained for achieving a modicum of social justice.
The devastating effect of all this in terms of values is that the majority of Russians, who a decade ago saw democracy and
free markets as beacons of hope, now see before their eyes ugly perversions of these institutions, and wonder if they just won't
work in Russia. Opinion polls repeatedly show profound doubt and even despair about Russia's future. They also show that anti-Americanism
has permeated the whole society and is probably now deeper than at any time in Russia's history. A substantial majority believe
that the United States and the West have weakened Russia deliberately, in order to exploit and humiliate it.
Encouragingly, a few of Dr. Wedel's "transactors"-for example, Pyotr Aven, Konstantin Kagalovsky and David Lipton-have in varying
degrees rethought and recanted the neo-Bolshevik social engineering that is the main cause of this tragic outcome. Others-notably
Sachs and Åslund-have not. Åslund, indeed, tries to publicly ridicule people like the former chief economist of the World
Bank, Joseph Stiglitz, who dare to criticize either him or the now exploded "Washington consensus."
Also silent as regards rethinking and self-criticism are the main architects and implementers of U.S. policy toward Russia:
Strobe Talbott, Lawrence Summers and Al Gore. Their successors will, tragically, be left with a major, nuclear, long-term
"Russia problem."
Igor Aristov, head of the Department for Competition Protection of the Financial Markets, Ministry for Antimonopoly Policy
and Entrepreneurship Support, Russia:
It was very useful to learn the details about the Chubais Clan and its illicit activities from Janine Wedel's article.
It is not possible to overestimate the significance of such an article. For me personally this information is also very important
because Russian tycoons have used illegal financial inflows for private purposes and against the national interest of Russia.
To foresee their future intentions we need to understand the structure of their informal relations. Recent scandals have revealed
the importance of monitoring closely their transactions, property, money and debts to international organizations. Thank you very
much for the article.
Wayne Merry, director of the Program on European Societies in Transition, the Atlantic Council of the United States:
Janine Wedel makes a major contribution to the "Who lost Russia?" debate by pulling back some of the protective covering on
how the U.S. government sought to impose its economic ideology on post-Soviet Russia. During my years in the political section
of the U.S. embassy in Moscow (1991–94), I also saw close up the basic flaws of our Russia policy. First came ignorance, as purveyors
of "the Washington consensus" unleashed their dogma on a country they did not understand and, worse, did not wish to understand.
Then came arrogance on many levels: the belief that "the Washington consensus" embodied ultimate economic truth (its manifest
failures notwithstanding); responding to any doubts about the dogma with accusations of heresy and disloyalty; the view of
Russia as an economic wasteland (how it had managed to build all those missiles conveniently ignored) and as a laboratory to refine
economic theory (heedless of the banners carried on the streets of Moscow by some of the laboratory animals demanding "No More
Experiments").
Next came authoritarianism, as Washington encouraged a willing group of Russian "reformers" to implement our policies by presidential
decree rather than face the compromises of the legislative process, and to create extra-constitutional and clandestine structures
of administration to avoid parliamentary oversight or media exposure.
Lastly came hypocrisy, as Washington officials claimed to be "shocked, shocked" when the government-sanctioned corruption
and theft of public property in Russia could no longer be hidden. They then piously demanded that Russian governance be all the
things the Treasury and IMF had insured it would not be: honest, accountable, transparent, law-based, public-spirited.
Thanks are due to Dr. Wedel for her efforts to document this failed policy process but, sadly, she has so far seen only the
tip of the iceberg-what remains "classified" is much worse.
Michael Hudson, president of the Institute for the Study of Long-term Economic Trends:
I would like to give a perspective on Dr. Wedel's theory of transactors as an economist who has worked most of my life for
U.S. international banks and money managers, addressed the Duma on numerous occasions, and consulted for U.S. government agencies
on U.S.-Russia relations.
I have observed transactorship, and the insider dealings it entails, first-hand. "Average" U.S. investors were not in a good
position to profit from the corruption that underlay Russia's stock market boom. One of the leading fund managers (for whom I
worked in 1989–90 to help organize the first global sovereign-debt fund) refrained from the outset from riding this roller coaster.
The firm's managers didn't trust the visibly corrupt investment climate and, not being insiders, they saw that "arms-length" speculation
probably would end in disaster.
Institutional investors from firms that did enter the market explained to me that the safest money to be made was by those
who had inside contacts. Money managers who didn't want to invest directly in the risky Russian stock market consigned funds to
companies such as Brunswick, which put on promotional shows around the country, in which Anders Åslund and others tried to convince
institutional investors that they had an inside track. It was no secret that Russia's market had no legal overseer like our sec,
but that was the very point of investing in Russia!
Based on discussions I had with U.S. global investors during the 1990s, I think I am in a good position to point out why
many of them preferred to see major Russian companies pass into just a few corrupt hands. If a few Russian insiders could
buy out Russian oil fields and other firms at only 1 or 2 cents on the dollar, they probably would be willing to sell their takings
to U.S. and other international investors for 2 to 4 cents. This would enable them to double their money, while providing
foreigners with what they wanted: inexpensive ownership of Russia's potentially lucrative mineral wealth and public utilities,
as well as its real estate (or, more specifically, its land).
Thus, one reason the U.S. government welcomed the Chubais-HIID mode of "reform" was because of pressure from large investors.
If Wall Street investment bankers wanted to take an investment position in Russia, they could do so most easily-and at a much
lower price-if only a few "oligarchs" gained ownership of Russia's prize assets. However, if the Russian government or other parties
retained control over these assets, they would not be sold as rapidly, and probably would be sold at a higher price.
And so a symbiosis developed between the largest U.S. investors and Russian oligarchs. The largest U.S. investors realized
that the kleptocrats for their part wanted to transfer their fortunes abroad. This is what all thieves want to do, for a simple
reason: if they keep their money at home, it can be seized by true market reformers. Hence, Russian appropriators sought to move
their money to Cyprus, Switzerland and other offshore banking centers, topped by the United States.
To do this, they needed security from Western prosecution. The traditional way to achieve this is to go into partnership with
well-placed Westerners. Partnership agreements accordingly were sealed by selling part of their stock ownership to Western
investors. Such sales in fact were the only way in which the privatizers were able to realize financial value for their control,
for there was no purchasing power within Russia itself to buy their shares. To raise money off the shares they had obtained, Russians
needed to sell abroad.
This was well recognized by international investors. It explains why they turned a blind eye to the abuses by Chubais and
other insiders, for they knew that they themselves would be the beneficiaries.
Was the subsequent economic devastation directly intended, as a means of "hurting Russia" and thereby disabling it from posing
a future threat to the United States and other countries? I believe not. Rather, it was the consequence of the game plan by Western
investors (mainly in the United States) to get rich quickly off Russia. The shrinkage of the Russian economy in consequence was
a form of "collateral damage", not the intention of the programs themselves. It is the same sort of damage caused by IMF austerity
programs imposed on hapless Third World debtors.
My conclusion is that the U.S. government is guilty of gross negligence as to the consequences of the reformers' privatization
plans it backed. It didn't mean to kill Russia. It just wanted to take its money and property. Russia's economy got killed in
the process. I suppose you might call this second or third-degree murder, not first-degree murder. But that is all that Wedel's
article claimed, in my reading.
What is ironic is that the "free-market" strategy that has been followed excludes from the market precisely the arms-length
investors that U.S. policy has claimed to attempt to attract as the mainspring in allocating Western capital funds.
David Ellerman, economic adviser to the chief economist, the World Bank:
. . . My only "problem" with Professor Wedel's article is that it attempts to tell the story in such detail that it will allow
those who intellectually sponsored what is, in my personal opinion, one of the biggest debacles of the last half of the twentieth
century to continue to avoid analyzing the forest by bickering over the details of the bark on the trees.
Steven Rosefielde, professor of economics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill:
Janine Wedel's "Tainted Transactions" makes an important contribution to the "Who lost Russia?" saga by investigating the nexus
between "radical" economic transition theory and Western foreign assistance. . . . A few facts and comments might prove illuminating.
First and foremost, it needs to be stated bluntly that there is no scientific theory of how to transform a command economy
efficiently into a well-functioning competitive market system. Theorists cannot even demonstrate the necessity of general equilibrium
with a production sector under perfect competition, so there certainly isn't a shred of justification for suggesting that
Yegor Gaidar's and Anatoly Chubais' radical reforms should have produced good results. The policies they adopted, often called
"shock therapy", were analogous to removing the control rods from a nuclear reactor, and insisting that the ensuing chain
reaction would create a better power system.
The Soviet/Russian basis for this strategy dates to the late eighties when Stanislav Shatalin, Gregory Yavlinsky and others
developed their infamous 500 Days program, which promised perekhod-transition to competitive free enterprise by the end of 1993.
They weren't sincere. Shatalin disclosed his real agenda at Duke University in 1991 when he declared that, "It didn't matter if
the transition took 500 days, or 500 hundred years, as long as it destroyed Communism!" The debate between the "shockers" and
the "gradualists" was never really about economic "optimality"; it was a rhetorical struggle between a generation of young
Turks egged on by Gorbachev, who saw radicalism as a highway to political power, and the old reformist economic guard like academicians
Oleg Bogomolov and Yuri Yaremenko, who-like Western Nobel laureates Kenneth Arrow, Paul Samuelson and James Buchanan-understood
the necessity of building legal and market structures before leaping into the abyss.
The failed putsch in August 1991, and Gorbachev's refusal to allow the military to arrest and execute Yeltsin later that fall
when Russia, Belarus and Ukraine seceded from the Soviet Union, enabled the radicals to triumph, as their predecessors had during
War Communism and the Stalin era. Their Luddite politics not only instantaneously brought about an economic implosion that has
caused 5.4 million premature adult deaths through 1997, but opened the Pandora's box of vicious criminality, just as anyone conversant
with the history of Gulag and Soviet mafias would have predicted.
The Western transactors Wedel discusses in her article-the IMF, World Bank, U.S. Treasury, USAID, European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development, OECD, EU and the Western private sector-could not have prevented this debacle, even if they hadn't misbehaved
in the ways Joseph Stiglitz describes in the April 17 & 24, 2000 issue of the New Republic. Only Chubais, Maxim Boycko and
Alfred Kokh-successive chairmen of the Russian State Property Committee and members of the "transactors circle"-could
have mitigated the plunder and disorder, had they not been so thoroughly corrupt.
From this perspective, it makes little difference whether some Western economic theories were partially or wholly congruent
with those of Russia's homegrown radicals. Had Jeffrey Sachs, widely considered an arch advocate of "shock therapy", been a closet
conservative, as Joseph Stiglitz now suggests, Yeltsin's vendetta against the Communist Party still would have driven him to recklessly
destroy the remnants of central planning and the ministerial system without first preparing the way for a smooth market transition.
The damage caused by Western proponents of "shock therapy" and others who misunderstood the conditions required for empowering
Adam Smith's invisible hand was less than that caused by Yeltsin's rash decrees. It is the sum of the tens of billions of dollars
that "transitionists" of all stripes coaxed Western leaders into diverting from America's, Europe's and Japan's deserving poor
to Kremlin thieves, plus the negative global welfare costs of consolidating Yeltsin's system of anti-productive elite privilege.
The new economic model that has emerged is similar to the regime contrived by Hjalmar Schacht for Hitler: a marketized variant
of a command economy that allows leaders to utilize a broad array of regulatory instruments, including direct arms procurement
contracting, to enrich a narrow clique and rearm, in whatever mix Putin desires. It is precisely in this sense that Russia has
been lost, and that those found guilty by the verdict of history of abetting the process through economic myth-making, politicking
and moral turpitude should feel profoundly ashamed.
Wedel replies:
Jeffrey Sachs' and Anders Åslund's letters contain a series of unsupported counter-assertions. Both deal in significant part
with issues that are not addressed in, or material to, my National Interest article. The article presents the theory of transactorship,
a mode of organizing relations among nations. Both Sachs and Åslund are stunningly silent on this central issue: neither attempt
to refute either the theory or the critical body of facts supporting it. The principal point of the article is that a group of
self-interested actors and advocates from both the United States and Russia, supported by Western aid and promoted by high U.S.
officials to whom they were closely linked, managed to co-opt U.S.-Russian economic relations and helped to bring about the fiasco
that followed. It is not at all "contradictory" to conclude that Western economic advisers in Russia were both "influential" and
"ineffective." The Harvard-Chubais transactors, including Sachs and Åslund, were most influential precisely in recommending and
implementing policies that turned out to be highly counterproductive. The outcomes of their activities ran directly counter to
the stated aims of the U.S. aid program in Russia.
Sachs seems not to understand that the issue is the multiple and conflicting roles that the transactors assumed (with ambiguous
loyalties, ambitions and income sources), not the specific official title they held at any given time. Sachs restates that he
advised Yegor Gaidar, which I do not dispute, and does not deny his other roles: his transfer of loyalty from Gaidar to Gaidar's
nemesis, Ruslan Khasbulatov, who was seen in the West as a retrograde communist; and his offer of access to Western aid to Khasbulatov,
while urging, in his role as an American economist, that vast amounts of such aid be sent to Russia. Sachs seems to deny that
he was in correspondence with the imf while at the same time advising Gaidar. However, one memorandum that I have in my possession
was written by Sachs and David Lipton (who became a Treasury undersecretary), dated May 11, 1992, and directed to key Russian
decisionmakers at the IMF. It shows that Sachs and Lipton were privy to internal discussion within the Fund and were proffering
advice within that context without any mention of their role advising the Russian side.
Åslund and Sachs portray me as a conspiracy theorist "going after leading advocates of radical market reform." On the contrary,
I have been trying, as an anthropologist, to understand the roles being played by key actors involved in the aid process and in
guiding economic transition. If those studies have resulted in uncovering unseemly activities, that is a consequence of what the
actors have done, not of any analytical bias. I have no personal antagonism toward any of the key figures involved, nor did I
approach the analysis with any ideological agenda.
As a researcher, I have pieced together the story based on hundreds of documents, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reports
and interviews. I have been studying Eastern Europe as the centerpiece of my professional work for more than twenty years. As
an anthropologist, I am especially aware that people I interview don't always tell the truth-and not only Eastern Europeans. I
always cross check critical information and confirm key points with multiple sources.
Åslund and Sachs make a number of specific allegations. The facts are as follows:
Regardless of the percentage of U.S. assistance to Russia flowing directly to the Harvard Institute for International Development,
the U.S. government delegated virtually its entire Russian economic aid portfolio-more than $350 million-for management by
HIID. Part of this was used to design, implement and promote the disastrous voucher privatization program. In a 1996 report,
the GAO found that HIID had "substantial control of the U.S. assistance program." The advisers were also influential under
other guises. Project documents submitted by Jeffrey D. Sachs and Associates, Inc. to the Finnish government state: "The [Sachs]
team has had an extensive interaction with the [Russian] State Committee on Privatization and has helped in the design of the
mass privatization program legislation recently enacted by Parliament."
Åslund, as I state in the article, has been involved in business activities in countries while consulting with their governments.
He says he was an adviser to the Russian government beginning in the early 1990s. He continued to advocate on behalf of that
government throughout the decade, during which he was also linked to Brunswick. Brunswick began as a Moscow-based brokerage
firm and evolved into an investment bank, the Brunswick Group. While Åslund claims that he only gives "lectures and briefings",
he attended an April 1997 banking conference in New York sponsored by Brunswick Securities Ltd. as a representative of Brunswick.
He promoted the Russian stock market to institutional investors and money managers, according to Michael Hudson, who also participated
in the conference. Hudson adds that the minimum acceptable investment was between $400,000 and $500,000. As to the significance
of Åslund's business ventures in Russia, it was the head of the Interior Ministry's Department of Organized Crime that characterized
Åslund's investments in Russia as "significant."
Åslund appears not to understand that the problem of conflict of interest is no less real where an expert works in serial
for conflicting interests rather than at the same time. The American investment bankers he refers to could well end up in jail
if they were to use their Treasury Department contacts in violation of conflict-of-interest and revolving door laws and rules
that limit the free use of connections. Thus, Åslund sees no problem that the two close associates whom he introduced to privatization
minister Chubais, and who helped to design and implement voucher privatization, then started Brunswick Brokerage to help sell
vouchers and other assets to Western investors. But there is a problem.
Nowhere in my article do I say that Sachs has investment activities in Russia.
Sachs makes much of the distance between his project and that of his Harvard colleague, Andrei Shleifer, who continues
to be under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. However, Sachs, Lipton and Shleifer are listed as the "three senior
members" of the Russia advisory project conducted by Jeffrey D. Sachs and Associates, Inc. As I state in the article: "In time,
Sachs and Shleifer emerged as rivals and ran largely separate operations in Moscow." However, "they shared the transactorship
mode of operating and many contacts in the Chubais Clan", as well as many Western contacts.
I have never written that Åslund worked for HIID directly. In my book, Collision and Collusion, I did point out that Åslund
collaborated with Sachs on HIID's unsolicited proposal to advise Ukraine, the details of which are specified in the 1996 GAO
report mentioned earlier. I have never said that he has made a huge amount of money on USAID. However, the grants that Sachs
and Åslund received from several sources were substantial. Åslund's advisory project was awarded $642,857 in 1991–92 from the
Swedish government. Sachs received $322,728 in salary and fees (not including expenses) for a wider Institute-sponsored project
billed to Jeffrey D. Sachs and Associates, Inc. The project, the total cost of which was $2,036,122, was funded by the Finnish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Sasakawa Foundation.
Not only do I not claim that Åslund was officially on the payroll of the U.S., Swedish and Russian governments simultaneously,
but I wrote that he was a "private" citizen who nevertheless "participated in high-level meetings at the U.S. Treasury and
State Departments about U.S. and IMF policies." In addition, he "played a leading role in Swedish policy and aid toward Russia"
and "was understood by some Russian officials in Washington to be Chubais' personal envoy." (For example, Åslund was highly
influential with Sweden's Prime Minister Carl Bildt, who promoted him in Washington and included him in a high-level official
delegation to the White House.) I report that Åslund seemed to speak on behalf of these governments.
Åslund suggests that there is nothing wrong with serving as an adviser to a country while presenting himself as a disinterested
observer. He denies that his role in Ukraine included public relations. Åslund's team member, Marek Dabrowski, is not my only
source on the matter. In my interview with Dabrowski of November 27, 1997, he stated that Åslund's "kind of advertising" and
"campaigning" creates a "conflict of interest." Contrary to what Dabrowski now alleges, my conversations with him were friendly
and, indeed, on the record. I have cited Dabrowski as a source before in print on this subject, and he has never previously
disputed its accuracy. I do not know why he has responded now with such a personal attack, but it is a fact that Dabrowski's
center has received substantial funding from USAID (and much USAID economic assistance passed through HIID). Both Sachs and
Åslund are also listed as members of the advisory council of Dabrowski's center.
Åslund claims that in writing articles he "always mentioned" his work for the Russian or Ukrainian government. That is
simply not the case. For example, in his article "Russia's Success Story" in Foreign Affairs (September/October 1994), Åslund
presents himself as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment and makes no mention of any relationship with the Russian
government.
Åslund characterizes my work as "repeatedly citing the old-style Soviet communist Leonid Abalkin." But I did not cite Abalkin
at all in my article and he is cited but twice in my book, Collision and Collusion, among some 1,750 interviews.
Finally, Åslund raises a series of irrelevant and diversionary points. He denies being somewhere-Arkhangelskoe-where I
never said he had gone. If he is implying that he was not involved when the Gaidar team prepared its program, then that is
contradicted by his own writing (see, for example, his book How Russia Became a Market Economy, p. 2). In a similar vein, the
order in which Kokh and Boycko chaired the Russian Privatization Center is wholly irrelevant to the issue of their corruption.
It was the deputy head of the Gaidar Institute, Dr. Alexei V. Ulyukaev, who said, in a taped interview with Anne Williamson,
that "Sachs was never an official adviser to the government, that's his own illusion" [my emphasis]. Sachs and David Lipton
had a close working relationship, as evidenced in numerous joint publications and in Lipton's position as vice president of
Sachs' consulting firm. However, it was a Russian representative at the IMF who said that "Jeff and David always came [to Russia]
together", a point that others have made as well.
As to Sachs/Åslund's more general comments, former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz is among a growing number of
economists who believe that the policies that Sachs and Åslund advocated were misconceived and harmful to Russia and to most of
the other post-communist countries. Russia didn't "stumble", as Åslund characterizes it; it was inundated with counterproductive
advice from people like himself.
With regard to Poland, although its economy has grown, this success was achieved not by following a radical transition program,
but, as Harvard Professor Marshall Goldman has shown, by rejecting key parts of it. Further, high-level corruption has become
so institutionalized that the World Bank has urged Poland to begin fighting it. I have not accused Sachs, as Åslund writes, of
"having destroyed the Polish economy." On the contrary, I have pointed out that Sachs' role in the Polish transition was largely
promotional, a point confirmed by the Polish government in the Financial Times (June 15–16, 1991).
Finally, Åslund manages to cite the only negative review (that I know of) to try to discredit my work. In fact, Collision and
Collusion has been widely reviewed in places such as the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and Foreign Affairs, and the
reviews have been overwhelmingly positive. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote of the book: "Very critical
and troubling analysis of the shortcomings of Western aid policy, particularly to Russia. The implications of Wedel's critical
assessment need to be seriously taken into account." The other letters printed above share that view, and I thank their authors
for their support.
Jonathan Hay ran the day-to-day operations of the Russia Project. He was found guilty of violating three counts of the False Claims
Act and was debarred from serving in USAID. But he's managed to resurface in Ukraine, working in the local operations of a Polish think
tank. Nicely played.
Yves here. You cannot make this stuff up. One of the sorriest chapters in recent American history was how we allowed an unprecedented
opportunity to assist Russia in managing the end of its Communist era to turn into a looting exercise by well-placed insiders, including
advisors under contract to Harvard.
Jonathan Hay ran the day-to-day operations of the Russia Project. He was
found guilty of violating three counts of
the False Claims Act and was debarred from serving in USAID. But he's managed to resurface in Ukraine, working in the local operations
of a Polish think tank. Nicely played.
By John Helmer, the longest continuously serving foreign
correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties.
Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia.
He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published
at Dances with Bears
There are about 450 think-tanks in Europe and the US currently focusing on international relations, war, peace, and economic security.
Of these, about one hundred regularly analyse Russian affairs. And of these, less than ten aren't committed antagonists of Russia.
That's barely two percent of the intellectual materiel which can be counted as non-partisan or neutral in the infowar now underway
between the NATO alliance and Russia. In this balance of forces, think-tanks behave like tanks – that's the weapon, not the cistern.
The Centre for Social and Economic Research (CASE) has been based in Warsaw since 1991. It
claims on its website to be "an independent non-profit economic
and public policy research institution founded on the idea that evidence-based policy making is vital to the economic welfare of
societies." In its 2013 annual
report, declares: "we seek to maintain a strict sense of non-partisanship in all of our research, advisory and educational activities."
Three-quarters of CASE's annual
revenues come from the European Commission; another 9% from American and other international organizations. According to CASE,
that's "an indication of progressive diversification of CASE revenue sources."
CASE Ukraine is a branch of this Polish think-tank, and at the same time a descendant, it claims, of a Harvard University-funded
group which was active between 1996 and 1999. Registered since 1999 as CASE Ukraine, this calls itself "an independent Ukrainian
NGO specializing in economic research, macroeconomic policy analysis and forecasting." According to parent CASE in Warsaw, one of
the group's goals is "promoting cooperation and integration with the neighboring partners of Europe". This means, not only CASE Ukraine,
but CASE Kyrgyzstan, CASE Moldova, CASE Georgia, and in Russia, the Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy.
Independent is what CASE swears; independent isn't what CASE represents. Investigate the names, the associations, the sources
of money, the secret service engagements, and what you have is a family, a front, a cover, a closed shop, a mafia. Founders of CASE
Ukraine like the American Jonathan Hay and operators of CASE Poland like the Balcerowiz family reveal a well-known anti-Russian alliance.
So what are a director of the Gazprom board, Vladimir Mau; a professor of the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, Marek Dabrowski;
and Simeon Djankov, Rector of the New Economic School in Moscow, and a protégé of First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov, doing
on the CASE side?
The latest US survey of the think-tanks in the world counted 6,826 in all as of
August 2013. One-quarter
(1,828) of those is located in the US; 426 in China; 287 in the UK; 194 in Germany; and 122 in Russia. In a perverse ranking, the
only Russian think-tank, so called, to make it to the top 20 of the non-American batch, according to a panel of experts employed
by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) of the University of Pennsylvania, isn't Russian at all. It's the US-funded
and directed Carnegie Moscow Centre (ranking 18th).
At the 46th rank is the first genuine Russian think-tank – the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO)
in Moscow. When US think-tanks are counted, along with the non-American ones, Carnegie Moscow slips to 28th; IMEMO rises to 32nd.
CASE ranks at the modest 58th peg of the non-American batch; 68th when the Americans are included. It does much better when ranked
geographically against think-tanks in Europe. There, according to TTCSP, it's in first place, out-classing Carnegie Moscow, which
is at no. 2, and IMEMO at no. 4. Comparing think-tanks with an economic policy specialization, but counting worldwide, CASE slips
again – to 16th.
CASE Ukraine starts with the name of Jonathan Hay, whom CASE
lists as a member of its founding Supervisory Board. According to a 100-page judgement issued in 2006 by US District Court Judge
Douglas Woodlock in Boston, Hay is a convicted fraudster, inside-trader, self-dealer, and corrupt manipulator of US Government funds
for the benefit of himself, his lover, and his friends. The judgement ordered Hay to pay a multimillion dollar penalty and restitution.
His Harvard University co-conspirators, Andrei Shleifer and his wife, Nancy Zimmerman, were also convicted and fined. Harvard University,
Hay's and Shleifer's contractor, was ordered to pay $26.5 million; Hay up to $2 million. Here is the US Government's release, after
Hay's
conviction. This also claims that Hay was "debarred" from taking pay from the US Agency for International Development (USAID)
in future. The full story of Hay's profiteering from the Russian asset sale schemes of Yegor Gaidar (below right), the short-lived
proponent of shock therapy in Boris Yeltsin's first term, and his privatization director, Anatoly Chubais (left), can be read
here and
here.
Before his plea bargain in the Boston court, Hay reacted by threatening Moscow reporters investigating his activities. Unbeknownst
to those who researched Hay's misconduct in Russia at the time is that Hay moved on to a similar line of business in Ukrainian privatization.
CASE was one of the instruments – and USAID was paying again. At present, CASE doesn't list Hay on its
current Supervisory Board. Dmitro Boyarchuk,
the executive director of CASE in Kiev, explained today that there are two empty seats on the board, and that Hay has gone. Added
Boyarchuk, this was two years ago. For seven years following his conviction in the US, Hay helped run CASE Ukraine.
CASE annual reports also reveal
that in 2005 Hay was working at CASE Ukraine on sponsorship of the UN Development Programme (UNDP) for teaching the "high-level"
and "key" Ukrainian policymakers "problems of Ukraine's economic and institutional reforms after the Orange Revolution and in the
context of Ukraine's strategic plans for Euro-Atlantic integration." Helping hands with Hay that year were Gaidar and Anders Aslund,
the current
chairman of CASE's Advisory Council.
On April 25, 2013, President Putin publicly identified Hay as a CIA agent. Referring to Hay's work on Russian asset privatization
for Chubais, and the subsequent US prosecution, Putin said: "we learned
today that officers of the United States' CIA operated as consultants to Anatoly Chubais. But it is even funnier that upon returning
to the US, they were prosecuted for violating their country's laws and illegally enriching themselves in the course of privatisation
in the Russian Federation. They did not have the right to do this as active CIA officers. In accordance with US law, they were not
allowed to engage in any kind of commercial activity, but they couldn't resist – it's corruption, you see." Note Putin's reference
to when he was briefed – April 25, 2013. According to Boyarchuk of CASE Ukraine, Hay was then supervising that organization.
Funding for CASE Ukraine appears to come from governments and government banks. They include Hay's alma mater, USAID, plus the
Canadian and UK aid agencies; the European Commission and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; the World Bank; several
Ukrainian government organs; and Freedom House, a ferociously anti-Russian think-tank based in Washington, D.C.
Marek
Dabrowski is listed as the current head of the CASE Ukraine board, and one of the founders of both CASE Poland and CASE Ukraine.
A Polish national, he is currently employed by CASE in Kiev; he is also a professor at the
Higher School of Economics in Moscow. He currently lists
himself as a member of the scientific council of the Gaidar Institute. The Gaidar think-tank in Moscow rates only one mention in
the TTCSP report, trailing far behind CASE in the economic policy line-up. The CASE annual reports identify Dabrowski as one of Hay's
co-workers advising President Victor Yushchenko's administration.
The Gaidar think-tank website no longer lists Dabrowski on its
scientific council. A spokesman for the think-tank claims
there is no association between the two think-tanks; CASE annual reports say otherwise. The current
CASE website describes Gaidar as a "partner", but
identifies the think-tank by a different name, "Institute for the Economy in Transition".
Dabrowski was asked if he regards CASE Ukraine as hostile to Russian policy and in favour of regime change in Russia. He was also
asked if he views his role at CASE Ukraine as compatible with his presence in Moscow teaching economics and advocating policy change?
He replied: "The short answer to your first question is NO, and to your second question – YES (i.e. there is no conflict), with the
remark that I am not involved in policy advocacy or policy advising in Russia (since 1994). Nor I am longer personally involved in
policy advising in Ukraine (since 2006). In CASE Ukraine I chair the Supervisory Board on behalf of the founder (CASE) and, according
to the by-law of CASE Ukraine, I provide (together with other members of this body) the Executive Director with the overall guidance
in respect to research projects, their academic quality, fundraising, finances, etc. The entire CASE network, including CASE Ukraine,
deals with economic research agenda and is not involved in politics of any country… Furthermore, CASE and CASE Ukraine do not present
institutional opinions on any topic; what they publish represents personal views of individual authors. In this context your words
about supposed hostility of CASE Ukraine to Russia sound just inappropriate."
Polish sources describe CASE Poland as having been initially financed with US and European Commission money with the intention
of "guiding the Ministry of Finance in Warsaw." The Polish finance minister at the time was Leszek Balcerowicz; Dabrowski was one
of Balcerowicz's deputy ministers. Since 2011 Balcerowicz has been an honorary
professor at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, Dabrowski's
current employer.
Balcerowicz's wife Ewa (below right) remains on the board of CASE Poland, while Leszek advises President Petro Poroshenko. There
(below left) the two of them were, face to face in Kiev last week, according to the presidential press release, "to join the reform
process in Ukraine."
Sitting on Balcerowicz's left taking notes, Polish sources identify Pawel Kowal, a member of the European Parliament for Poland,
and an advocate for anti-Russian causes. Polish media reports and sources in Warsaw claim Kowal speaks for the Polish intelligence
services. What he isn't, the sources add, is an economist or an expert on public finance.
One of the ideas which CASE Ukraine and its partner, Vox Ukraine, have been lobbying in Kiev is direct-line financing from the
US and European governments for the civil war in the east. "[The Ukrainian] Ministry of Finance should consider,"
says Vox Ukraine, "taking the
increased defence-related spending out of the annual budgets and running it as a separate multiyear capacity-building program that
would allow for direct financing from individuals, companies, and foreign governments to enable military technical assistance and
technology transfer."
Vox Ukraine
was financed by Kakha Bendukidze, the Russian business figure who entered Georgian politics in 2004. After the start of the civil
war in Ukraine, he joined Poroshenko's economic advisors, but died unexpectedly in November last year.
The counterpart US think-tank scheme for running $2 billion in fresh US arms to Ukraine was released this week by three US think-tanks
– Brookings, Atlantic Council, and the
Chicago Council
on Global Affairs. The authors of this new plan for direct Pentagon funding of the civil war include two ex-US ambassadors to Ukraine;
two former US officers from the NATO command staff; and Michele Flournoy, a current advisor to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
(below, with Clinton and former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright.) Together, they report that one of their Ukrainian advisors
is "Major General Oleksandr Sirskiy, Commander, "Anti-Terror Operation," Armed Forces of Ukraine."
CASE and Vox call each other partners. Another of their common
ideas is the replacement of local Ukrainian
officials with Anglo-Ukrainians, Ukrainian-Americans and others: "The government should bring in the government, agencies, military,
etc., as many Western-leaning, Western-lived, Western-trained professionals as humanely possible, and fire, without hesitation, most
or all of the old guard." This is not only an endorsement of American appointees like the new finance minister,
Natalie Jaresko, and foreign investment advisor
Jaanika Merilo. It is also an advertisement for the Ukrainian academics
who have signed up to the advisory councils, contributor lists, and supervisory boards of think-tanks like CASE. Here they are –
Kiev minister hopefuls and candidate apparatchiki, on the Vox website.
The Poles aim not to be left out of the spoils. Balcerowicz operates his own think-tank, which he calls Forum Obywatelskiego Rozwoju
(FOR, Forum for Civic Development). It gathers
money from foundations, corporations and banks; it's still too small to qualify for a place on the international think-tank rankings.
Other names to appear on the CASE employment roll or on CASE Ukraine boards include Wojciech Paczynski and Luca Barbone. Paczynski
was for four years chief economist at the Polish Centre for Eastern Studies (Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich, OSW); this, a Warsaw informant
charges, "is widely considered as an arm of Polish intelligence studying Russia, as well as Ukraine." The global think-tank report
rates OSW the 15th "best government affiliated think-tank" – without explaining which part of the Polish government it's tied to.
After serving at OSW, there is a missing year in Pacyzynski's curriculum vitae before he appears for work in Germany, then at the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Luca Barbone is another of CASE Ukraine's current board. An Italian native, he was educated in the US and then worked for the
World Bank between 2000 and 2011. For four of those years he was the regional director for Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, based in
Kiev. Since his exit from the World Bank, he was employed by CASE Poland. His second wife, a Pole, was an economist working on her
homeland at the World Bank. They now call Washington home. If Vox Ukraine manages a summons to Kiev, with a line of US budget money
to employ him at the level to which he is accustomed, Barbone is ready to travel.
Through CASE and FOR, Balerowicz has been supporting the work of Simeon Djankov, who received the Russian Government appointment
of Rector of the New Economic School in October 2013. A Bulgarian as well as US citizen, Djankov won 3rd place in Bulgaria's annual
"Most Successful Politician" in 2009; 4th place in 2010. He was also deputy prime minister and finance minister of that country until
2013.
Here is Djankov, with Mrs Balcerowicz, at one of six seminars CASE ran in Warsaw in 2013. Djankov was the speaker; his topic,
according to CASE's
annual report, "Austerity revisted."
A Russian press interview of Djankov, published last October, reports
him as acknowledging personal endorsements from two Russian officials, First Deputy Prime Minister Shuvalov, and Prime Minister Dmitry
Medvedev. Sidestepping questions about the conflict in Ukraine and the accession of Crimea, Djankov acknowledged the reluctance of
his wife to move from Washington to Moscow. "That created, of course, a lot of problems. It was more difficult for [me] to decide
as an American - my wife, my children were born in America, they have American passports. We first thought that they too will live
here, but in the end [we] decided that for another, maybe this year they will stay in America, and I'll be here."
Djankov didn't mention to his Moscow interviewer that his Russian job is part-time; and that he is keeping two of his paid US
jobs – one at Harvard University, and one at the Peterson International Institute of Economics in Washington. Peterson
calls Djankov one of its "senior research staff".
Last November, Djankov released one of his new books, a work entitled "The Great Rebirth: Lessons from the Victory of Capitalism
over Communism". Published and paid for by Peterson, and co-edited by another member of the same think-tank, Anders Aslund, Djankov
wrote the summary chapters, as well as an essay on Bulgaria. Aslund wrote on Russia, while Balcerowicz authored the Poland chapter.
On Georgia, the writers were Bendukidze and ex-president Mikheil Saakashvili.
Peterson is one of two Washington think-tanks financed each year by Ukrainian oligarch, Victor Pinchuk (right), whose anti-Russian
operations can be followed here. In exchange for an annual
cash deposit, Pinchuk occupies a seat on the think-tank's board
of directors.
The Pinchuk stipend also pays for Aslund, a public advocate of regime change in Russia. In addition to Djankov (below, left),
Peterson also employs Djankov's wife, Caroline
Freund (below right).
In Moscow Djankov was asked three questions: Does he consider that CASE is independent on policy issues involving Russia, especially
the Ukraine conflict? Has he ever, or has he recently advised CASE Poland and CASE Ukraine not to pursue an anti-Russian, regime-change
policy? Does he think his Russian roles conflict with his association with such a think-tank as CASE?
Djankov replied by email: "I have not had any exposure to CASE and cannot comment on their attitudes. In general, this think-tank
is highly reputed in Eastern Europe."
In the latest CASE annual report, the only Russian listed as serving on the think-tank's advisory council, under Aslund as chairman,
is Vladimir Mau (right). The appointment can be confirmed at page
28 of the
report. Mau isn't exactly identified as Russian. His title, according to CASE, is "Rector of the Academy of Public Economy".
Without a location.
In fact, since 2002 Mau has been the state-appointed
Rector of the Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; a member of the Economic Council Presidium appointed
by Putin in October 2013; and in 2012 recipient of the Order for Services
to the Fatherland IV degree. In 2011 he became a member of the
Gazprom board of directors.
Mau was asked to clarify his relationship with CASE and to say if he believes there is a conflict of policy or interest in his
association. Through a spokesman, Mau responded: "Vladimir Alexandrovich is not sure, but he strongly doubts that he is a member
of this organization. Is it possible to send us any confirmation links of this fact." Following the confirmation of the CASE appointment,
there has been no reply.
Joe Jordan, February 4, 2015 at 2:33 pm
I don't know of any definitive treatment of this specific era, but I would recommend taking a look at F. S. Saunders' "Who
Paid the Piper" which is about how the CIA funded numerous literary magazines, artists, and writers in a bid to subtly slant the
ideology of the left away from communism during the height of the cold war.
While it does not bear directly on this situation, it is indicative of the lengths to which the government has gone in
previous efforts to subvert and co-opt the intelligentsia.
Enquiring Mind, February 4, 2015 at 6:57 pm
For a historical overview about some background on related US deep state actions and policies, see J.T. Gatto's "An Underground
History of American Education". There is extended discussion of how and why the US arrived at the current structure.
Yves Smith, February 4, 2015 at 5:51 pm
Stephen Cohen's "Failed Crusade," Janine Wedel's "Collision and Collusion," and "eXile," by Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi.
MartyH, February 4, 2015 at 10:29 am
You would think that "plausible deniability" would involve not leaving your fingerprints and business cards all over things.
I guess "Manifest Destiny on Steroids" absolves them all … or at least they hope so.
Somehow, I suspect Putin's Russia (and friends) will be less easily wiped out than the American Indigenous Tribes.
ZAKARIA: Oil and food prices are sky-high, world markets are down, and the American economy seems to be slinking into a long slump.
Just how scared should we be?
Well, I've gathered three of the top economists in the world to talk about all of this.
Lawrence Summers served as the United States' secretary of Treasury, then as president of Harvard University. Paul Krugman is
the must-read op-ed columnist for the "New York Times." And Columbia University professor, Jeffrey Sachs, has spent years giving
emergency assistance to economies around the world in the form of advice.
The first question to you, how scared should we be? In other words, are we in the phase of a crisis where the pain has been felt,
and there's going to be a long, slow working out of this pain? Or are there more unpleasant surprises to come?
You know, what innings are we in?
JEFFREY SACHS, DIRECTOR, THE EARTH INSTITUTE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, ECONOMIC ADVISER TO GOVERNMENTS: I don't know if Paul and Larry
agree exactly, but one thing that could be added to this is the question of whether there's a way to counteract the downturn itself,
not whether one should pump up the economy, and so forth. But is a recession at this point unavoidable? This is going from, you know,
gloom to gloomier.
But I would say yes, and that the attempt early on in the next presidency to have a big stimulus and keep pushing, and do everything
we can to avoid the downturn, would actually prove to be fruitless at this point, because there are so many imbalances that have
been built into the U.S. economy in the last decade, and especially in the last few years, and now added to the -- now added on by
the global markets -- that consumers really are going to have to adjust.
They've not been saving for years. The housing market is not going to be the way the economy is going to recover. There's going
to have to be a lot of structural change in the U.S. economy. There's going to have to be export-led growth to an important extent,
because we've been borrowing on an amount that we will not continue in the future...
ZAKARIA: So, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), a recession will actually have an effect of cleansing the system. It will take out some of these
unsustainable imbalances.
SACHS: No, what I'm saying is that, the idea that there really are enough gears right now to just keep that headline measure of
the total size of the economy growing at some positive, close-to-normal rate, is just not the case. We don't have tools like that,
that can do that.
And there are so many problems that need adjustment right now, and such a legacy of imbalance, that I think that heroics to stop
a downturn wouldn't work.
LAWRENCE SUMMERS, FORMER U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY, FORMER PRESIDENT OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Jeff, we've been friends for 35 years,
and I've never heard you say such a fatalistic thing.
I don't disagree with you about the difficulty, the challenge. And I think, no matter how brilliantly policy is carried on, the
next three or four years are not likely to be three or four particularly favorable years in American economic history.
But I think it's a serious mistake to suggest that we should somehow accept our recession like a man, and that if we just do that,
we'll cleanse the imbalances...
SACHS: No, but, I didn't use the word...
PAUL KRUGMAN, OP-ED COLUMNIST, "NEW YORK TIMES": But there's a definite...
SACHS: Come on, look, Larry.
KRUGMAN: But I think, look. OK, fair enough. But that's not what you're suggesting...
SACHS: Fareed asked me that, and I said that that was not what I was saying here.
ZAKARIA: That was my Herbert Hoover...
SACHS: That was not what I was saying.
KRUGMAN: ... Andrew Mellon. Liquidate the farmers, liquidate the workers. It will purge the roughness from the system.
SACHS: What I was saying is that, after many years of heavy borrowing, low saving rates, a mess in the housing sector, a mess
with the dollar, inflationary risks, and so forth, we just don't have the tools. That's all I'm -- I think I'm saying, is realistically,
it's not heroism to the rescue that is going to enable us to have normalcy, or close to normalcy.
ZAKARIA: It's kind of a long...
SACHS: That's all I'm saying.
KRUGMAN: Yes. No...
ZAKARIA: What you're saying is it's a long slog.
KRUGMAN: So, there is a case -- I think there is a case for another stimulus package. The next president might very well want
to do something that tries to pump up demand -- probably a better stimulus package, something that actually does some stuff that
we need, like repairing infrastructure, as well as just, you know, putting checks into consumers' mailboxes.
It probably is not going to be possible to avoid a fair bit of hardship on the way. But, you know, you don't want to just be fatalistic.
You don't want to -- and by the way, if things really do tip -- you know, and tip -- look like they're tipping into something much
more serious, then heroic measures are called for.
I mean, it's not the case that you never want to do something very dramatic. It's not -- it's one thing to say that it's not going
to be easy. It's another thing to say that we should just stand back and let this thing happen.
ZAKARIA: Larry, you've been there. The president comes in. The economy is looking very weak. The Fed is doing what it's doing.
What realistically is the president going to have at his disposal? And what would you advise?
SUMMERS: You know, it's eight months off, and it's difficult to know what the world will look like at that point.
I think there's a strong case for more fiscal stimulus, because I think more unemployed resources, more problems in the financial
system isn't going to serve any constructive purpose. And as part of the transition, I favor that fiscal stimulus.
ZAKARIA: And it would be a big infrastructure...
SUMMERS: And I think infrastructure's got to be an important part of it.
You know, one of the features of the structural changes in the economy, particularly the fact that there's not going to be a lot
of construction for a long time, is that a core group in our society -- men who haven't been to college -- are really bearing the
brunt of this downturn. And the right kind of infrastructure program can do a lot to provide them with opportunity. And I think that's
very important for the country.
I think the next president and his colleagues are going to have to take a serious look at the financial system, at the way we
regulate the financial system, at the so-called government sponsored enterprises.
We're going to have to make sure -- and it is not going to be easy -- that that system has enough capital in it to support a robust
flow of credit. And making sure that that happens, rather than a vicious cycle of liquidation, has got to be a crucial priority for
the next president.
There's going to be more to be done to prevent foreclosures. The house prices are going to have to adjust, and we're not going
to be able to stop that. But there are things we can do that prevent foreclosures and prevent the tremendous waste that's associated
with the foreclosure process.
SACHS: A new president has a new chance for a longer term agenda. It would be very easy for the short run to overwhelm the next
administration.
If the president comes in and says, "My God. We've got unemployment rising. We've got to do something. We're going to give another
tax cut," for example, which will be very easy to be top of the agenda, fiscal policy will tie itself up in knots, we will not get
to a long- term perspective, which we need to solve long-term problems in this country.
And I think an administration that starts with the desperation to avoid what is unlikely to be avoided, will not find a way to
address longer term challenges, and would end up, you know, unsuccessful, I would say.
So, we've drifted so badly in this country, in this administration. Everything of seriousness for the long term, starting from
a fiscal structure that takes account of the demographic changes in this country, what we're going to need in the long term, the
health sector, as Larry said, the energy sector, climate change, and a host of other extraordinarily serious long-term problems have
been neglected.
And yet, we will face what will be looked at as a traditional short- term business cycle problem. And it could overwhelm the administration
and overwhelm our politics.
If we spend most of our time on what we're going to do immediately about the housing crisis, what we're going to do about this,
what we're going to do about another tax cut, and so on, we will not get to the things that really need addressing right now.
And a lot of what needs addressing is global. And we've gotten so bad at doing anything serious with the rest of the world, that
those basic linkages internationally have to be recreated, and a president is going to have to spend a lot of time seriously on that.
That's also going to cut against the grain of an economy in a big slowdown, and probably in an outright recession.
SUMMERS: I think there's -- Jeff and I...
ZAKARIA: Let me ask -- yes.
SUMMERS: Where Jeff and I agree is on the ends, that we've got to address the current situation, but that there are long-run issues
that are absolutely critical to address in an effective way.
Where I think we do have a nuance of disagreement is that my concern is that, if the recession is not contained to the extent
possible -- and I don't think, either, that it can be fully contained -- then I think it's going to be very difficult to do anything
right for the long run.
And I think the prospects of..
ZAKARIA: So, you're more scared in a way than he is.
SUMMERS: ... maintaining the United States as a force for openness, as a cooperative nation working with other nations on these
global issues of energy, on these global -- on these global issues that are of such concern -- I think those chances are much greater
if we're doing all we can to make the American economy work for the American people.
And so, I think it would be a mistake for any administration to lose sight of the distress that Americans are feeling, because
of the things that we've discussed.
And so, I think it's a matter of finding the right balance.
KRUGMAN: Well, actually, let me -- I don't even think -- I think these things can go together. I mean, I always think of the New
Deal model, FDR, where a short-term crisis acted as a justification and a stimulus for long-term reform.
And we came out of the Great Depression with Social Security. We came out of the Great Depression with the Trade Agreements Program,
which paved the way for the global economy of later generations.
We can come out of this crisis, actually, with an enhanced case, enhanced prospects for health care reform, with an enhanced prospect
for a rational energy policy, which could also slide into a climate change policy.
I mean, what we really want is, we want the next president to say, "We have all these big problems. Some of them are short term,
but they're wrapped into a long term. And here are the things we can do to fix them."
And we come out in 2013 with a much better society, a much better thing -- partly, you know, exploiting the crisis, exploiting
the crisis to do the right things.
ZAKARIA: We've had a somewhat gloomy discussion, but on that optimistic note, we're going to have to end.
"The oligarchs of the former Soviet block have almost all grabbed their fortunes during the presidency of Boris Yeltzin who, pathological
alcoholic as he was, made room for large scale privatization of state corporations and raw materials after the collapse of the socialist
regime.
Shock therapy was pushed through under the influence of Western advisors, especially the Harvard privatization program with Jeffrey
Sachs as the leading figure, as well the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Jegor Gajdar, Anatoli Tschubais (an oligarch himself) and Alfred Koch [2] were their local executives in Russia ..."
This paper starts with summarizing the major theoretical elements in the definition of a global ruling class. It then examines
how neoconservatives in the US took power and used regime change to install US-friendly governments in other regions. A strategy
of tension is used to press the population into conformity. But the real revolution is to what extent factual politics escape any
attempt to democratic control. Three case studies show how far the Deep State already goes. Democracy is on the brink of survival.
1. Theory
In an earlier paper (Hamm, B. 2010) I suggested an analytical framework for the study of power as it relates to the future of
global society. This outline specifically addressed four questions:
How is the global ruling class structured internally?
Is it theoretically correct to use the term class for the ruling elite?
What are the major instruments of power?
How do these analytical insights impact on the probable future of human society?
Drawing on C. Wright Mills' seminal work on The Power Elite (1956), recent power structure research suggests an ideal-type
model of four concentric circles:
In the inner circle, we find the global money trust, the richest individuals, families or clans, all with fortunes
well above one billion Euros.
The CEOs of big transnational corporations and biggest international financial players make up the second circle. They
are mostly concerned with increasing the wealth of the inner circle, and with it their own.
Top international politicians, some active in governments and international institutions, some more in the background as advisors,
plus the top military, compose the third circle. This political class has assignments: organize the distribution of the
social product in such a way as to transfer as much as the actual power balance allows into the pockets of the inner and second
circles, and secure the legitimacy of government by organizing the political circus of an allegedly pluralistic structure.
The fourth ring will be composed of top academics, media moguls, lawyers, and may sometimes include prominent authors,
film and music stars, artists, NGO representatives, few religious leaders, few top criminals and others useful for decorating
the inner circles. They enjoy the privilege of close access to those in power, they are well paid, and they will make sure not
to lose such benefits (Hamm, B. 2010:1008-9; see also Phillips, P., Osborne, B. 2013).
It appears that the degree of internationalization of the powerful correlates with their status on the ring hierarchy.
The two inner circles have always been international. The third and fourth rings, however, tend to be much more nationally bound
(by ownership and by elections) than the first and the second. The inner circle is not static but relatively solid. It builds on
financial and social capital often accumulated by former generations (steel industry, banking, weapons, or oil barons). The major
source of power is being borne to a family of the inner circle (for example, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Morgans,
the DuPonts, the Vanderbilts, the Agnellis, the Thyssens, and the Krupps, to mention a few) [1].
There are also the nouveaux riches. Names like George Soros, William Gates, Warren Buffet, Marc Zuckerberg, Sheldon Adelson,
or the Koch brothers come to mind (Smith, Y. 2013), and the Bush-Clan might also be mentioned here (Bowles, W. 2005);
Russian or Eastern European oligarchs like Alisher Usmanov, Mikhail Chodorkowski, Boris Beresowski, Mikhail Fridman, Rinat Ahmetov,
Leonid Mikhelson, Viktor Vekselberg, Andrej Melnichenko, Roman Abramovich; then there are Carlos Slim Helu, Lakshmi Mittal, Mukesh
Ambani, Jorge Paulo Lemann, Iris Fontbona or Aliko Dangote from the so-called less developed countries.
These parvenus tend to be politically more active, at least on the front stage, than the old rich families: George Soros with
his Open Society Foundation and his permanent warnings of the evils of unregulated capitalism is the best known for his liberal leanings,
while the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson or Robert Murdoch are aggressively right-wing (Heath, T. 2014; Snyder, M. 2013; Webster,
S.C. 2013). The oligarchs of the former Soviet block have almost all grabbed their fortunes during the presidency of Boris Yeltzin
who, pathological alcoholic as he was, made room for large scale privatization of state corporations and raw materials after the
collapse of the socialist regime. Shock therapy was pushed through under the influence of Western advisors, especially the Harvard
privatization program with Jeffrey Sachs as the leading figure, as well the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Jegor Gajdar, Anatoli
Tschubais (an oligarch himself) and Alfred Koch [2] were their local executives in Russia (Vaclav Klaus in Czecholovakia, Leszek
Balcerowicz in Poland, etc.).
The strategy for the creation of oligarchs and social polarization is easy to understand since it has been practiced by the IMF
time and again to this very day as part of their structural adjustment policy (later cynically referred to as "poverty reduction
strategy"). What it amounts to is the abolition of all price controls and public subsidies, laying-off civil servants, limiting wages,
devaluing currencies, and privatizing public corporations and infrastructure (the so-called Washington Consensus). Widespread poverty
is the immediate result, and the other side of the coin is extremely concentrated wealth in just a few hands. If the number of victims
multiplied by the gravity of damages done to each of them is used as an indicator, the IMF is certainly the most criminal organization
on earth (Chossudovsky, M. 2001).
By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate
at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is "The
Bubble and Beyond." This article is from a new book, Flashpoint
in Ukraine, edited by Stephen Lendman. It is currently available from Clarity Press as an e-book, and soon to be printed.
Finance in today's world has become war by non-military means. Its object is the same as that of military conquest: appropriation
of land and basic infrastructure, and the rents that can be extracted as tribute. In today's world this is taken mainly in the form
of debt service and privatization. That is how neoliberalism works, subduing economies by indebting their governments and using unpayably
high debts as a lever to pry away the public domain at distress prices. It is what today's New Cold War is all about. Backed by the
IMF and European Central Bank (ECB) as knee-breakers in what has become in effect a financial extension of NATO, the aim is for U.S.
and allied investors to appropriate the plums that kleptocrats have taken from the public domain of Russia, Ukraine and other post-Soviet
economies in these countries, as well as whatever assets remain.
In a recent interview in The New York Review of Books, George Soros outlines what he thinks should be done for the Ukraine. It
should "encourage its companies to improve their management by finding European partners."[2]
This means that kleptocrats should sell major ownership shares in their companies to Westerners. This would give the
West a stake in protecting them, pressuring their government to tax labor rather than the wealthy, and helping them cash out and
keep their takings in London and New York to finance Western economies, not that of Ukraine.
The West's Ideological Conquest of the Post-Soviet Economies
That is not how replacing Soviet communism with a free market was supposed to work out – at least, not for the Soviet side. Mikhail
Gorbachev and his supporters hoped that ending the Cold War would enable Russia to dismantle the arms race whose costly military
overhead prevented the Soviet Union from devoting resources to produce consumer goods and adequate housing. In addition to the peace
dividend, the aim was to establish a price feedback system that would raise industrial productivity and living standards.
The West's ideological victory – or more to the point, the neoliberal anti-labor, anti-government and pro-Wall Street game
plan – was sealed at the Houston summit in July 1990. Russian Prime Minister Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders endorsed the
World Bank/USAID plan for shock therapy, privatization, deindustrialization and a wipeout of domestic personal savings (characterized
as an "overhang") to start by impoverishing the population at large and vesting an overclass with the most unequal distribution of
wealth in the Northern Hemisphere.
U.S. Cold War advisors urged Russia and other post-Soviet states to give hitherto public assets and property to individuals, preferably
to plant managers and political insiders. The cover story was that it did not really matter who got them, because private ownership
in itself would lead the new owners to re-organize production along the most profitable lines. Pinochet's Chile was held out as a
shining success story, and a right-wing Pinochetista movement started in Russia.
The Communist Party nomenklatura, Komsomol leaders such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Red Directors were excited by these neoliberal
promises to turn over natural resources, real estate, infrastructure and factories to themselves. The sanctimonious pretense was
that property has its own logic of self-interest, which serves the social good because wealth will trickle down to uplift the population
at large. In practice the neoliberal "free market" turned out to be a euphemism for looting. Subsidized by U.S. support and imposed
by Yeltsin's presidential fiat (unconstitutionally, over the objections of the Duma), ownership of hitherto public investment and
natural resources were given to managers who made their fortunes by selling their takings to Western investors.
Already before 1990 billions of dollars in roubles already were being siphoned off via Latvia (Grigory Loutchansky and Nordex
played a major role), while co-op leaders KGB and army leaders already were creating proto-predatory financial structures. U.S. bankers,
officials and academics went to Russia and other former Soviet republics to explain that the most practical path was to create joint-stock
companies and sell shares to Western buyers to bid up the price. Western banks helped kleptocrats keep the proceeds from these sales
abroad so that they didn't have to reinvest it at home (or pay taxes). The tax burden was placed on labor and consumers, not on the
windfall gains and natural resource rents, land rent or monopoly rent being siphoned off.
Instead of bringing about Western European or American-style industrial capitalism with their heavily subsidized technology and
protected agriculture, the effect has been to de-industrialize Russia and other post-Soviet economies, except for East Germany and
Poland. In effect, the former Soviet Union was colonized in the world's largest resource grab since Europe's conquest of the
New World five centuries ago.
As in the other former Soviet republics, Ukraine embraced the neoliberal plan to make kleptocracy the final stage of Stalinism.
As Mikhail Khodorkovsky described: "Decent people get out of the system, leaving 'idiots and lowlife' – great material for building
up the machinery of state. And yet that is indeed our state."[3]
The news that President Obama will nominate former Israeli Central Bank Chairman Stanley Fischer to be the next vice chairman of
the Federal Reserve was greeted with a chorus of approbation from the media. A Forbes headline
exclaimed: "The Markets Should Celebrate Stanley Fischer as Number Two at the Fed, A Perfect Ten Strike." With the addition of
Fischer to the Fed leadership "it's almost like a central bank hall of fame"
gushed a Stanford economist to Bloomberg News, while a former colleague of Fischer's
noted, "The only area I
can imagine where Stan will be attacked will be his roughly four-year period 10 years ago as a vice-chair of CitiBank."
Fischer
certainly brings impressive credentials to the job. An MIT-trained economist, Fischer served as the Chief Economist at the World
Bank in the late 1980s before going on to serve as First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF from 1994 to 2002. But Fischer's tenure
in the latter position merits more scrutiny than we thus far have seen in the largely rhapsodic reaction his nomination has garnered
in the media.
As the Center for Economic and Policy Research
noted back in 2011, when Fischer was floated as possible replacement for the disgraced Dominique Strauss-Kahn, "the IMF's
intervention in Russia during Fischer's tenure led to one of the worst losses in output in history, in the absence of war or natural
disaster." Indeed, one Russian observer compared the economic and social consequences of the IMF's intervention to what one would
see in the aftermath of a medium-level nuclear attack.
Yet the IMF's role in helping to create the conditions that pushed Russia into crisis in the 1990s seems to be missing not just
from the recent coverage of Fischer's nomination but from his own analysis during that period. In a
speech to the U.S.-Russian Investment Symposium
at Harvard in January 1998, Fischer painted a rather rosier picture of the situation in Russia than was warranted at the time. "Six
years after the start of the Russian economic reform process, much has been achieved and the continued progress of the economy towards
economic normalization is not in doubt."
While Fischer noted that "output is still well below the levels of six years ago, it has begun to grow again; inflation has been
reduced to near single-digit levels." He concluded his address with an upbeat assessment: "up to this point, the optimists on Russia
have been more right than the pessimists. There is good reason to believe the optimists will continue to be right." [emphasis
added]
That speech was simply magical thinking disguised as policy analysis in light of the following. A mere six months after Fischer
predicted the "optimists" would win out, the Russian government devalued the ruble, defaulted on its debt, and declared a moratorium
on payment to foreign creditors. By August the Russian stock market lost 75 percent of its value and inflation jumped over 80 percent.
The following month saw Russia's GDP collapse by 50 percent, while capital investment and meat and livestock herds fell by around
75 percent. By the time the decade was out some estimates had anywhere between 50 and 75 percent of Russians living below-or
barely above-the poverty line.
The recovery was long in coming. In 2003-fully five years after Fischer's speech-Russia's GDP remained almost 30 percent below
what it was in 1990 while capital investment remained a mere 10 percent of what it was then.
Neither the IMF's performance-nor Fischer's confidence in happy outcomes-were altered by the events in Russia, if his
remarks to the Argentine Banking Association
in June 2001 are anything to go by. Touting "the impressive developments in the Argentine economy over the past decade," Fischer
acknowledged some of the economic difficulties that were facing Argentina but noted that the "situation is a result of the dependence
of growth on too large fiscal deficits." And so the answer lay in cutting the budget because "fiscal tightening can be expansionary-can
lead to a virtuous circle…by producing a sustained reduction in the risk premium and domestic interest rates."
Not long after, the Argentine government, acting on Fischer's advice, imposed austerity measures with unsurprising results. By
the time 2001 came to a close, the official unemployment soared to around 20 percent; protests rocked the country which forced President
Fernando de la Rua out; and the government defaulted on $155 billion in foreign debt, which remains, to this day, the largest debt
default in history. Argentina's poverty rate increased by about 50 percent, while its GNP fell by 11 percent by the end of 2001.
And so the question remains: is there any reason to believe Fischer is the right person to help steer the Fed in light of the
ongoing jobs crisis here in the United States? As the Roosevelt Institute's
Jeff Madrick has pointed out,
"His resume suggests that in his bones he is an austerian. Although he cut rates sharply during the crisis as head of the Israeli
central bank, this is not proof he can manage an economy that is struggling to recover."
If you consider the following, the U.S. economy still has quite a long way to go. There are, as of this writing, three unemployed
people for every available job; the long-term unemployed (those who have been out of work for 27 weeks or more) account for well
over a third of all unemployed; the labor force participation rate-at around 63 percent-is the lowest it has been since 1978. To
make matters worse, on December 28th 1.3 million people lost their unemployment benefits.
In the final analysis, the trouble with the Fischer appointment stems not so much from the issue of his dual citizenship, which
is an objection others
havemade, but
from his long track record of implementing neoliberal economic "reforms" without paying due attention to their consequences for people
of ordinary means. At base, the problem with the Fischer/IMF approach to political economy is that, as with ideologies generally,
they are teleological in nature; the assumption that history or the "laws of economics" are on your side is a dangerous one, especially
to people who aren't in power, which is to say, almost everyone else.
President Obama would do well to reconsider the wisdom of this particular appointment.
James Carden served as an advisor to the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission at the State Department from 2011-2012.
That's a really funny statement -- "expressed doubts" after Vladimir Putin said that in the 1990s, CIA personnel was working
in the team of the main ideologist of the country's privatization Anatoly Chubais.
American experts have doubts that Andrei Shleifer and Jonathan Hay who served as consultants of the Russian government on
the privatization in the 1990s, for close circle of advisors to Anatoly Chubais were CIA agents
Experts who worked for Chubais ( current head of RUSNANO), who are now suspected by Russian government to be CIA agents could
be Shleifer and Hay, professor of economics and former associate at Harvard University, respectively. That was anonymous source from
the Chubais team told RIA Novosti.
According to U.S. media reports, in 1990 Shleifer and Hay worked in Moscow in the Russian assistance program for the transition
to a market economy, funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The U.S. Justice Department estimated the damage caused by the activities of Shleifer and Hay to the USA government in the amount
of 34 million dollars.
The trial of Shleifer and Hay took place in the mid-2000s in Boston after a three-year investigation - both were charged with
abuse of official position for personal gain.
However, as stated to RIA "Novosti" one expert, Janine Wedel, who wrote two books about the role of the Americans in the privatization
process in Russia, "in order to make blunders, you do not have to be the CIA agent." She noted that that she never came across any
evidence that two men were linked to U.S. intelligence.
Journalist David Warsh, who covered the history of Shleifer and Hay, and who specializes in economic and finance issues also expressed
doubt that the consultants could be linked to the CIA: "Unless Putin has direct evidence, it will be very difficult to convince anyone
that these people were working for the CIA, "- he said.
Yesterday during a "straight line" with the Russian President Vladimir Putin said that in the 1990s, CIA personnel was working
in the team of the main ideologist of the country's privatization Anatoly Chubais.
"As we recently discovered some advisers working in Chubais team were actually CIA agents. But the most funny thing is that
on their return to the United States they had been prosecuted for corruption as they in violation of the USA enriched themselves
during Russia's privatization but have no rights to do so as acting intelligence officers ", - Putin said, but did not specify persons
involved.
Alexander Aleksandrov, Ekaterinburg:
Chem. Assad weapons - YES ... Chubais CIA connection - NO ... Oh, those US experts.. They probably write and then laugh what
was written...
Creepy Gomofob:
This ambivalent statement of Putin about Chubais is a very curious fact. Any high level government official who personally
or his team has had such advisors and he does not know that -- is a candidate for an immediate sacking from the office. And when
such an opinion was expressed about a person who was at the highest positions in government -- then this is a covert
way to cut him any opportunity to return.
And other statements were also very curious - for example an ambivalent position about GDP How long Putin can walk on this
tightrope remains to be seen.
Michael Stekolschikov:
Putin would not say this, if he had no facts. Let them refute his statement in court. And with whom Putin can work? The independence
of the Russian Federation is illusive. There are untouchable people assigned in '91. There are rules of conduct imposed by the
neighbors (NATO). As in the saying "NATO, Fyodor, NATO".
Sachs has a long history of minimizing the negative side effects of his policy recommendations.
When all else fails, try to refute statistics. It would be useful to see historical trends of trade between Russia and the
EU and US over the period compared to similar statistics for the other former Soviet states.
I looked around, but I didn't find any, perhaps someone who is more of an expert knows where to look.
Wonks Anonymous
Poland got massive aid. The Czech Republic was already among the richest of Eastern European countries and Slovenia had most
of Yugoslavia's capital and a standard of living that was comparable to that of Italy.
Meanwhile privatization in the Soviet Union was handled by Boris Yeltsin, a bumbling alcoholic who hoped to curry favor
with the US, which he did not.
But the real meaning of this study is this. Privatization did not create any real wealth or increase efficiency. It just
concentrated wealth in the hands of a few Robber Barons and destroyed the social safety net – which in Eastern Europe was linked
to the firms.
Which is why the Russians love us so much. I am sure that they have a special place in their hearts for Mr. Sachs.
Maybe he should give a speech in Moscow defending shock therapy?
Arsen Azizyan
I grew up cold and hungry in the former Soviet republic of Armenia during the shock therapy years of the 90′s; my grandfather
was one of the 3 million who died prematurely during those days (incorrect medication and power outages did him in).
I would very much like to tie Mr. Jeffrey Sachs to a chair and slowly force-feed him every worthless page of every idiotic
policy paper he's ever written.
I believe that would justly mirror the diet that I had to subsist on for a number of years during my childhood and adolescence.
Reality Based
Sachs knows nothing about health and diet and has not earned the right to dismiss findings of qualified researchers.
If he wants to do the research to prove that the disasters in Eastern Europe after the adoption of laissez faire (including the
obvious: oligarchy and criminal gangs) were not caused by "unfettered capitalism," he can do the research. His unsubstantiated
denials are not worthy of being quoted.
And, while we are at it, what about the failure of "unfettered capitalism" in this country, which has had higher morbidity
and lower life expectancy than the rest of the developed and some of the underdeveloped world. And that was before the "market
forces are God" nonsense led to the latest disaster.
Tom Wilde
Jeffrey Sachs was merely the '90′s propagandistic mouthpiece for this "shock therapy," whose use is always strictly limited
to the poor and defenseless. And he's certainly no different from any other of the many "free market" court jesters costumed as
academics. The corporate court kings told him what to say, he said it in the usual inane and convoluted academy-speak,
and he then profited quite handsomely from this same "shock therapy." Just as some medical doctors seek to prescribe medicine
that will raise the value of their stock, Sachs wrote "free market" prescriptions for the masses of the Russian population while
knowing he would reap huge profits when his corporate kings forced this population to take this medicine. It's important to bear
in mind, too, that like these doctors, he had no hand in actually making this medicine; his duty was simply to prescribe it widely
in his guise as a "professional economist"-when in fact he was a paid corporate shill. Arsen Azizyan's comment above is no doubt
the voice of thousands of others who greatly suffered (or died) from Sach's "shock therapy" prescriptions.
Alexandre Abbas Rizvi
To Mr Sach's and his ideological master Milton Friedman's achievements through shock therapy I would add Chile, Bolivia, and
Argentina where suffering of the general populations was similar to the Soviet Union. However, I do not know whether there is
any data on the death rates resulting from the shock therapy in South America. I suppose the effect of shock on the general population
in the Soviet Union from the social safety net abruptly degrading to a brutal system of dog eat dog was worse than any we can
think of.
Bernice Vetsch
The editor of The Progressive Manazine (January 2009) discusses Naomi Klein's take on how the Shock Doctrine affected Russia
when Lawrence Summers was chief economist for the World Bank "when it was foisting structural adjustment policies on developing
nations."
From Klein's book:
"The momentum for Russian reform must be reinvigorated and intensified," Summers said after the [Russian] parliament had
refused to go along. Shortly after that comment, the International Monetary Fund threatened to withhold a $1.5 billion loan.
So Boris Yeltsin dissolved and attacked parliament, abolished the constitution, and bowed to the IMF's and Summers's demands"
for "privatization, stabilization, and liberalization."
"Russia's 'economic reforms' can claim credit for the impoverishment of seventy-two million people in only eight years."
The IMF and World Bank have demanded similar "reforms" from many poor countries needing aid. Poverty and LACK OF UNIVERSAL,
TAX-SUPPORTED HEALTH CARE both result in a less healthy population and earlier deaths. I believe the study's analysis to be accurate.
Lewis Siegelbaum
To argue, as Jeffrey Sachs and Nathaniel Knight do, that the increase in death-rates in post-Soviet Russia began long before
privatization does not necessarily invalidate the findings of the British researchers. Were the increases in death rates before
privatization of the same magnitude as after the collapse of the USSR? Did they stem from the same reasons cited by the British
researchers as responsible for increased death rates in general, viz., a worsening of social services, the weakening of and withdrawal
from civic life, etc.? Were there increases in death rates elsewhere in eastern Europe in the 1970s and '80s?
Seems to me that there is a lot of clinging to ideologically-derived shibboleths here. -
williambanzai7
In today's NYT Thomas Friedman makes a persuasive argument for a self imposed shock therapy solution to cure the current economic
collapse. Unfortunately there are many unpleasant parallels between the situation in the former Soviet Block in the 1990s and
America today. Large numbers of workers have been and will continue to be displaced. There is no medical safety net for those
who have been laid off. Banks don't know how to lend and the economic pillars that support the old model no longer apply. It will
be extremely difficult for Americans (particularly the middle aged) to adapt to Mr. Friedman's flat world.
In the 1990s many wondered how the millions of jobless workers in Russia and Central Europe would adapt to capitalism. There
were millions of lost souls wandering the streets of Moscow, Katowice, Kiev and East Berlin. The cynics short answer was those
who can't adapt will have to die off. Now it appears such statements rang true.
These studies highlight the challenges that must be addressed by President Obama's administration. Is America ready for Shock
Therapy?
Lancet Authors
As the authors of the Lancet study that has provoked this debate, we regret that some commentators have resorted to personal
attacks. We wish to stress that we hold Dr Sachs in high regard, not least for his leadership of the Commission on Macroeconomics
and Health, even if we disagree with him on this issue. Similarly, we hope that those who criticise our methods and conclusions
will read our paper. Papers published in the Lancet undergo an extremely rigorous peer review process so perhaps those commentators
who believe that we have got it wrong will help us by identifying specific criticisms, rather than issuing blanket condemnations.
Specifically, we find the suggestion that we are unaware that correlation does not equate to causation patronizing in the extreme.
Turning to the proposed explanations of the post-Soviet mortality crisis, we fear that some commentators fail to understand that
death rates in a population reflect factors acting at many levels. In the present study we have focused on underlying social and
economic factors, showing that while unemployment is clearly a factor linking privatization and mortality, it does not explain
all of the association. However, our present study builds on a substantial body of previous research (including over 70 papers
published by one of us, in association with colleagues from the former Soviet Union) looking at the immediate factors in the fluctuating
mortality post transition as well as the long term problems dating from the 1960s. These show how alcohol, in particular, plays
a major role in the former (we might take this opportunity to clarify that the poor diet in this region is indeed a factor in
the high overall mortality but not in the fluctuations). We welcome the interest in this region that our study has stimulated
but we hope that, in the longer term, it will encourage more people to gain a deeper understanding of what happened in the early
1990s rather than use a superficial reading of our findings to fight other battles.
Alex
I can relate and so can everyone in my Russian/Ukrainian community to Arsen Azizyan comment above.
I wonder if these researchers, professors, economists would write the same papers if they actually had lived there, seen it,
experienced it on their own hides. In my country we call these types of papers "заказуха" or "zakazuha" meaning that someone placed
an "order" for facts or theory and the order was delivered. There are many for hire in the academia.
Thank you Dr.'s thank you for making us understand why so many of our people suffered, died, and are still suffering the consequences
of your theories.
HIID eventually collapsed in scandal, when it was revealed that the principals of its Russian project, Andrei Shleifer and Jonathan
Hay, along with their wives (who happened to be mutual fund managers), had been buying Russian stocks and dickering for the privilege
of getting the country's first mutual fund license, while dispensing advice to the Russian government. (Shleifer was one of the trinity
of so-called Harvard Wunderkinder who were to Russia what the Chicago Boys were to Pinochet's Chile; the other two were Lawrence
Summers - and Sachs.) The U.S. government sued, and Harvard shuttered the institute. Sachs, who was not involved in the scandal,
decamped to Columbia (it's said there was no going-away party from his Harvard colleagues). At Columbia, he was appointed to head
its new Earth Institute, an interdisciplinary enterprise that would bring together physical, health, and social scientists to promote
sustainable economic development.
Sachs admits to no responsibility for the Russian catastrophe. When I interviewed him in November 2002, I asked him to comment
on the (incontrovertible) fact that he's viewed by scores of millions of Russians, as one journalist has put it, as either an emissary
of Satan or of the CIA. He answered that he found this question "disgusting," "perverse," and like nothing he's ever been asked before.
The global elite leads a very insulated life.
Regrouping, to dissuade him from hanging up, I asked how he justified the tearing apart of the USSR and forcing the country headlong
into capitalism when there was little popular support for such a strategy. He responded, illogically, by saying he "wanted to support...the
democratization of the Soviet Union." He sung the praises of "transparency and honesty in government," even though the Yeltsin regime
he was advising was opaque and corrupt. Asked to comment on published reports that he supported creating an inflation, so as to wipe
out the savings of Russians (part of the shock therapists' attempts to start post-Soviet Russia with a clean slate), he bristled
further, denouncing the quote as "phony," the question as "indecent," and the interview itself as not being in "good faith."
In his academic work, however, Sachs argued that since China was only very lightly industrialized, it could afford to take its
transition slowly. Russia, however, was burdened with the bad inheritance of Soviet industry, which was hopeless and had to go.
Yet...
...His father, who died in 2001, was a long-time Detroit labor lawyer and general counsel to the Michigan AFL-CIO. That puts his
passion to destroy worker power in eastern Europe in an interesting Oedipal light - and might even explain some of the contradictions
of Sachs's politics. But that would be speculative psychoanalysis of a suspect sort, so enough of that.
Harvard's 'Best and Brightest' Aided Russia's Economic Ruin Institute that advised 'reform' fed corruption
A 1992 front-page story in the Boston Globe (9/22/92), "Red Square Turns to Crimson," announced proudly that Harvard experts
were advising Russia in its conversion to capitalism. "Privatization stands as the centerpiece of Russia's economic-reform program,"
wrote the Globe. It was an equation the "best and brightest" from Harvard would drum home again and again to the media: privatization
equals reform. The piece quoted the head of the Harvard Russia project, Andrei Shleifer: "Once you work with Russians for two weeks,
you become a free-market enthusiast."
As more becomes known about the laundering of Russian money in Western banks, many in the United States will likely try to hide
behind stories of faraway organized crime. But U.S. policy toward Russia has contributed to that country's sorry conditions--with
the Harvard Institute for International Development's Russia project (HIID) playing a major role.
Among those under investigation for criminal activity in both the west and Russia is longtime Yeltsin aide Anatoly B. Chubais,
the chief architect of Russia's economic "reforms." In the mid-'90s, Chubais and his clique of political and financial power brokers,
known as the "Chubais Clan," were the darlings of the U.S. Treasury and international financial institutions--and of the U.S. establishment
press.
HIID, together with the Chubais "dream team," as the Treasury Department's Lawrence H. Summers called it, presided over Russia's
economic "reforms," many of them U.S.-funded, including privatization. But the so-called reforms were more about wealth confiscation
than wealth creation. Privatization, which had substantial input from U.S.-paid Harvard advisers, fostered the concentration of property
in a few Russian hands and opened the door to widespread corruption and funneling of monies to Western banks.
Chubais was briefly on the HIID payroll, and he is currently head of Russia's electricity monopoly. In 1995, the Economist
magazine (4/8/95) projected that Chubais would be president of Russia by 2010. But by 1998, the New York Times (3/24/98)
conceded that he "may be the most despised man in Russia" since "his early efforts at privatization were widely viewed as vast federal
gifts to inside operators at the expense of millions of workers who got nothing but promises they cannot redeem."
HIID was in the unique position of recommending U.S. aid polices in support of market reforms while being a chief recipient of
the aid--as well as overseeing other aid contractors, some of whom were HIID's competitors. HIID, Chubais and their associates played
a major role in promoting themselves and the "reforms" in the Western media; for example in a 1993 Washington Post piece (5/7/93),
Shleifer complained that the Clinton administration was allowing privatization efforts to "fall through the cracks."
A New York Times "Economic Scene" column (4/20/95) led thus:
Is Russia poised for economic takeoff? After three years of on-again, off-again reforms and with the Pyrrhic military victory
in Chechnya still fresh in the news, skepticism comes easily. But little by little, wary analysts are abandoning their caution.
"Russia is a real market economy now," says Andrei Shleifer, an economist at Harvard who has advised the Russian government on
privatization.
Some of those associated with HIID allegedly profited directly from it. HIID helped established Russia's Federal Commission on
Securities, roughly the equivalent of the SEC in the U.S. It was officially established by Yeltsin proclamation, and funded by the
U.S. government through institutions run by those around the Harvard-Chubais coterie. The first mutual fund licensed by the Commission
was headed by Elizabeth Hebert, who was the girlfriend of Jonathan Hay, Harvard's manager and point man in Moscow.
Harvard appears to have benefited from HIID's Russia connection. Harvard Management Company, the university's endowment fund,
was allowed to participate in choice auctions of Russian government property, despite the fact that foreign investors were supposed
to be excluded under auction rules.
In 1996, the GAO found that U.S. oversight over Harvard was "lax," and, following allegations in 1997 that Shleifer and the other
Harvard principals used their positions and inside knowledge as advisers to profit from investments in Russia, the U.S. government
canceled the last $14 million earmarked for Harvard. Shleifer, now under investigation by the Justice Department, was dismissed by
HIID. (Still, Shleifer, who is a protégé of Treasury Secretary Summers, received the Clark Award from the American Economic Association
this year, an award that Summers, who has been the architect of economic policy toward Russia, received in 1993. The association's
president-elect, Dale Jorgenson, said Shleifer's scandal "was not even mentioned" in their considerations--New York Times,
4/26/99.)
In Privatizing Russia, co-authored by Shleifer with Chubais associate Maxim Boycko, they acknowledge that "aid can change
the political equilibrium -- by explicitly helping free-market reformers to defeat their opponents." Richard Morningstar, U.S. aid
coordinator for the former Soviet Union, concurred (Collision and Collusion, Wedel):
If we hadn't been there to provide funding to Chubais, could we have won the battle to carry out privatization? Probably not.
When you're talking about a few hundred million dollars, you're not going to change the country, but you can provide targeted
assistance to help Chubais.
Leonid Krutakov, Russian investigative reporter for the publication Moskovsky Komsolets, noted that throughout the Yeltsin
years, "both the foreign and domestic press created a central deception--a false set of 'alternatives.' The idea was pushed on both
sides of that Atlantic that if you didn't support Chubais, you were supporting the Communists." Krutakov, who has broken many of
the scandal stories, noted (eXile, 10/23/99):
Obviously it's difficult to come into a country blind and just evaluate the situation instantly. You draw your conclusions
from people you meet. Western reporters came in and talked to Chubais, and Chubais tossed words around like "market," "profit,"
"openness"--all the right words. And this was the only view point of view they heard that made sense, as far as they knew.
I'm getting tired of Jeff Sachs
acting like he is
the only one telling the truth about the economy, the problems are all structural we are told despite considerable evidence to
the contrary, and -- surprise!!! -- his "truthtelling" somehow leads him to advocate the same pet projects he's been pushing for
years.
El Cid said...
Hey, Sachs knew EXACTLY what to do for Russia as it transitioned from the Soviet Union! He and the Harvard Institute for International
Development got everything there PERFECTLY correct, no? And Russia's economy was, like, super-smooth after that! So this guy clearly
knows.
Goldilocksisableachblonde said...
I could handle Sachs a lot better if he had come forth with a sincere mea culpa for the significant role he played in spreading
neoliberal supply-side pathologies around the globe. It's commendable if he's now trying to help undo some of that damage , but
without the confession , he remains a sinner , one entirely lacking in credibility. He's not the only one , however. This page
is littered with the names of his co-conspirators , if to lesser degrees. How hard would it be to say : " I was mistaken , badly.
I'm sorry. Here's where I went wrong......" ? It would help to legitimize the debate , a lot.
Joe Smith said...
Is that the same Jeffrey Sachs who told the Russians to hand their economy over to organized crime?
Leroy Dumonde said...
I'm mystified as to why anyone is still listening to the man. He many years ago made utterly obvious that he is nothing but
a shameless self promoter. Like Bono...
"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will
be no opposition from that class." -- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Perhaps their worst crimes have been committed against their students who are indoctrinated rather than taught. In the
middle of the 19th century, Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild prophetically said "The few who understand the system, will either be
so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class."
Aslund is a pretty petty neocon functionary. But that fact that he managed to keep himself afloat while being completely ignorant
about Russia tells us something about profitability of this kind of prostitution. Here I am not taking about shock therapy which he
advocated. Let's assume that shock therapy was a special operation to weaken already weakened Russian state converting is with the help
of shock therapy into neo Latin America state with huge unreality child labor, prostitution, etc). Everything about him should be qualified
with the work "limited". The only unlimited are his own ambitions and self-respect. Recently he try to sell himself as a political commentator.
While the field is new the level of ignorance is the same.
As my former prof. of Russian economy once said: Aslund is like the Bard in Asterix and Obelix, he thinks he is great and talented
whilst everybody else thinks he is an idiot.
marknesop:
Hey, Nils – long time no see!! Ahhh… if only that were true. Not so much about Aslund being an idiot, with which I agree, but
that everybody thinks so. Unfortunately, he still has a lot of eager listeners in the incestuous Washington think-tank loop who
think he's a great as he himself thinks he is. And based on the perception that economics is a mercurial thing that never stays
still for long, he sees no conflict in, for example, slamming Tymoshenko in 2006 for her "dalliance with wholesale privatization"
– which he assessed decimated investment and growth – and spanking her again a year later because her reluctance to privatize
the biggest enterprises, instead keeping them under state control, smacked to him of "state socialism".
Basically, unless you follow the economic course prescribed for you by Anders Aslund, Anders Aslund writes that you are a fool.
If you do follow his direction and your whole economic policy collapses, he writes that it was a success. When he thinks the heat
has died down enough that nobody will remember whose idea it was, he writes that it was a failure, but only because you did it
wrong; the concept was sound. That he is able to bamboozle so m any political figures is testament to their fondness for hearing
what pleases them rather than the way things are.
He's lucky the present figures are in charge of the Russian government and not me, or he'd be the next one to find out at the
airport that he was persona non grata in Russia.
Kievite:
he thinks he is great and talented whilst everybody else thinks he is an idiot.
I would respectfully disagree. I think that as a neoclassical economist he is closer to Mafiosi then to the idiot although
those two notions are not completely mutually-excluding. My take of this sleazy figure is that he specialize in getting some scraps
from the table of financial oligarchy. That does not mean that he is completely stupid. He is trying to write what they want to
hear and as such he is concerned with earning a good living, not with the search for truth and other high academic goals. So instead
of branding him an idiot I would respectfully suggest to brand him as completely amoral criminal or semi-criminal figure. Economic
hired gun to be exact. I suspect that he understands perfectly well what he is doing, but money does not smell…
I would be interesting to compare his with Andrei Shleifer a much brighter guy, protégé of Summers. They both share what can
be called a classic variant of "academic extortion": betrayal of trust and academic principles. Typical for all members of neoclassical
economics sect. While both guy were/are just a pawns in a big game (and in Russia puppets of Summers), the issues of criminality
of neoconservative economists (and some universities economics department
and relevance of RICO statute against
such offenses is a much bigger issue.
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes-27 federal crimes and 8 state
crimes-within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000
and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains
and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed
by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.
The rent seeking behaviors of those individuals resembles mafia 100% as a typical Mafioso family is a criminal (and highly
profitable) enterprise in which is an ethnic core (Jewish in case of neoconservative economists) and a hierarchy, with higher-ranking
members making decisions that trickle down to the other members of the family. And the key mafia policies are always about oppression,
self-enrichment, power and hegemony above and against all others, and especially weaker parties.
From purely theoretical standpoint neocon policies (that our "hero" advocates) failed by-and-large because they failed to recognize
that the conditions in Post-WWII America (America in 60th), that they assumed to be natural, were a direct result of government
interventions, strong government regulation of corporations, high taxes, heavily subsidized education (including college education),
and massive government investment in infrastructure and scientific research (with trickle-down to private sector).
Neoclassic economics stooges advocated about aggressively dismantling these interventions at the request of financial oligarchy
and eventually succeeded. After that the system collapsed back into its natural state - Robber barons capitalism. That's what
we have today.
kirill:
On the subject of Aslund during the 1990s. It is quite interesting that Yeltsin's regime could not reform the the tax system
and criminal code for the whole duration of his presidency. The ridiculous tax system facilitated the growth of the mafia because
companies were taxed on gross revenue and not net revenue. So in order to survive they had to cheat and were instantly exposed
to extortion. Why did all the shock therapy witchdoctors fail to have the regime change the tax code: you would think that
this is one of the first targets for reform.
At the same time Yeltsin was sending Russians to serve hard time for stealing a loaf of bread because they were hungry. The current liberast swine would have you believe that the 1990s were some heady days of democracy and not the crude tyranny
they actually were. It was "fascist dictator" Putin that oversaw sweeping reforms of the tax code and the legal system.
Putin's legal reforms included the introduction of probation and jury trials. Thanks to him, about 200,000 Russians were released
from prison. Again, none of the liberasts cares to acknowledge this fact and the only metric of freedom in Russia is whether
or not gangster oligarch Khodorkovsky is behind bars.
Misha:
These points serve to note that non-Russians like Aslund and Sachs aren't the only ones to be faulted for what happened in
the 1990s.
There's plenty of blame to go around. Hind sight is a great thing – although at times, some existing fault-lines aren't always
so difficult to immediately identify and follow-up on.
kievite:
Misha,
Sachs and Aslund were enablers of the most destructive forces that the Russian revolution pushed to the surface. This is the
general role that Harvard mafia played with its "shock therapy". So he can be credited as an architect of the gangster
capitalism in Russia in late 90th. If you take into account this simple fact, then any his critique of Putin or modern Russia
in general raises only one question: why this genius is not in jail along with Sachs, Shleifer and other members of Harvard mafia.
Also referring to your earlier comment there is a big difference between "political economist" and propagandist (or "propagandon",
as they more correctly call it now in Russia . IMHO Aslund is nowhere close to being political economist…
Here is a funny quote from our another hero McFaul:
The central paradox about contemporary Russia is why capitalism has taken root, but democracy has not. Anders Aslund provides
a crisp, comprehensive, and compelling answer. Russia s Capitalist Revolution will become a classic overnight, the standard
by which all future books on the last two decades of Soviet and Russian history will be judged.
–MICHAEL McFAUL, director, Center on Democracy, Development, and Rule of Law, Stanford University
The excerpt below summarizes the most fundamental truth about Russia today that informs anything else we might know about the
country and how it arrived in 2007. The sums handed over to "the oligarchs" defy comprehension. Cold Wars, Hot Wars, Wars on Terror
be damned….that place is run on pure greed and brutality with far less attempts to conceal it than in our own greedy brutal backyard.
Bicyclemark is keeping his CitiJo eye on Russia here,
and if interested in more here is gripping 1999 congressional testimony from Anne Williamson, author of Contagion: The Betrayal
of Liberty, Russia, and the United States in the 1990s, outlining the
brutal details.
Or just read the rest of Matt Taibbi's "Death of a Drunk" from Rolling Stone. A fitting obit for the drunken thug, including a
hilarious Cheers/Norm reference you don't want to miss. The audacity of spinning this shitbag to follow the familiar tone of the
generally ridiculous "Great Man Theory" is eclipsed only
by its success. Thankfully, Mr. Taibbi and Rolling Stone had the balls to go non-fiction:
What we were calling "reform" was just a thinly-veiled mass robbery that Yeltsin perpetrated with American help. The great
delusion about Yeltsin was that he was a kind of democrat and an opponent of communism. He was not. He was, like all politicians
who grew up in that system, an opportunist. He read the writing on the wall and he threw his weight behind a "revolution" that turned
out to be a brilliant ploy hatched by a canny group of generals and KGB types to privatize Soviet assets into the hands of the country's
leaders, while simultaneously cutting the state free of its dreary obligations toward the rank-and-file Russian people.
Read the full article here
Study slams neoliberal policy of rapid mass privatization, claims proof of 'direct link' to its implementation with economic failure
and graft
18.04.2012 | Czech Position
The aim was to guarantee a swift - and irreversible - transition to capitalism for the countries formerly behind the Iron Curtain.
But rather than ushering in a new era of prosperity, the mass privatization programs advocated by an army of Western-trained neoliberal
economists - and backed by local fans such as former Czech finance minister, prime minister, and curent head of state Václav Klaus
- helped bankrupt Russia and other former Soviet bloc countries.
So say sociologists from the University of Cambridge and Harvard University who have published a study that they claim is the
first to trace a "direct link" between the mass privatization programs of the early 1990s - adopted by approximately half the post-communist
countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union - and the "economic failure and corruption that followed."
Based on their comparisons of the fortunes of 25 post-communist countries (between 1990 and 2000) and World Bank survey data of
managers from more than 3,500 firms within 24 of them, the researchers say they have compelling evidence that the more faithfully
countries adopted the mass privatization policy advocated by Western economics and international financial institutions, the worse
off they became: Mass privatizing states experienced an average dip in GDP per capita of more than 16 percent after implementation
above those of states that didn't follow the policy.
"Mass privatization programs, where implemented, created a massive fiscal shock for post-communist governments, thereby undermining
the development of private-sector governance institutions and severely exacerbating the transformational recession," write Lawrence
King and David Stuckler of the University of Cambridge, and Patrick Hamm, a doctoral candidate at Harvard University, in the study,
"Mass Privatization, State Capacity, and Economic Growth in Post-Communist Countries," published in the April issue of the
American Sociological Review. 'This paper
shows the most radical privatization in history failed the countries it was meant to help.'
The researchers say that their work, which is "directly at odds with neoliberal explanations," builds on the findings a decade
ago of a "small group of scholars who criticized mass privatization for its potential to obstruct governance," including Gerald A.
McDermott of the University of Pennsylvania, but while "consistent with institutionalist corruption-centered perspectives goes beyond
them by arguing that mass privatization itself damaged existing state institutions and increased corruption."
Apart from documenting the past, the study also carries a warning for the modern age: As recently as 2008, Egypt considered implementing
a mass privatization program, distributing public company shares to some 40 million Egyptian citizens. Morocco and Tunisia contemplated
similar policies following the 2011 Arab Spring and invited the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to consult
on the process.
"Rapid and extensive privatization is being promoted by some economists to resolve the current debt crisis in the West and to
achieve reform in Middle Eastern and North African economies," King said in a press statement, calling for the safeguarding of government
revenues and state capacity to be a priority. "This paper shows the most radical privatization in history failed the countries it
was meant to help."
'Shock therapy' a bitter pill – and no cure
Among the champions of "shock therapy" prescription for the post-communist world - those calling for rapid mass privatization,
liberalization of prices and trade, and fiscal and monetary austerity - was American economist Jeffrey Sachs, who advised a number
of post-communists countries on implementing reforms. "The need to accelerate privatization is the paramount economic policy issue
facing Eastern Europe," Sachs wrote in 1992. "If there is no breakthrough in the privatization of large enterprises in the near future,
the entire process could be stalled for years to come."
Neoliberals like Sachs advanced a rationale of political expediency for radical change because "they believed that a period of
'extraordinary politics' following the collapse of communism gave elites a brief window of opportunity to implement reforms, after
which managers and workers of state-owned enterprises might seek to halt, or even roll back, privatization and liberalization efforts
in order to prevent layoffs and other social costs," King, Stuckler, and Hamm write.
They also believed, of course, that shock therapy was the correct treatment, though a bitter pill to swallow. The EBRD 1999
Transition Report summarizes the consensus of foreign advisors and post-communist elites at the start of the transition:
"Private ownership would ensure profit-oriented corporate governance, while liberalization of trade and prices would set free
the competitive market forces that reward profitable activities. Firms would have therefore both internal and external incentives
to restructure."
From the beginning, however, gradualist voices stressed the importance of state-guided institutional reform, arguing that in the
absence of a supportive institutional environment, "radical reforms would be damaging: privatization might lead to asset-stripping
rather than investment, and rapid reforms might create economic winners who would subsequently engage in predatory behavior," King,
Stuckler, and Hamm note.
Nonetheless, shock policy advocates won the policy debate in most countries. As Lawrence Summers put it in 1994, after stepping
down as World Bank chief economist, "Despite economists' reputation for never being able to agree on anything, there is a striking
degree of unanimity in the advice that has been provided to the nations of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. … [P]rivatization,
stabilization, and liberalization … must all be completed as soon as possible."
The Cambridge and Harvard researchers say that as for mass privatization, neoliberal advocates of shock therapy clearly did not expect
the fiscal shock to be particularly devastating, for two reasons:
First, proponents believed socialist states had been engaging in value subtracting behavior by expending vast amounts of resources
to prop up inefficient firms producing unneeded goods. Radical privatization therefore had the potential to generate huge savings
for the state.
Second, they expected rising tax revenues from the superior growth of de novo private firms and the improving performance
of privatized state enterprises to compensate for revenue shortfalls.
'To avoid a state fiscal crisis as a result of mass privatization, the enterprise sector would have to grow and be taxed
effectively. … mass privatization accomplished precisely the opposite: worse enterprise performance coupled with the state's declining
capacity to tax firms.'
"We argue that a post-socialist country's choice to rapidly privatize its enterprise holdings immediately reduced that state's
financial capacity, due to high budgetary dependence on the earnings of state-owned firms," write King, Stuckler, and Hamm, with
the result being a vicious cycle of mutual reinforcement between a failing state and a failing economy.
"To avoid a state fiscal crisis as a result of mass privatization, the enterprise sector would have to grow and be taxed effectively.
… mass privatization accomplished precisely the opposite: worse enterprise performance coupled with the state's declining capacity
to tax firms."
Mass privatization, mass delusion
Mass privatization (known as "coupon privatization" in the Czech Republic) was implemented by roughly half the post-communist
world. It involved distributing vouchers to ordinary citizens who could redeem them as shares in national enterprises. It was adopted
largely by countries that saw foreign investment as unlikely, exclusive insider ownership undesirable, but rejected management and
employee buyouts as stand-alone options.
The policy proved to be the most difficult to implement of the "shock therapy" package and also yielded the greatest variance
in outcomes, according to the Cambridge and Harvard researchers, who say they policy failed far and wide, for two main reasons:
First, it undermined the state by removing its revenue base-the profits from state-owned enterprises -and its ability to regulate
the emerging market economy;
Second, it created enterprises devoid of strategic ownership and guidance by opening them up to corrupt owners who stripped
assets and failed to develop their firms.
Furthermore, in most cases, newly mass privatized firms were cut off from state subsidies, but unlike firms privatized to strategic
owners, "they did not have access to resources such as investment capital, new managerial talent, or marketing networks … Faced with
this situation, owners, managers, and workers, unable to work cooperatively for the betterment of their firms, tended to pursue short-term
parasitic strategies to accumulate wealth, such as asset-stripping."
The Czech 'outlier'
Between the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and 1996, 14 countries adopted mass privatization programs leading to a combined
total over 30,000 medium and large companies privatized through such policies. In Russia, over 15,000 large and medium companies
were privatized within just two years. In the Czech Republic - where asset-stripping became so commonplace the country gave the world
a new term for it, "tunneling" -over 1,800 were privatized in four years. In the Czech Republic - where asset-stripping became
so commonplace the country gave the world a new term for it, "tunneling" - over 1,800 firm were privatized in four years.
King, Stuckler, and Hamm say, however, that the Czech Republic was a statistical "outlier" as it was one of a handful of countries
that implemented the policy yet overall enjoyed economic growth and attracted a large amount of foreign direct investment (FDI).
But that had more to do with its relatively strong starting point and geographical location, they say - and the relative success
was not to last.
"The Czech Republic was the second-richest country in the region, owed little external debt, had a long and celebrated history
of industrial production stemming from its time as the economic powerhouse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, had a readymade pre-communist
legal tradition of contract and property rights, and had a privileged location bordering Germany.
"Still, by 1999, the Czech Republic recorded the worst scores in Central and Eastern Europe on protection of property rights,
government effectiveness, and rate of growth. Moreover, case-study data demonstrate that companies privatized through vouchers experienced
substantial governance problems … and many voucher-privatized firms were renationalized before ultimately being sold to foreign investors."
Furthermore, the researchers cite McDermott of the University of Pennsylvania as having demonstrated in 2002 that in the Czech
Republic mass privatization greatly complicated corporate governance, causing assets to go unutilized because of ambiguous ownership
situations that discouraged foreigners from investing. "Well-functioning regulatory and credit rating agencies or an independent
business press might have mitigated the violation of shareholder rights, yet these institutions did not exist," King, Stuckler, and
Hamm write.
What went wrong?
Why did the transition from socialism to capitalism result in improved growth in some countries and significant economic decline
in others? King, Stuckler, and Hamm say scholars have advanced three main arguments:
successful countries rapidly implemented neoliberal policies;
failures were not due to policies but to poor institutional environments;
and policies were counterproductive because they damaged the state.
"Gradualists and shock therapy advocates both claimed that the facts vindicated their original positions. Shock therapists, however,
made one important concession: institutions and other initial conditions mattered more than they had previously acknowledged," the
researchers say.
Or as the famed monetarist and neoliberal economist Milton Friedman put it in 2002 when reflecting on post-communist Russia, "It
turns out that the rule of law is probably more basic than privatization. Privatization is meaningless if you don't have the rule
of law. What does it mean to privatize if you do not have security of property, if you can't use your property as you want to?"
'Privatization is meaningless if you don't have the rule of law. What does it mean to privatize if you do not have security
of property, if you can't use your property as you want to?'
Two years earlier, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz had argued in his seminal paper "Whither Reform? Ten Years of the Transition"
that prioritizing privatization over establishing a proper institutional framework promoted widespread corruption and asset-stripping,
with these tendencies exacerbated by the liberalization of capital accounts, which facilitated transferring money abroad, King, Stuckler,
and Hamm note.
The researchers say there is now consensus between gradualists and shock therapy advocates on another key point: some countries
- like the Czech Republic - were more predisposed to restructure their economies more effectively and achieve competitiveness in
globalized markets because of their particular historical and cultural legacies.
"Despite this concession, shock therapists continued to assert that faster and more extensive reforms lead to better performance.
They therefore claimed their initial theories were not in need of fundamental revision. Instead, they argued that variation in performance
could be explained by a combination of initial conditions and insufficient implementation of reforms," the researchers say.
For example John Nellis, a senior manager in the World Bank's Private Sector Development Department, argued in 2008 that countries
are "better off after the flawed privatizations they carried out than they would have been had they avoided or delayed divestiture."
According to the Cambridge and Harvard researchers, however, countries that proceeded more gradually in creating a private sector,
such as Poland and Slovenia, are now much closer to the "Western capitalist ideal," enjoying a relative separation of politics and
economics rather than "crony or political capitalism."
"To be sure, we are not claiming that mass privatization is the only path to post-communist patrimonialism (Bulgaria, for instance,
constitutes a clear case of patrimonial capitalism but did not implement a mass privatization program). Yet by contributing to a
fiscal crisis and creating severe governance problems, mass privatization certainly provided a fertile ground for activities conducive
to patrimonialism (e.g., funneling assets, official corruption, solicitation of kickbacks, and privatizing the means of administration)."
So, only now these "researchers" come up with something that every citizen of the victim countries has known for over two decades?
The study blames neoliberals like Sachs but ignores to uncover the link between Sachs & Co. and an economic attack by the West,
banks and certain think tanks in particular, on those countries to assure themselves of being "strategic owners" with quick profits
and that the countries "go Western capitalist ideals" to provide markets to the West. In the process, common people were forgotten.
Even now, the study talks about theories,methods, frameworks, governance, taxation, assets, etc. But nothing of what should
really count - people's lives.
Worse yet, this "lessons learned" study documents certain faults of how everything was done but it fails in several important
aspects: (1) it does not acknowledge that, without the attack by the West, the affected countries would have employed some development
models resembling the much more successful Chinese model and the outcome would have been totally different and (2) even as a warning
to various countries yet to transition from the current regimes, it fails to provide alternatives to those failed "capitalist
ideals".
Member of the Harvard gang about his experience of raping the country... Mostly face-saving nonsense. It's really sad that he escaped
jail time. Of course he was just a patsy, but that does not remove his responsibility. In any case this article suggests that he learned
nothing from the experience and still try to sell old neo-classical just forgetting the scars his criminal privatization left.
...Fourth, economists and reformers overstated both their ability to sequence reforms, and the importance of particular tactical
choices, e.g., in privatization. In retrospect, many of the theories that animated the discussion of reform – whether institutions
should be built first, whether companies should be prepared for privatization r mutual fund privatization is better, whether case
by case privatizations might work – look quaint. Reformers nearly everywhere, including in Russia, had a vastly overstated sense
of control.
Politics and competence frequently intervened and dictated to a large extent most of the tactical choices. Still, most countries,
despite different choices, ended up with largely similar outcomes (notable and sad exceptions are Belarus, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan).
In various forms, all had privatization and macroeconomic stabilization as well as legal and institutional reform to support a
market economy. Lesson learned: do not over-plan the move to markets, but, more importantly, do not delay in the hope of having a
tidier reform later.
"...the financial sector in America basically has become a criminalized sector. My colleague at the University of Missouri, Kansas
City, Professor Bill Black, calls it a criminogenic environment. "
September 20, 2011
Michael was recently interviewed on the Renegade
Economists following his visit to Medvedev's Global Policy Forum.
Karl Fitzgerald: Michael Hudson, our old friend here on the Renegade Economists, from the University of Missouri in Kansas City,
has just returned from Russia speaking at the Global Policy Forum. Michael, tell us about the GPF.
MH: well that's organized by President Medvedev more or less as an anti-Davos. Whereas the Davos invites many of the financial
people to figure out how to run the West further into debt the subject of this forum was Russian poverty and how to overcome the
fact that in the last 20 years the neo-liberal program that promised that Russia and the rest of the soviet republics would get rich
has simply driven them all into debt and impoverished them.
KF: And so 30 years on from glasnost there must be quite some sense of concern about where the Russian economy has ended up.
MH: there certainly is. It's been losing not only capital flight of $25 billion a year to the west but its people have been emigrating
and President Putin, now Prime Minister Putin, has said that the demographic effect of just privatizing Russian real estate, and
industry and following western advice has lost maybe 30 million Russians from what the normal demographic growth would be to 2050.
So the effect of neo-liberal financial policy has been more devastating to Russia than WW2.
KF: 30 million people have gone due to neo-liberal policies?
MH: that's right. The birth rate has fallen, life spans are shortening, and this is throughout the former Soviet Union. People
of working age are emigrating. Instead of getting rid of the old Stalinist bureaucracy the neo-liberals simply privatized it
and the result of course is corruption. Now public officials that used to be in charge of handing out public policies and
administering them -- not very efficiently its true – simply say give us a bribe or we won't work.
In Latvia, for instance, people who go to doctors are expected to pay the doctors under the table in a little white envelope…but
most notorious of all is the real estate debt they've taken on. What's unique is that, just imagine, 20 years ago when there was
the revolution that turned over power to Yeltsin in Russia and broke up the Soviet Union there wasn't any debt at all. Families had
all been living in their homes without paying rent and getting a free public education, public services were free and employers provided
lunch, vacations and pensions, cultural and all of these connections were pulled up. And all of a sudden instead of just turning
over the property to the people who lived in the homes and the businesses that used the offices the government said, okay, we are
going to put it all up for sale and let the banks, usually the foreign banks, lend you the money, to buy it.
And the result was the biggest real estate bubble in the world in the mid 90's and this is what started the whole real estate
bubble- certainly what catalyzed it in the west because all of a sudden Russians, Latvians, Estonians and other people had to take
on a lifetime of debt in order to get the homes that they'd been living in and not be thrown out on the street. So essentially
they were told your money or your life – that's neo- liberalism.
KF: And they've turned over from quite a stable society to one based on volatility, and oil price volatility. The after effects
of the 2008 meltdown must have shocked a lot of people in the Russian government. What was the talk along those lines – what were
people thinking about?
MH: Very little because they'd already in 1991 dismantled their industry. They were told that the way to get rich was to become
a raw materials exporter or what the American protectionists and the bible called "hewers of wood and drawers of water". So Russia
simply dismantled its industry. The west said, oh, you're not competitive and what the Russians didn't realize is that all of this
was very self serving to the west. The West, especially the American planners -- the Harvard boys that went over said, well,
we really don't want is for Russia ever to be a military threat. We'd like to conquer it, to break it up, let's now just slam them
at the end of the cold war.
So without an industrial, manufacturing base there can't really be much of a military. So the first thing they did was say – get
rid of your manufacturing, get rid of your engineering, begin charging for your schooling, close down the schools – you don't need
engineers all you really need to do is make a hole in the ground.
But none of this export revenue from the hole in the ground should really be turned over to the state – we want to make sure that
you only tax labor and tax business, but don't tax natural resources – let it all be privatized. And so Russia thought, gee this
sounds like a funny way to get rich but that's what they did. And so they followed the Harvard advice to give away the oil, the nickel
companies, the mineral resources, and that's how they got the money to begin sending it all to the west. There wasn't any Russian
money to buy these companies because the IMF and World Bank wiped out Russian savers with a hyper inflation by getting rid of all
the capital controls and letting the rouble float. So it was just one bad advice after another and now the Russians realize they've
been taken.
And they're trying to figure out how on earth do we get out of this mess following the West's advice. They thought, and the Baltics
thought, that they were been told how to develop in the way that the West did. Neo-liberalism is the exact opposite of how Britain
and the United States, Germany, Japan, and now China, got rich by progressive taxation, and having public infrastructure provided
at much lower cost than privatized infrastructure and a resource fund tax, basically a land tax which is how Europe and America –
states and localities – have been financed all throughout their history.
KF: So what was the sentiment at this GPF? Was there much discussion along those lines or are they tinkering at the edges with
Tobin taxes and the like?
MH: Mostly tinkering at the edges. For instance Paul Krugman was invited and most of the focus was on the US and western financial
meltdown. And he pointed out that while the problem of the post 2008 bubble was caused by private sector banking -the financial bubble
– the solution is focusing on fiscal policy and particularly cutbacks in social security, Medicare and social spending and so the
government's response to the crisis that the banks have caused is to reduce living standards for labor all the more by taxing labor.
There was no discussion by the Americans or by anybody that there was another fiscal policy that would have prevented the bubble
in the first place, namely taxing the land and taxing real estate, and having a resource rent tax that wouldn't have left all of
this free lunch income available to be pledged to the banks and paid out as interest.
KF: I just can't understand this austerity mentality that's going on. Have Western economies lost the understanding of the multiplier
effect? Can you explain to us what the multiplier effect is and why it's no longer relevant under today's neo liberal agenda?
MH: The basic idea is that if there is a decline in purchasing power – what we're in right now in the West is debt deflation –
people have to pay so much more money every month to pay their mortgage debt, their bank debt, their education loans and other bank
loans, that they don't have enough money to spend on goods and services. Now without spending on what labor produces – the goods
and services – the businesses are not going to employ more labor to produce goods and services and they're not going to invest in
capital.
So the idea is if there's a shortfall in the demand for goods and services the government should step in and run a budget deficit
to rebuild the infrastructure because that's what governments have always provided – roads and everything – in order to keep the
economy solvent. But the bankers and the neo-liberals don't want this.
When you have a poverty imposed on a country decade after decade, somebody is benefiting from all this and people are saying isn't
it too bad that economies are getting poor. Well it's not too bad at all if you're a banker because now these countries like Greece
and Ireland are broke and now the bankers get to go to them and say, well, you have to finance your government spending not by government
running a deficit – but sell us your real estate, sell us your mines.
So the bankers of the European central bank have gone to Greece and said in order for us not to plunge you into anarchy and just
destroy your banking system you have to sell us your prime tourist land, ports, water and sewer systems so we can begin to charge
people for water and sewers – you have to sell us your roads so that we can put up toll booths, but most of all give us your land,
give us the Parthenon and if you don't we will wreck your economy.
So what most people think is a policy mistake isn't a mistake at all by the bankers. This is where they say foreclosure time has
arrived and we're going to get rich. This is where we put on the squeeze and the effect of finance under these conditions is very
much like a military invasion but it's a military attack without anybody losing their life except for the people who commit suicide,
who die early and emigrate for the whole thing. So people don't realize that the poverty for the many and the austerity is how the
wealthy 1% of the population gets to clean up.
KF: surely though in Russia they've seen these huge property bubbles in Moscow, they've seen the oligarchs fly around the world
buying up soccer teams all over the place and on the other side they've got their lead ice hockey team die in a plane crash and the
average person on the street is not even surprised that planes fall out of the sky like anybody's business over there. So how much
can the people in Russia handle before they get really serious about looking at deep seated economic reform?
MH: nobody knows. There are the oligarchs and while Russia is known for the fact that much of the population is in poverty the
fact is that they've created an awful lot of billionaires, almost more than anywhere else by giving them all of the land, resources,
oil and the gas. So all the billionaires do what they do in other countries. They pretty much control the government and they've
convinced the government to stop providing schooling and to close down many of the schools, especially in engineering, and they control
the media so people really aren't discussing the kind of thing that we're discussing here.
That came out pretty clearly. The head of the economics section of the Academy of Sciences did ask me to write up most of these
ideas to put them into discussion but the discussion has been almost entirely censored by the neo-liberal advisers who they brought
over, ever since Jeffrey Sachs and the Harvard boys all came over and said don't follow any advice but ours – there was a choice
and they don't realize in Russia that there was a choice.
For instance in 1991 my friend Ted Gwartney went over to St Petersburg in Moscow and offered to make a land map for them and said,
look, if you make a land map and the price of real estate goes up, if the rental value of these homes goes up this should be your
tax base and you'll have the money to continue to spend on infrastructure – you won't have to tax your labor and you can make your
industry into a world competitive force.
Well he was told by the World Bank that's not our plan. Our plan is to have a flat tax – to tax labor, not to tax land and
resources because we want the West to buy up these resources. We want to buy it all and we don't want to be taxed. We want the Russians
to pay the tax and then we want all of their skilled labor to go to the West and that will cripple them. Russia's poverty is the
West's benefit in this case and the result was that Russia became the world's leading stock market from 1994 to 1997 and made enormous
fortunes for Wall Street speculators while essentially emptying out Russian capital, labor, industry and the same thing happened
in the Baltics.
KF: and now we have David Cameron in Russia spruiking up the support for Russia to join the WTO.
MH: I can't understand that. Nobody discussed that in policy. We just talked about how Russia could overcome the poverty that
it's in and what they could do.
KF: so it's interesting what's happening on the world trade frontier we're seeing this new age of protectionism becoming more
and more prevalent with currency devaluation and recently the Swiss franc had a cap placed on it. Of course the Chinese Reminibi
has always been undervalued there to assist their exports. What you are seeing now that America has all sorts of public-private contracts
written in where there's local procurement policies in place where you to buy a certain amount of steel from a local manufacturer
for example.
MF: that's been the case for the last 100 years. America has always been the most protectionist country in the world. This is
where the theory of protectionism was really refined in the second half of the 19th century and when the WTO and international trade
agreements – the GATT- were being formed after WW2 the US grandfathered in its protectionism. It said we're going to have free trade
except for countries that already have agricultural price supports and other subsidies – they get to continue what they're doing
and so America has always been the most protectionist country in the world and that's what I wrote about in (my books) "Global Fracture"
and "Super Imperialism".
KF: Well so many countries are looking to protect their own backyard because of the short electoral cycle, because of the failure
of these neo-liberal policies to deliver the so called wealth bonus for everyone and now the story keeps growing – let's blame the
banks for it was all to do with their corrupt lendings. Well I was very interested the other week to see the FHFA lawsuits against
17 banks in America been launched, and it was stated that Goldman Sachs were employing property valuers or appraisers who would overstate
the value of the land that they were lending against and I was just wondering – you say you worked with a few land valuers, Ted Gwartney
you mentioned – how they have been incorporated into this giant bubble ponzi scheme we are stuck within?
MH: the financial sector in America basically has become a criminalized sector. My colleague at the University of Missouri,
Kansas City, Professor Bill Black, calls it a crimino-genic environment. He was one of the heads of the Federal Savings and
Loans Bank board back in the 1980's when the Savings and Loans were going bust on crooked loans to real estate and
he points
out at that time 2000 executives were sent to jail for financial fraud. In this bubble nobody has been sent to jail not even
the big perpetrators such as Angelo Mizzello of Countrywide and the reason is that the banks bought immunity from politics by backing
politicians who agreed not to regulate – not to do anything about the financial fraud that the FBI itself warned about. Basically
you're going to have criminals going to where all the money is – you know – where the wealth is.
The economy's richest sector isn't industry – it's actually real estate – and the largest element of real estate is land. So most
of the criminals all said here's where all the money is, here's where we can get rich in real estate lending. So in America they
had no documentation loans so in other words the banks said we have got to begin … here's this huge market and we make money making
loans – let's fuel a real estate bubble. They fueled it by easier and easier loan terms.
In the past in America a local bank would make a loan to somebody they knew – families that put 30% down and they would pay off
with their income and the bank would use this income to pay part of it out as interest to depositors. Well in the last 15 to 20 years
banks have begun to package them and sell them to other people. So the crookedness and the fraud took place in having mortgages way
above the property value at a very high interest rate and then selling them to pension funds, to German banks, and to foreigners
and essentially selling them property for much more than it was actually worth.
For instance the FBI found that 80% of the mortgage loans in these packages were fraudulent and in the worst of the liar's loans
– the AAA rated packages- the average actual price of the property in America happened to be the same value as in Ireland – 22 cents
on the dollar. In other words 4/5 of these loans were just way beyond the value. Well that's why all of a sudden, now that the banks
are no longer fueling property by credit – and they've withdrawn their loans – that's why property prices have fallen by about 30%
in America and you walk down the street and there are "For Sale" signs everywhere and there are empty shops in the big shopping streets.
KF: so I just want to get this straight. Are you saying that it's the packaging up of mortgages and on-selling them in these exploding
interest type mortgages was that what caused the great recession that we are in now in or was there a deeper part?
MH: well the deeper cause is the fact there was a real estate bubble to begin with and the reason people wanted to take out mortgages
now was that they thought that we had better buy a home now before the price rises even further and they didn't realize that the
reason prices were rising were because the banks were making easier and easier credit. They thought that homes were worth what the
rental value was or what people could afford to pay when actually what a home is worth is whatever a bank is going to lend against
it. So if somebody goes out to buy a home they're bidding against other people for the same house and the winner is the person who
can get the biggest bank loan and that's the person who says I'm going to pledge all the rental value to the bank so the bank gets
all the rent as if it were the landlord.
So three years ago, for the first time in American history, the average home equity relative to bank loan fell below 50%. And
now, just 3 years later, for the USA as a whole, homeowners own only 1/3 of their home, 2/3 are owned by the banks and that it is
despite the fact that about 20% of homes are owned without any mortgage at all- free and clear.
It's basically a financial bubble that is based on what the banks can squeeze out of people who are trying to buy houses on credit
and the price of credit – the debt service – absorbs all of the rental value. So in the past people used to criticize landlords for
squeezing workers living standards but now that you've democratized land ownership it's the banks that are doing the squeezing. But
obviously there has to be the rental value there and in America about 40% of a blue collar worker's income goes to pay for housing.
Now that's an enormous percentage. You don't have a bank bubble in Germany so that there you only have 20% of income going to pay
labor. So you talked about protectionism and trade earlier and people think, gee. German labor must be highly productive so that
it can afford to undersell everyone else although the reality is that German labor doesn't have to pay as much of a mortgage as American
labor so of course Germany can undersell Americans using the same technology.
KF: what I'm trying to get at though is because the tax system penalizes us for working and rewards speculation in property, surely,
that has given the big heads up to the powers that be to invest in real estate, to speculate, in that area and that's what has forced
the land prices up so high that its forced all these people to become sub-prime mortgagees – you know they wouldn't have had that
home credit stress if the price of land was lower due to the tax system but you're saying, listen, that its only due to what the
banks can lend. Isn't that secondary?
MH: now wait a minute – there's a connection between the two. By not taxing land the government has left all of this rental value
free to be pledged to the banks. People think that land tax actually increases the overall burden of homeowners and workers but its
just the opposite. If this rental value that's been pledged to the banks as mortgage interest were taxed then the banks wouldn't
be able to capitalize the rent into a large mortgage loan. Housing prices would be much lower if we had the old fashion land tax
like we used to have and also by taxing the land you wouldn't have to have all of these heavy taxes that are put on labor. For instance
in Latvia in 2 weeks they're having a national election. In Latvia there's a set of flat taxes on employment that add up to 59% of
the wage budget and there's only a 1% tax on the value of property. So here you have money going into real estate which is untaxed
– people will borrow against it – and instead of the government getting this rental value which is created by nature and by the community
building roads and infrastructure the banks get it and the government has turn to somewhere else to tax – namely on to employment.
KF: I'm pleased you clarified that Michael because a lot of people blame the 70's recession and stagflation period on the oil
bubble but few remember there was a monstrous land price bubble that happened back then. I'm seeing that this era we're going through
now, we're going to blame the wrong thing – we're going to say listen it was the banks and all of their dodgy lending strategies
that caused this whereas really to look right at the root cause it would be fairer to say, look, it's the land problem and we've
got to tax the right things.
MH: the banks lending strategies are part and parcel of fiscal policy. Financial reform and fiscal reform are two sides of the
same coin because banks lend against whatever the tax collector doesn't collect. If you don't tax a free lunch then it gets pledged
to the banks just like when the Russians gave away their oil and gas, the kleptocrats borrowed, mainly from the west, to buy these
things, so that the government didn't get the revenue. There's a tradeoff between either taxes or interest but one way or another
somebody's going to pay the rental value of the mines, of homes, and of office buildings – of all of these things – so the whole
economy is turned from a real estate toll booth into a financial toll booth.
KF: so essentially you're seeing that the world economy is going to splutter along for another 5 or so years in this recessionary
mode with everyone on the edge of our seats worrying about share markets?
MH: it will continue to shrink. Nobody can see how industrial profits can grow if they're not able to sell. In America 40% of
recorded corporate profits are made by the banks. Now when that happens – these are not factories, these are not employment figures
– I think the Bank of America said yesterday that it's firing 30,000 people – the banks are downsizing because the economy is all
loaned up – there's no one else they're going to make loans to. The economy is shrinking steadily, I think, over the next 5 years,
and it will continue to shrink as far as the eye can see until people write down the debts and change the tax policy.
Additional un-published commentary:
KF: Michael Hudson – fantastic to have you on the show. On a finishing note, 1/3 of Australia's corporate profits just announced
this profit reporting season were from the mining sector.
MH: uh ha – well that means that all of these profits could have been taken by the government which used to own all the sub-soil
wealth and that means that money that used to be paid in taxes, so that they wouldn't have to tax employment, instead is been paid
out to the financial sector and in fact when I met with the central bankers down in Australia in 2009 they said Australia doesn't
need any industry, it doesn't even need employment, all it really needs is to make money off the mines' mineral exports – to make
holes in the ground. So I'm not sure what the Australian's are hoping to get out of all this.
KF: yeah well we're just a giant quarry, a quarry economy that seems to be what's happening around the world and quite interesting
to see that in Brazil that they're talking about a 4% royalty on iron ore rates – just 4% – and of course the 'poor' miners there
are screaming about it. You beat your head against a wall wondering how much easy money these guys have to make before they realize
how some of this commonwealth should be paid back to the government.
MH: well that's what we call wealth addiction. Their demands are infinite and they are willing to sacrifice billions of dollars
in the economy just to make 10 or 20 dollars more for themselves. That's the financial mentality.
KF: Michael I hear you've been writing a book. What topics are you covering?
MH: well I'm putting together most of my economic essays and the economic model that has described all of this. I'm explaining
that there are two approaches to the economy. One is the sort of neo-liberal free trade approach that's taught almost censorialy
today in the text books and the other is the classical economics approach that made a distinction between earned income and unearned
income, between the rentiers getting a free lunch and the industrial economy. And I've been publishing this for about 20
years. So I'm putting it all into more or less a history of economic thought and application to today's bubble economy to explain
it all.
KF: fantastic Michael – we'll keep an eye on michael-hudson.com for more on that.
New York City Janine Wedel's article "The Harvard Boys Do Russia" [June 1] makes several false statements concerning my activities
in Russia. For the past decade I have been deeply committed to helping Russia make the transition from a closed to an open society,
and the philanthropic organizations I established for that purpose have spent hundreds of millions of dollars toward that end.
Beginning in 1994, the funds I advise also became investors in Russia, but they have made only investments that were available
to others on equal terms. That remains my self-imposed rule. As for the specific activities mentioned in the article, the funds
I advise did participate in Sputnik Funds with Harvard Management Company and others. However, it is the Sputnik Funds that became
a significant shareholder in Novolipetsk and Sidanko. The funds I advise are passive investors. Wedel also errs in her characterization
of the Sviazinvest auction - Russia's first genuinely contested public auction for a company undergoing privatization. The funds
I advise participated in the syndicate that made the winning bid for Sviazinvest. The syndicate won the auction by offering a
higher payment than any other bidder and for no other reason. While I am distressed over the course events have taken since the
collapse of the Soviet system, I have nothing to be ashamed of with regard to my own activities. I have derived no special benefits
or abused my position as a philanthropist, as the article implies.
George Soros
WEDEL REPLIES Washington, D.C. The facts on these points presented in my article were scrupulously researched by journalist Anne
Williamson, as detailed in her forthcoming book, How America Built the New Russian Oligarchy. I do not dispute George Soros's statement
that the investments referred to were made by funds he "advises" and not by him individually. Given the fact that advisers both control
and have large financial stakes in the funds they advise, this seems to be a distinction without a difference. With respect to the
two issues Soros disputes, the facts are as follows: Soros's investments via the Sputnik Fund were not equally available to others.
Williamson explains that Soros and the Harvard Management Company were the only foreign entities allowed to participate in
a program known as "loans for shares," in contradiction of the program's own guidelines. She details the transactions through
which the Sputnik Fund made Soros's "passive" investors the beneficiaries, along with Harvard Management, in the auctions of Novolipetsk
and Sidanko.
Soros's characterization of the Sviazinvest auction as one in which competition among bidders was genuine is misleading. The sequence
of events was corroborated by Veniamin Sokolov, the elected head of Russia's Chamber of Accounts (the rough equivalent of the US
General Accounting Office), several weeks ago in Washington. Sokolov said that a Cyprus-based company created by Uneximbank (Soros's
Sviazinvest partner) to bid on Sviazinvest had only $10,000 in declared capital and yet managed to find $1.3 billion from an undisclosed
source to pay into the Cyprus account shortly before the auction.
Soros has admitted that a week before the Sviazinvest offering he made a personal loan of "several hundred million" (Russia's
former privatization minister has specified $700 million) to the Russian government. But Sokolov said that auditors can find no trace
of that loan in government accounts. Since Uneximbank did not disclose the origin of the $1.3 billion as Russian law requires, according
to Sokolov, auditors are investigating whether the "loan" was used to fund Uneximbank's winning bid for Sviazinvest and for another
firm. In sum, these deals with which Soros is associated in Russia were not "available to others on equal terms." Although Soros
is to be praised for his well-known philanthropies, the activities detailed here and in my article are also part of the record. Janine
R. Wedel
"Goldman Sachs' fees (GKO-Eurobonds conversion lead manager) will exceed by several times the level usually paid for such duties."
As expected, Goldman Sachs did not miss the orgy of looting Russia
...Rulers' motivation is, of course, crucial for commenting on their deeds. Mr. Lieven's sarcasm is well-founded when he writes
about persisting habit to deduce policy-making from particular ideologies. Let be Bill Clinton other people's issue. In Russia, Boris
Yeltzin is since long, for absolute majority of population, personification of greed, corruption and cruelty of his regime. He is
deservedly one of the most despised and hated personalities at the top.
I reckon, regular Russia observers could not have been mislead by 1996 election results. The reading of that campaign was an unequivocal
intimidation: 'Vote, or you will lose!' In a broader context, the message was: those, who seized nation's wealth will not give it
away, be that at cost of another mass-bloodshed. They had army, and the KGB, and the West at their side - so, the acting of many
Russian voters was quite 'pragmatic' - yet another time in Russia's history!
Did some Western observers really miss that key element in the 1996 campaign? Yet, it outlined so clearly both the character of
the situation and the combination of forces ready to maintain it by whatever means.
What we have in this country today is, in the first line, a typical class-division, with upper classes enjoying absence of organised
unions or parties protecting labour interests (nothing new under the sun - alas!). Here lies, in fact, the major source of instability
in Russia. Given criminal, reckless nature of the ruling clique, there are no guarantees against further social deterioration and
unrest.
Recent crises in mining areas have showed once again: organised criminality (well-armed and extremely savage) is, at the end,
on this government's side. They share basic economic interests as well as common values. They are also very similar in their styles.
And they cooperate.
This explains why it so difficult, almost impossible, to set up, say, an effective union somewhere in Kemerovo region. The repression
will follow immediately. It will, in fact, preclude any such actions due to well-established FSB- observance.
An ordinary Russian (a miner, a farmer, an oil-worker) is not so simple as not to see who and how have stolen his salary (no parasitism-impregnated
'Who's to blame?' in those places - that's why so few contacts to Moscow intelligentsia). But one is well aware from his daily practice
where the hard-defined limits for counter-acting are. Present regime in Russia is based on terror.
I admit, it's all somewhat prosaic and so remote from meditations on 'Russia's fate' and on 'Russian idea'. But this is the local
reality without which global relationships wouldn't work either.
Globally, I prefer to see what happened during 80-90-s and what is going to continue from a perspective broader than 'the end
of the cold war', and 'the collapse of communism'. The USSR was swept by the wave of market liberalisation which earlier reached
most Western countries and China. The expanding financial markets, equipped with all necessary hard- and soft-ware, were in need
of new play- grounds. Privatisation, changes in policies and in propaganda followed. Today, all what is reported on Moscow-IMF deals,
on 'stabilisation', on tax reforms is being performed within segments of Russian economy - and of Russian life altogether - which
happened to get involved into those games. Everything beyond these segments appears for many irrelevant, almost inexistent: it doesn't
fit into schemes compatible to IMF balances.
The posture of 'transition' - criticised by Mr. Lieven as by many other authors now - has its origins within international finances
as well. An 'other-people's-money' manager has to impose upon his creditor's minds the idea of debtor's proceeding in a 'per aspera
ad astra' mode. So that he will
be able to pay back some time in future. The rest of the story should be known to the JRL regular contributors better than to
myself.
For those interested in 'financial anatomy' and in what happened at recent IMF-Chubais meetings - please read 'Kommersant-Daily'
July 15 report (p. 7). You can learn here, i.a., that:
conversion of domestic debt into foreign obligations will rise dollars' role in what is called Russian finances with Moscow
government's influence depleting even further;
Russia, seemingly, has served as a ground for FRS intrigues against Central European Bank;
Chubais was tending in the course of talks with IMF to lower status of resident GKO investors as compared with non-residents
(!);
Goldman Sachs' fees (GKO-Eurobonds conversion lead manager) will exceed by several times the level usually paid for such duties.
Now, you could hardly have this system running without certain conditions being kept at Kemerovo and at Vorkuta. The task
is twofold: to bring labour cost below zero (while destroying general living conditions), and to neutralise those who disagree. This
local-global link is fundamental for most Third-world countries and clearly outweighs in its explanatory value all what is usually
said about today's Russia in terms like national character and historical predestination.
The war in Chechnya was evidently the major accelerator towards situation we're now in. It drained Russia's resources till effective
bankruptcy broke out last fall.
As to the Chechnya war itself, it was fought not to be won at all. One's always puzzled a bit by reading analysis confined to
the martial side of the event. Who cared about winning or losing battles, of maintaining Russia's territorial integrity? Look into
faces of Grachev of Soskovetz to realise what I mean. Go deeper into their backgrounds and 'motivations' as far your stomachs will
sustain.
Many would recall virtual gold-rush mood in Moscow during that war-time. $millions transaction and deals effected through bombings,
advancing/retreating, selling & reselling arms, taking hostages, letting soldiers and civilians (Russian citizens) get killed. The
record, well-documented, is plentiful and mostly accessible due to usual compromat- warfare. Chernomyrdin himself admitted publicly
that there was a CURRENT COORDINATION between Chechen commanders and Moscow magnates. And - what?
To extract the essence - simply look what happened next. All but nothing! One business was over, others were to get started. No
political or personal consequences. No moral assessments. Not a word from Russian priests. Except for 'Soldiers' Mothers' movement,
'motivated' through pain and desperation, no noticeable reaction or repentance whatsoever. No signs of public solidarity as well.
That's the real area for reflections and for examination!
I guess, the Chechnya case implies clearly enough what I hold of all US and Jewish 'conspiracies', mentioned, in passing, by Mr.Lieven.
To show transcendent nature of some of Russia's phenomena - the Afghanistan war was, essentially, isomorphic to Chechnya war which
followed shortly after.
There also was a business-like agitation and enthusiasm, during the entire decade, at every spot endowed with supply, distribution
and promotion. That artificially provoked crisis has brought a relief to wide parts of VPK and to army bureaucracy plagued by the
70-s stagnation, and by arms control in Europe.
The Afghanistan enterprise appeared more than welcomed. Was the war fought for access to Indian ocean? For preaching Marxism-Leninism
to Beludshi nomads? All to easy explanations deriving directly from propaganda of that time.
Yet, Afghanistan war may have absorbed part of energies and discontent within nomenklatura (and within younger officers' ranks)
which otherwise may have been channelled into a different direction. In this sense, NATO-policy during the 80-s was reasonable. No
one knows, what kind of Warsaw-Treaty 'defence initiative' could have otherwise overtaken Central Europe. Supplying those army-groups
with mounts of hardware was maybe the most lucrative sort of business mankind ever saw. Accidentally, no international investors
had opportunity to join at that time.
Summarising, I only again can praise Mr.Lieven's effort to go beyond usual 'Russian historical instincts' and 'Russians' inherited
strivings' patterns. Even if the 'cultural' barrier allegedly dividing East and West so safely acquires then some new breches.
Subject: The Masque of Democracy: Russia's Liberal Capitalist Revolution and the Collapse of State Power.
Dear David - at risk of overloading your list with my outpourings - here is another piece culled from the book which tries
to put Russia today in the context of the development of liberal capitalism over the past two centuries in countries with weak states
and civil societies. From Anatol Lieven
[This is a condensed version of Chapter 4 of my book, "Chechnya: Tombstoneof Russian Power", which was published by Yale University
Press in May.]
The Masque of Democracy: Russia's Liberal Capitalist Revolution and the Collapse of State Power.
"Ivan Vasilich the Terrible with his valiant retinue is feasting tirelessly near Mother Moscow.
A row of tables glitters with golden jugs; the dissolute oprichniki are sitting at the tables.
From Vespers onwards wines flow onto the Tsar's carpets, from midnight spirited minstrels sing to him;
They sing of the joys of war, of the battles of olden times, of the capture of Kazan and the conquest of Astrakhan.But the voice
of former glory does not gladden the Tsar; he bids his cupbearer hand him a mask.
Long live my officers, my oprichniki! And you bards, you nightingales, pluck the strings more loudly!Let each of you, my friends,
choose himself a mask; I will lead off the gay dance myself!"
...(From "Prince Mikhail Repnin", by Count Alexey Tolstoy, 1817-75.)
The Russia that went to war in Chechnya in December 1994 was and remains both a weak state and one in the throes of a liberal
capitalist revolution - part of the second great wave of such revolutions that the world has seen over the past 200 years. The first
wave, in the 19th Century, shattered the old ruling trinity of monarchy, church and nobility (while also co-opting elements of all
three), and also destroyed or severely undermined the social and economic forms and traditions of the peasantry and the urban artisanate.
This was the true modernising revolution of the modern era, and it has been repeated in our own time in the active or passive
revolutions against Communism: in China since 1979 by a state-led process, and in the former Soviet bloc since 1989 by a mixture
of elite-led changes and upsurges from below. However, it is perfectly obvious that the first wave of liberal revolutions had very
different results for different countries and cultures, and different regions within the same country. The striking economic success
stories usually occurred either where existing social and cultural trends strongly favoured this, or - as in Russia in the 1890s
and China in the 1980s - where a strong state threw its power behind reform.
Elsewhere - in much of Italy and Spain, and most of Latin America - liberal economics was to produce only weak, unstable and unbalanced
economic growth; while for much or even most of the population it led to increased poverty, disinheritance, social oppression backed
by the police, intense social, moral and geographical dislocation, the establishment in power of corrupt and unproductive comprador
elites, and severe damage to the environment.
Most of the world in the 1990s after all lives neither under totalitarianism nor under a prosperous Western style capitalist democracy.
Most people on this earth live under political systems more akin to the anarchic quasi-feudalism - with political and criminal "clans",
including armed retainers, following particular magnates or bosses - incisively described by Vladimir Shlapentokh. However, rather
than the Medieval feudalism Shlapentokh uses as a model - which was at its height a formal, recognised system enshrined in law, contract,
religion and culture - a closer historical analogy might be the "cacique" system of liberal Spain and much of Latin America in the
later 19th and early 20th Centuries - a system admittedly with certain analogies to a kind of "bastard feudalism" . It was a time
when Spain's governments never ceased to trumpet their allegiance to constitutionalism, law, and enlightened progress, but in which
real power on the ground was held by corrupt local political chieftains (cacique comes from the Caribbean Indian word for a chief),
who distributed patronage and government contracts, fixed or "made" elections on behalf of their patrons in Madrid, and occasionally
bumped off inconvenient political opponents, critical journalists, trades unionists and so on.
Another key difference between the two traditions, all too applicable to Russia today, was incisively remarked on by Gerald Brenan:
"The defects of the Spanish upper classes are sometimes put down to their having a feudal mentality. I do not think this word
has been well chosen.: feudalism implies a sense of mutual obligations that has long been entirely lacking in Spain..."
Such systems can prove remarkably stable and long-lasting, and even generate considerable economic growth. To their better-off
inhabitants, and those with some form of "protection", they offer major personal freedoms and opportunities. They also however tend
to be characterised by very high levels of organised crime, personal insecurity, atrocious public health, bad public education, rampant
bureaucacy and bureaucratic corruption, and vicious exploitation of the poor and the environment. Their states are generally far
too weak and corrupt to enforce the law, raise taxes efficiently and fairly, and protect the weaker sections of society. In extreme
cases, like Columbia and to an increasing extent Mexico in the 1990s, the state itself may be largely taken over by criminal forces.
As will be apparent however from the succeeding chapters - as indeed is blindingly apparent from the evidence - the nature of
the new order rules out any serious mobilisation of this wealth, via revenue, for the armed forces or indeed any other major state
tasks. The Soviet Union used to be cited by political scientists as an extreme version of the "strong state", contrasted to "weak
states" like India for example. This was always partly illusory, but at least the illusion could be maintained, though only by ultimately
crippling military spending. Today, the privatisation - indeed, the virtual hollowing-out - of Russian state structures by the new
elites, combined with a collapse of the ideology of patriotsm and state service, has left Russia as a classically weak state, unable
even to raise enough revenue to pay her soldiers, or enough patriotism to motivate them to fight without pay.
While in recent decades some of these countries have escaped from these syndromes, a good many others have remained to a considerable
extent stuck in them. Even periods of "miraculous" economic growth, as in Mexico, have not been enough to raise the bulk of society
to a high, stable, and secure economic plane - if only because of the way that economic distribution was skewed.
The truth of this for the modern world was brought out in a sober and perspective series in the Washington Post over the New Year
1996/97, entitled "For Richer, For Poorer". With regard to Mexico - a country which in recent years has carried out a full programme
of economic reforms, and attracted vastly more foreign investment than Russia - Molly Moore wrote that,
"Now, Mexico stands as a prime case study for critics who argue that globalisation...is proving not to be a reliable mechanism
for raising the Third World out of poverty...
"Billions of dollars of capital flowed into Mexico during the past 10 years...But Mexico, like many of its Latin American neighbours,
has two almost separate economies, divided by geography, technology and by ethnicity - and only one of them has benefited from
the new money. [The] proportion of Mexicans considered 'extremely poor' has increased sharply."
This was also true during a previous period of rapid Mexican economic growth in the 1950s and 60s, when the economy grew by an
average of sixpercent a year - an impressive period, even for that period, and one whichRussia today can only yearn to achieve. Even
so, however, this did notcreate a breakthrough to first world standards of living and economicstability - least of all for the poor,
whose share of national incomedeclined. Typically, the wealth generated was also disproportionatelyconcentrated in the capital and
one or two other great commercial centres;thus Moscow's economy is estimated to have grown by ten per cent or more inthe mid-1990s,
even while the economy as a whole has declinedprecipitously, and Moscow may now account for as much as 35 per cent ofRussian GDP
- something which also facilitates the concentration ofpolitical power in the hands of a metropolitan oligarchy. In some cases -
including, it increasingly appears, that of Mexico inthe 1990s - the condition of these countries, and especially of theirpoorer
classes, has been made even worse by a mushrooming of organisedcrime, and its increasing hold on the state and "legitimate" economy.
It is for the optimistic ideological free marketeers - the Aslunds,Layards and others - to explain why they do not think that this
is a realand serious long-term prospect for Russia.
Yegor Gaidar declared in 1992 that:
"the choice is not between Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian models of capitalism; it's between the European and the African."
But this disguises far more than it reveals. Russia is not a failed state, and the Russian economy and infrastructureare far too
developed, Russian society is far too modernised and well-educated ever to fall to African levels; but there are a vast range of
possible paths somewhere between that and becoming a fully developed partof the capitalist West.
Privatisation as Enclosure of the Common Land.
Leaving aside the absence of mass violence and the links between liberalism and nationalism, in another respect there is rather
a close parallel between the Russia of today and Italy - and other liberal-ruled states - of the 19th Century; this is in one of
the processes by which the new elites acquired their wealth: in Russia, through privatisation of state property; in Italy, Spain,
Mexico and elsewhere, though "land reform"; in both cases, with the help of massive corruption, and under the ideological umbrella
of a triumphalist liberal capitalism.
We have seen all this before, and not once but many times. The land reforms which in Italy, Spain, Mexico and else wherere distributed
the lands of the Church, of the village communes, and of some of the great feudal landowners, have a very familiar ring to anyone
who knows Russian privatisation. They were supposed to be equitably and justly conducted, to lead to the creation of a class of small
but efficient capitalist peasant farmers, to break the power of the Church and other anti-liberal forces, and to help the peasants
themselves escape from the twin traps - as seen by the urban liberals - of traditional peasant culture and traditional peasant agriculture.
That is what was supposed to happen - and in a few places did happen. In England, the dissolution of the monasteries and the enclosure
of the commons (much older processes of course than the 19th Century liberal landreforms) undoubtedly contributed greatly to the
eventual development of efficient modern agriculture in England, though they were deeply socially unjust, destructive of ancient
communities and traditions, destructive oft he environment, and hated by the poorer peasantry. What happened elsewhere can be summed
up in a few examples: in Mexico, for example, where the liberal reformers, the so called "cientificos" (because of the positivist
claim of these US-trained Mexican economists to represent "scientific" solutions to Mexico's problems - very reminiscent of Gaidar,
Chubais et al ) set out to break up the lands of the Church and the common lands of the Indian villages, in the name of economic
efficiency and progress. An initial limit of 2,500 hectares was supposed to prevent the accumulation of new vast haciendas (great
estates), but this was ignored from the start.
As a result, "the 1880s and 1890s witnessed a land grab of unprecedented proportions." By 1910 more than half of rural Mexicans
lived on haciendas. Local magnates, political bosses or military men, with links to the regime, simply used the law to seize the
land of the peasants, after declaring that they were baldio, or lacking private title. Where the Indios and peasants resisted, they
were shot down and driven off by the army, the police or privately hired pistoleros.
A million acres of Yaqui Indian land went to the Torres family alone. In a majority of cases, the improvement in economic efficiency
was very limited (inevitably, on estates of such an unmanageable size and given the lack of new capital), and certainly did not begin
to offset the resulting immiseration of large sections of the peasantry and especially the indigenous Indian population. Moreover,
thanks to the weakness and corruption of the Mexican state, as with privatisation in Russia, the state treasury received only a derisory
proportion of the money that the land being privatised was actually worth.
In Benito Juarez's sale of "vacantlands" in the 1860s, for example, the state received about $100,000 for 4.5 million acres, or
about two and a half cents per acre. Under PorfirioDiaz, a fifth of the country was given away for three and a half cents an acre,
compared to a market price which averaged two dollars. The social, political and economic consequences are with us to this day in
Chiapas and other regions. And as in the case of Russia in recent years, both local reformers and their foreign backers and advisers
resolutely turned their eyes from the reality of what was happening, and justified privatisation not for any goods it was producing,
but as an absolute good in itself. This was coupled with an obsession with the stability of the currency and the government's credit
rating - and Mexico under Diaz was in fact judged a very good bet by international financiers - rather than with economic fundamentals,
let alone with the lives and conditions of ordinary people.
In southern Italy, where the regimes of Joseph Bonaparte and Joachim Murat introduced legislation to end feudalism and break up
the great latifundias, the result was the same. Most of the peasantry was effectively excluded from participation by legal chicanery
and high registration fees, and were also stripped of the common village land which they had held under the great estates. The result
was that the great bulk of the land was acquired by a small number of great magnates, whether the old feudatories themselves or new
bourgeois proprietors - often civil servants of the Bonapartist government, like the two greatest owners in Calabria, who between
them gained control of almost half the province. Once again, this very notoriously did absolutely nothing to improve agricultural
efficiency, let alone the general well being of the population, which in many areas declined sharply as a result.
In other words, there is nothing very new about the way in which Russian public property was grabbed in the course of "privatisation"
(and if the result is only continued incompetence, exploitation of existing resources rather than new investment, and general economic
stagnation, that will not be new either). It is exactly what has always happened over the past 200 years when a ruthless liberal
capitalist ideology, which is prepared to justify almost anything in the name of "progress", combines with a corrupt bureaucracy
and a weak legal order. For to be fair to Chubais, it would be wrong to see personal corruption as the root of his approach to privatisation.
He did receive a $3 million ,five year interest-free loan from Alexander Smolensky's Stolichny Bank (part of the Group of Seven)
even while that bank was acquiring enormous Russian state assets at a knock down price, but he is by all accounts absolutely and
genuinely convinced of the rightness of his cause. In his interviews, Berezovsky too presents himself articulately as a force foreconomic
and even moral progress - an "ideologist for cash", perhaps, as Ostap Bender described himself. One factor which is connected to
this and very reminiscent of the 19thCentury liberal movements is the contempt of the "cientifico" liberal reformers and the New
Russians for their poorer, older and less dynamic compatriots. This attitude is composed of two elements:
a general progressive and "scientific" contempt for their backward culture - in the past, peasant and Catholic, today Soviet
and "Communist"
and a personal contempt for their "cowardice" and lack of dynamism.
It would be wrong to rule out the possibility that in future, privatisation will lead to increased efficiency and stable economic
growth benefiting the mass of the population - but it would also be impossible to argue that this has happened so far. Belief in
wonderful future results (as held by Layard, Aslund et al) are therefore as of the time of writing a matter of faith, not of evidence.
What should also be clear from this chapter is that evenif economic growth does occur, it will be very unevenly distributed and will
mostly benefit only a small proportion of the population. The Russian population is well aware of this, and the way in which public
property has been shared out under Yeltsin, though it has not led to revolt or a desire to return to Communism, has created what
I would call a deep moral wound, an offence against the moral economy of ordinary Russians.
If this feeling is combined with economic misery for the mass of the population over a long period of time, this may eventually
lead to serious long-term consequences for the legitimacy of the new Russian order - akin to the feelings of Spanish, Italian and
Mexican peasants about the new liberal order in the 19th Century. As in many of the pseudo-liberal states of the past (and some in
the present), Post-Soviet Russia suffers an added burden because of the comprador nature of its new elites. That is,
businessmen, bankers and the officials who are their clients and allies, and who are overwhelmingly dependent for their wealth on
the export of raw materials, and only to an extremely limited extent on manufacturing, or on "adding value" in some way to Russia's
products. This perhaps is inevitable, given the intense wastefulness and incompetence of Soviet industry, many of whose sectors,
as is now notorious, were actually value-reducing - that is to say that the raw materials would have earned more if sold on international
markets than the shoddy and useless finished product. Nonetheless, dependence on the export of raw materials could well represent
a trap for Russia, of a kind that has closed around many other countries in the past. It enables the Russian state to support basic
services and buy off important parts of the population without having to conduct truly deep reforms; and more importantly, it allows
many Russian big businessmen and officials to become fantasically wealthy simply by using existing Soviet equipment to extract various
substances from the ground and then ship them abroad, and pocket the proceeds - and move a large part of them abroad as well - without
having to re-invest a kopek in the much riskier business of capital investment in new production and plant. There is simply no need
to "add value".
Thus the move of Boris Berezovsky from the motor industry first to banking and then to oil extraction (not by founding a new company,
but by using state connections to seize an existing state one) is both typical and from his own financial point of view, entirely
logical. It is not however in any way beneficial for Russia. Equally important is the way in which abusiness world concentrated on
the struggle for control of strategic raw materials will tend to resist or ignore the kind of new mentalities, business practices
and legal norms so crucial to true economic progress. By their nature, oil and minerals can also be controlled by a small number
of men or of big corporations - which can create the political domination of a narrow, corrupt and unproductive oligarchy,
as latin America found for so many decades.
The comprador nature of the Russian oligarchy under Yeltsin is at its most blindingly obvious in Vladivostok in the Russian
Far East. This is an area which for several years has been undergoing an acute economic crisis, due to the collapse of local
industries and the cost of shipping fuel and materials from Russia. In terms of infrastructure and manufacturing, it makes a pitiful
comparison with the East Asian states (except of course for North Korea). The Far East has been the scene of some of the most dreadful
stories of contemporary Russian poverty and hunger, and in the winter of1 996-97, thousands of local workers were on strike because
their wages wereup to six months in arrears. Yet the crumbling, potholed roads of Vladivostok, where most of the street lights have
long since failed or been turned off to save electricity, are jammed with second-hand Japanese cars (many of them admittedly originally
stolen), and the casinos and night clubs are crammed with very prosperous-looking types and their women. The wealth to buy these
comes purely from the export of raw materials - timber, fish, oil, gold, metals, even tiger skins. As long as these last - and the
tigers and the trees are admittedly going pretty fast - and there is anything of the old Soviet pie to carve up, the local elites
will have no interest in manufacturing, let alone outside investment.
In the bitter words of a local journalist, "Why should they care about any of that? Half the wealth of Siberia passes through
their hands!" This is one key difference from the American robber barons of the 19thCentury, or indeed the pioneering Russian capitalists
of the same period, the Morozovs and Putilovs. These were true pioneers, who built from scratch. With extremely rare exceptions,
the contemporary Russians have exploited existing Soviet plant. Equally importantly, the gains made by the great American magnates
were mostly ploughed straight back into American production, or were at least spent at home. They were not sent out of America on
a massive scale to Swiss or other bank accounts.
In Russia, by contrast, capital flight was estimated by Western experts to have reached a total of between $60 billion and $73
billion between 1992 and 1996, with little sign of it returning. This would be more than four times Russia's borrowing from international
financial institutions, and around five times its direct foreign investment in those years. The World Bank estimated the "unexplained
residual" at 88.7billion since 1992, but that would presumably include the huge number of cash dollars that Russians were keeping
within Russia and using on the black and grey markets. Moreover, with rare exceptions, the new Russian compradors have proved
deeply hostile to outside strategic investment - for after all, they are quite happy as it is, and what could Western control
of companies bring them but extra competition? This hostility has been especially clear and overt in the case of the banks, but in
a more muted way it is true of the extraction industries as well (for example, in the support of most Russian owners in this field
for the rule which bars non-Russian companies from owning more than 15 percent of oil companies; the privatisation process was then
rigged so that the blocks of shares auctioned at a time were invariably more than 15 percent, thereby excluding Western participation
altogether). This, on top of the general insecurity of the investment climate, the contempt for contractual obligations, and the
dreadful tax situation, kept new direct foreign investment between 1989 and 1996 to a mere $5.3 billion, a third of that in Hungary
which has one fifteenth of Russia's population.
The possession of abundant raw materials can thus prove a curse and not a blessing; firstly because they spare both the state
and many of its people from having to make hard choices and take real risks until it is too late; secondly, because it encourages
the creation of small, wealthy but unproductive elites; thirdly, because the interests of these elites lie far more in keeping their
foreign markets open than they do in stimulating domestic consumption or investment; and finally, because the raw materials eventually
run out - and if a state, or its businessmen, have not reinvested the profits from them in some form of other production or infrastrcuture,
then the country will eventually find that from all this it has gained precisely nothing.
The behaviour of the present Russian elites has been the typical one for such groups over the past 150 years. In the words of
one critic of the Porfirian elite in Mexico:
"The owners of our spinning and weaving mills do not wear the shirtingor the cashmeres which their factories produce. They
generally dress themselves in European texiles, they use European or American hats, they lay out money for European or American
carriages, they decorate their homes with European art objects, and prefer, in short, everything foreign over the national; even
the painting, the literature and the music with which they satisfy their desires and divert their leisure time have to carry theforeign
seal..."
The only difference of course lies in the grotesque idea of the New Russians diverting their leisure time with painting or literature.
There's an article by Naomi Klein in Britain's Guardian entitled
Iraq is not America's to Sell, taking a look at the illegal move by the CPA ("Coalition Provisional Authority") to make Iraq's
economy, except for oil, 100% foreign owned. Well, I should say they're allowing for this to happen, but there's nothing stopping
Iraqis from buying up what foreigners would want to buy up. Except lack of money, perhaps. From what I hear, it's not something many
Iraqis have at the moment. It reminds me of a scathing article I read back in August called
Shock the
Monkey by Matt Taibi. The article was written in response to the CPAs hiring of
Yegor Gaidar as a consultant to the CPA in the development of Iraq's post-war transition economy. Taibi's says:
"Gaidar, former Prime Minister under Boris Yeltsin, is not the most despised man in Russia. That title belongs to the man who
succeeded him as the chief architect of the Russian privatization effort, Anatoly Chubais. There is no way to talk about the meaning
of this decision to invite Gaidar to Iraq without mentioning Chubais, because in inviting Gaidar, what the U.S. almost certainly
was trying to say to the world was: At least we didn't invite Chubais.".
He goes on to describe a method of plunder they called "Shock Therapy", a policy probably directly responsible for the creation
of the new Russian oligarchy. Here's how it goes:
"First, stealing money from people's pockets. In 1992, Gaidar began implementing a program known as "Shock Therapy" (yet another
cruel irony of this business: first Shock and Awe, now Shock Therapy?). Shock Therapy was the brainchild of another Harvard villain,
Jeffrey Sachs. In the early phase, this took the form of Gaidar's move to free the ruble before the end of state-controlled prices.
This resulted-as even a child could have predicted it would-in hyperinflation. By the end of 1992, prices in Russia had increased
by a factor of 26. Money from 1991 became worthless overnight. Families that had been stuffing mattresses since the siege of Stalingrad
saw their life savings disappear in a few weeks."
By making the ruble worthless overnight, there were only a few people around who could take advantage of the privatisation phase
of shock therapy – "the banks that had been licensed by the state to handle currency exchange operations". The end result
was the "…crown jewels of the Russian economy were handed over to a small group of thugs and gangsters at fractions of their actual
cost..
This is an incisive and possibly prophetic article (though I understand it was probably not a huge leap on Taibi's part), written
before it was announced by the CPA that Iraq's entire economy except for oil would be open to 100% foreign ownership. Now, Naomi
Klein discusses how this is actually an illegal act under International Law, and that because of this, companies who would like to
take part in this plunder cannot be insured because if a duly elected government did come in power in Iraq, there would be nothing
stopping them from taking back what was rightfully Iraq's to begin with. The Haliburton's of the world need not worry, however, since
this is where the US Export-Import Bank
comes into play. They'll insure companies like Haliburton at the expense of the US taxpayer, and if Haliburton loses what it buys
in Iraq, it'll be at the cost of the US taxpayer. She points this out in an depth discussion at
Democracy
Now!.
A revolution has been taking place over the past 10 years, and its got nothing to do with workers and everything to do with a
kind of capitalism that regards theft as a right. As Taibi puts it, "Lenin preached communism but created a dictatorship: This
crew preached laissez-faire economics but created a corporate oligarchy in which the state replaced the market.".
While the Russian oligarchs got away with their version of plunder, it isn't likely the US-led CPA will get away with their actions,
so long as Iraqis manage to live in the democracy they were promised (I know, fat chance that will materialize). They have obligations
under the Geneva conventions and Hague regulations as occupying powers. Lets hope Iraqis will eventually get back what is being stolen
from them….
I interrupt my campaign diaries to bring the people of New York a startling Holy-Shit-O-Gram from Moscow. Early last week
it was announced that the U.S., in the person of L. Paul Bremer III, had invited one Yegor Gaidar to Baghdad to assist in the development
of Iraq's postwar, "transition" economy.
Gaidar, former Prime Minister under Boris Yeltsin, is not the most despised man in Russia. That title belongs to the man who
succeeded him as the chief architect of the Russian privatization effort, Anatoly Chubais. There is no way to talk about the meaning
of this decision to invite Gaidar to Iraq without mentioning Chubais, because in inviting Gaidar, what the U.S. almost certainly
was trying to say to the world was: At least we didn't invite Chubais.
This was, in fact, how most Russia-watchers interpreted the news. Harvard's Marshall Goldman, one of the big heavies in the Russia-watching
business, said as much to the Moscow Times in response to the Gaidar announcement: "If they had invited Chubais, that really would
have set off a firestorm. That would have really been too much."
Chubais, a William Weld lookalike and towering genius of sleaze, was, with Gaidar, part of a group of beady-eyed intellectuals
known in Russia as the "St. Petersburg Mafia." They were revolutionaries whose style of public address was purely Leninist: relentless,
zealous, arrogant and heavily reliant on maximalist expressions like "absolutely and completely eliminate", "wipe out", "monster
and vile scoundrel." They appealed to academics and intellectuals for the same reasons that Marxism/Leninism once did: Their political
vision consisted of using obscure, nerdy theorems to ruthlessly dictate the fate of millions.
The only difference was that their revolution was an ironic variation of Bolshevism. They wanted to smash the state and create
a neoliberal laissez-faire paradise. Lenin talked about workers and collectives: The St. Petersburg Mafia talked about markets, prices,
goods.
Gaidar and Chubais are both affiliated with Harvard. Their ascension to power in the early 1990s–with the enthusiastic backing
of the U.S.–willed into being an expression that now comprises the three most-feared words in the Russian language: Harvard-trained
economist. That's because the economy they created was not capitalism, but a cruel parody of it. Lenin preached communism but created
a dictatorship: This crew preached laissez-faire economics but created a corporate oligarchy in which the state replaced the market.
Their legacy was the wholesale theft of Russia's riches from the population, and their delivery into mafia and foreign control.
The theft was a surprisingly quick and brutal process. If Iraq is in for the same treatment, here are some of the things Iraqis
have to look forward to.
First, stealing money from people's pockets. In 1992, Gaidar began implementing a program known as "Shock Therapy" (yet another
cruel irony of this business: first Shock and Awe, now Shock Therapy?). Shock Therapy was the brainchild of another Harvard villain,
Jeffrey Sachs. In the early phase, this took the form of Gaidar's move to free the ruble before the end of state-controlled prices.
This resulted–as even a child could have predicted it would–in hyperinflation. By the end of 1992, prices in Russia had increased
by a factor of 26. Money from 1991 became worthless overnight. Families that had been stuffing mattresses since the siege of Stalingrad
saw their life savings disappear in a few weeks.
The benficiaries? The banks that had been licensed by the state to handle currency exchange operations, which naturally became
lucrative as Russians fled to foreign currencies. This small group of bankers, hand-picked by the Gaidar government, would become
the first bidders on public properties in the next phase, privatization. After all, who else could bid? Nobody else had any money.
There is not enough space here to detail the many obscene nuances of the privatization effort, but roughly speaking it came down
to one thing: The crown jewels of the Russian economy were handed over to a small group of thugs and gangsters at fractions of their
actual cost. In some cases the Chubais/Gaidar clan actually lent state money to friends to help them buy properties.
Auctions were often openly rigged. In the notorious "loans-for-shares" tenders in 1995-96, the bidding banks were often put in
charge of holding the auctions, allowing them to exclude other bids. In one famous instance, a bank excluded a rival on the grounds
that its application to participate was 24 minutes late for the auction. In a cruel wink to observers of the process, another bank
subsequently also excluded a rival for being 24 minutes late.
The privatization schemes enacted by Gaidar and Chubais were created in close consultation with American aid officials. Much
of the legislation and legal infrastructure for the effort was designed by such pseudo-governmental organizations as the Russian
Privatization Center (RPC) and the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID), the latter organization owning the USAID
contract for Russian economic reform. The chief figures here were Chubais and Gaidar on the Russian side and Harvard economists Sachs,
Andrei Shleifer and Jonathan Hay on the American side. (Hay and Shleiffer were subsequently investigated by a grand jury for investing
in privatized properties through their wives). There was no question that the grossly regressive effects of privatization were enacted
at the express will of the U.S. government.
Why? What was the point? The point was to seize control of a country's valuable property–in Russia as in Iraq, primarily oil.
Then you hand it over to the right six people, so that you can plunder the country and dictate its politics. The U.S. kept the Gaidar/Chubais
clan in pocket by lavishing hundreds of millions of dollars in aid money on their private reform organizations; it kept the new Russian
tycoons in pocket by making them dependent upon state tribute, administered by their puppets; and it kept Boris Yeltsin in pocket
by making him politically reliant upon the financial support of the tycoons it created.
Gaidar last week noted the "similarities" between the post-Soviet economy and Iraq, and the World Bank has noted that the Ba'athist
party "modeled its economy on Eastern European communism," hinting that similar reforms might be needed. Anyone who's lived in those
places knows what this means: privatization, mass layoffs, the gutting of healthcare and education and the creation of a super-rich
class of ruthless, America-friendly dickheads.
Gaidar today is a ranking member of a right-wing, neo-liberal political party called the SPS, which stands for the Union of Right
Forces. SPS types have their own peculiar esthetic, and the ess-pe-es-ovet is a roundly loathed, popularly derided figure in modern
Russia. If the early Bolsheviks were alive today, this is what they would look like: pale, skinny, dressed in yellow-tinted glasses
and ribbed turtlenecks, humorlessly blowing stolen oil profits on apple martinis in shitty techno clubs.
If some version of this person appears soon in Iraq–think Sprocketts with a bushy mustache–then we'll know what went down. We'll
have figured out a way to steal everything in Iraq and leave a bunch of effete neoliberal desk clerks in charge. People today assume
that the chief problem we face in Iraq is securing a peace so that we can build a happy, market-based democracy. But freedom and
markets mean different things in different places. Just ask the Russian teacher who makes 40 bucks a month, and watches some Harvard-trained
asshole techno-dance down Tverskoi Boulevard, on his way to his next revolutionary assignment.
I received an email from a Capitol Hill aide who thinks my criticism of AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby, is overly simplistic.
He doesn't dispute the fact that AIPAC has a disproportionate influence on our Middle East foreign policy. He argues, however, that
AIPAC is no different than other powerful special interest lobbies.
I think his whole email is worth a read:
I work on Capitol Hill and I disagree with you about AIPAC. You make it seem as if AIPAC is the only lobby that gets what it
wants through threats of cutting off campaign contributions, as if only AIPAC dictates legislation through intimidation.
WRONG! My colleague who handles the Israel issue confirms your analysis. But it's no different on the domestic issues I cover.
The issues of jobs, health, taxes, the environment, regulation to protect kids' health, oil drilling, workers' safety, education,
guns...they are all dictated by lobbies just as overbearing as AIPAC. All we do up here is cater to rich, selfish people and their
special interests. And their interest is cutting all social programs so we can keep cutting taxes to make them even richer.
True, most of them don't brag as much as AIPAC but that doesn't make them any better or worse, just smarter (AIPAC gets more
negative attention because of its swagger). Big deal. The public is getting screwed eight ways to Sunday by special interests
and AIPAC is just one of them. Don't mislead your readers into thinking it is unique. Not only is it not unique, it's insignificant
in the sense that it's not the guys robbing the poor to put money in their own pockets. They own US Middle East policy. But the
real fat cats own everything else.
I agree with everything my correspondent writes. The American democracy we learned about in school no longer exists. It's been
sold to the highest bidders. And the highest bidder is not, as the Tea Partiers like to say, "We The People."
Bill Moyers, the highly respected longtime PBS commentator and President Lyndon Johnson's lieutenant in creating Great Society
legislation like Medicare and the Voting Rights Act, calls the American political system of today a "plutocracy" - that is, one that
is governed by the few and for the few.
Last November, Moyers delivered a speech at Boston University (the Howard Zinn Memorial Lecture) explaining how this plutocracy
was created. Suffice it to say that it was no accident. (You should read the Moyers speech
here or watch it
here. It is simply the best explication by anyone of how
we got to this miserable moment in our history.)
Moyers explains the loss of American democracy like this:
The Gilded Age returned with a vengeance in our time. It slipped in quietly at first, back in the early 1980s, when Ronald
Reagan began a "massive decades-long transfer of national wealth to the rich." ... The trend continued under George W. Bush -
those huge tax cuts for the rich, remember, which are now about to be extended because both parties have been bought off by the
wealthy - and by 2007 the wealthiest 10% of Americans were taking in 50% of the national income. Today, a fraction of people at
the top today earn more than the bottom 120 million Americans.
Over the past 30 years, with the complicity of Republicans and Democrats alike, the plutocrats, or plutonomists ... have used
their vastly increased wealth to assure that government does their bidding. ...
Moyers concluded:
Everyone knows millions of Americans are in trouble. As Robert Reich recently summed it the state of working people: They've
lost their jobs, their homes, and their savings. Their grown children have moved back in with them. Their state and local taxes
are rising. Teachers and firefighters are being laid off. The roads and bridges they count on are crumbling, pipelines are leaking,
schools are dilapidated, and public libraries are being shut.
Why isn't government working for them? Because it's been bought off. It's as simple as that. And until we get clean money we're
not going to get clean elections, and until we get clean elections, you can kiss goodbye government of, by, and for the people.
Welcome to the plutocracy.
Moyers, not surprisingly, is spot-on. And so is my correspondent who complains about my emphasis on AIPAC. My only defense is
that my job is limited to foreign policy issues. If my job description were different, I'd be happy to write about the undue influence
that the Chamber of Commerce and the Koch Brothers have within the halls of Congress. It's just that on the Middle East issue, the
big foot money lobby is AIPAC, and it has no competition.
But I am not going to argue that AIPAC, or any foreign policy lobby, does anything like the damage done to this country by corporate
interests. The "greed lobby" at the national and state levels has successfully implemented policies that take money from the poor
and middle class and put it in the pockets of their friends (the rich and super-rich). AIPAC, for all its faults, does not lobby
for legislation to make its members rich. (They don't get a kickback from the Israel aid package.)
None of this, however, makes me feel any friendlier to AIPAC and its satellite organizations. The policies they inflict on America
are deeply damaging to our national interests. It is just that, right now, AIPAC is part of an infinitely larger problem: a thoroughly
corrupted political system.
But it is far from alone. There are hundreds of AIPACs, many infinitely more powerful than AIPAC itself, and they are turning
the American dream into an American nightmare. From now on, I'll be more careful about putting AIPAC's sins in their unholy context.
The cornerstone of Harvard professor N.
Gregory Mankiw's introductory economics textbook, Principles of Economics,
is a synthesis of economic thought into Ten Principles of Economics (listed in the first table below). A quick perusal of these will
likely affirm the reader's suspicions that synthesizing economic thought into Ten Principles is no easy task, and may even lead the
reader to suspect that the subtlety and concision required are not to be found in the pen of N. Gregory Mankiw.
I have taken it upon myself to remedy this unfortunate situation. The second table below summarizes my attempt to translate Mankiw's
Ten Principles into plain English, and in doing so to provide the uninitiated with an invaluable glimpse of the economic mind at
work. Explanations and details can be found in the pages that follow, but the average reader is advised to simply cut out the table
below and carry it around for assistance in the (hereafter unlikely) event of confusion about the basic Principles of Economics.
Translation of Mankiw principles (funny and disgusting)
Mankiw's Principles
#1. People face tradeoffs.
#2. The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
#5. Trade can make everyone better off.
#6. Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.
#7. Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes.
#8. A country's standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services.
#9. Prices rise when the government prints too much money.
#10. Society faces a short-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.
Yoram's Translations
#1. Choices are bad.
#2. Choices are really bad.
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren't that stupid.
#5. Trade can make everyone worse off.
#6. Governments are stupid.
#7. Governments aren't that stupid.
#8. Blah blah blah.
#9. Blah blah blah.
#10. Blah blah blah.
PRINCIPLE #1
People face tradeoffs.
TRANSLATION: Choices are bad.
The reasoning behind this translation is obvious. For example, imagine that somebody comes up to you and offers you a choice between
a Snickers bar and some M&Ms.
You now have a tradeoff, meaning that you have to choose one or the other. And having to trade one thing off against another is bad;
President Truman supposedly asked for a one-armed economics advisor because his two-armed economics advisors were always saying,
"On the one hand...but on the other hand..."
People who have not received any economics education might be tempted to think that choices are good. They aren't. The
(mistaken) idea that choices are good perhaps stems from the (equally mistaken) idea that lack of choices is bad. This is simply
not true, as Mancur Olson points out in his book,
The Logic of Collective Action: "To say a situation is 'lost' or hopeless is in one sense equivalent to saying it is perfect,
for in both cases efforts at improvement can bring no positive results."
Hence my translation of Mankiw's first principle of economics: Choices are bad. This concept can be a little difficult to grasp
-- nobody ever said economics was easy -- but the troubled reader will undoubtedly gain clarity from Mankiw's
PRINCIPLE #2
The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
TRANSLATION: Choices are really bad.
PRINCIPLE #4
People respond to incentives.
TRANSLATION: People aren't that stupid.
The dictionary says that incentive, n., is 1. Something that influences to action; stimulus; encouragement. SYN. see
motive.
So what Mankiw is saying here is that people are motivated by motives, or that people are influenced to action by things that
influence to action. Now, this may seem to be a bit like saying that tautologies are tautological -- the reader may be thinking that
people would have to be pretty stupid to be unmotivated by motives, or to be inactive in response to something that influences
to action. But remember Principle #3: People are stupid. Hence the need for Principle #4, to clarify that people aren't that
stupid.
Only truly stupid people can fail to understand my translation of Mankiw's
PRINCIPLE #5
Trade can make everyone better off.
TRANSLATION: Trade can make everyone worse off.
But, the reader may well be asking, isn't the translation of the fifth principle the exact opposite of the principle itself?
Of course not.
To see why, first note that "trade can make everyone better off" is patently obviously: if I have a Snickers bar and want M&Ms
and you have M&Ms and want a Snickers bar, we can trade and we will both be better off. Surely Mankiw is getting at something deeper
than this? Indeed, I believe he is. To see what it is, compare the following phrases:
A: Trade can make everyone better off. B: Trade will make everyone better off.
Now, Statement B is clearly superior to Statement A. Why, then, does Mankiw use Statement A? It can only be because Statement
B is false. By saying that trade can make everyone better off, Mankiw is conveying one of the subtleties of economics:
trade can also not make everyone better off. It is a short hop from here to my translation, "Trade can make everybody worse
off." (A numerical example can be found in Note #3, below.)
The subtlety evident in Principle #5 is even more clearly visible in the next two principles.
PRINCIPLE #6
Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.
TRANSLATION: Governments are stupid.
The essence of the plan is the federal government writing me a check for $1 billion. The plan will be financed by $3 billion
of tax increases. According to my back-of-the envelope calculations, giving me that $1 billion will reduce the budget deficit
by $2 billion.
Now, you may be tempted to say that giving me that $1 billion will not really reduce the budget deficit. Rather, you might
say, it is the tax increases, which have nothing to do with my handout, that are reducing the budget deficit. But if you are
tempted by that kind of sloppy thinking, you have not been following the debate over healthcare reform.
Like health-care reform, Greg Mankiw's plan really would reduce the budget deficit. That's been contested, so I'm glad
to see Mankiw admit it. But Mankiw's broader point is that giving Greg Mankiw a billion dollars to write misleading political
commentary would be a poor use of resources. And I agree. But he is analogizing giving Greg Mankiw a billion-dollar check to giving
health-care insurance to 32 million people who, in the vast majority of cases, can't get it themselves. I know that Harvard University
offers insurance to its employees and they do that because their employees, like Professor Mankiw, would be quite angry if they
didn't. They don't think of insurance as an absurd extravagance or a billion-dollar check from the sky. They think of it as something
much more like a necessity, something that their workers wouldn't be willing to go without. Something that I'd bet Mankiw himself
doesn't go without. Maybe I'm wrong. If not, there's a real callousness to this post.
Now for the accidental truth: Mankiw's analytical claim is that it's somehow peculiar to believe a bill reduces the deficit
because it raises more money than it spends. After all, the spending doesn't reduce the deficit. His apparent belief that the
"revenues and spending cuts" side of legislation has nothing to do with the "new spending or tax cuts" side helps explain why
he joined the Bush administration's Council of Economic Advisers in May 2003, the same month that the Bush administration's second
set of unpaid-for tax cuts was passing through Congress, and a few months before the Bush administration's completely unpaid-for
Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit was signed into law. That's a creative way to look at legislation, and I'm sure it came in
handy when defending the Bush administration's economic policies.
Here's the thing about the thinking Mankiw is criticizing: It actually reduces the deficit, and it does it while mostly
ending the days when Americans would find themselves involuntarily uninsured. You can't say that for the thinking that drove the
fiscal policies of the administration he served in, or that led him to analogize a billion-dollar check for himself to health-care
coverage for the poor. It's another example of the ACA's opponents conveniently
omitting the uninsured
from the discussion and developing
a new and inconsistent
definition of fiscal responsibility.
Selected Comments
Jim :
Mankiw is a shill for the plutocratic python; little attention should be paid to most of what he says. I marvel that he is
even seen as a respected colleague of most first rate economists.
Jesse :
Mankiw is like Mother Teresa compared to the parade of think tank economists and Lafferites that Bloomberg Television is trotting
out each day for their commentaries.
The big debate today centered around whether to end the interest rate on primary mortgage deduction, AND to add a VAT on housing
sales, or just end the deductions and cut the corporate tax rates with the proceeds.
endorendil:
Greg's thinking cap is about the size of a thimble, so don't take any of this too seriously.
Matt:
"Apparently he doesn't have a plan to accomplish the same good for less or he would have told us about that instead of trying
to add fog to the debate."
Oh, I'm sure he's got a plan - but it's not currently acceptable to articulate the "let the poor die in the streets for the
sin of not being rich" plan that's popular amongst conservatives out loud.
RN :
Greg Mankiw never ceases to amaze.
The biggest liar and master of disingenuity in all of supply-side economics.
That he got tenure at Harvard is a colossal black mark on Harvard's reputation.
RW:
When even an intellectual star of the right-wing can barely muster an argument above the level of sophomoric sophistry it is
little wonder that right-wing commentators and legislators cannot generate an argument that rises above the level of incoherent
babble.
When are these econo-pontificator jobs going to get outsourced to Mexico, India and China? When? When?
Justicia :
You don't expect the "theoclassical" economists to recant, do you? Why, you might as well wait for the Pope and the College
of Cardinals to become atheists.
scraping_by:
Joining the upper class by serving the upper class. Economists as a tribe of rhetorical footmen.
While reality-based economics would be jobs in a sustainable system, it's faith-based explanations that tell us the best in
the best of all possible worlds.That's what brings in the money.
Status and wealth, a heck of a combination.
Tom Stone:
They know which side their bread is buttered on. That is all they need to know.
Hugh:
I echo lambert's and scraping by's sentiments. The economics profession is not about an analysis of our economy that can make
reasonable predictions about it. Economics and economists are enablers of the con and validators of kleptocracy. They say the
many must make do with less and do not say that the result of this policy will be the few will have more.
These are not innocent, unworldy types tied to outdated and obsolete ideas. They are abettors and apologists for the
greatest economic crimes in human history. We should call and treat them for what they are: criminals. Kleptocracy is
not a some time thing. It is not a label you apply occasionally. Kleptocracy is a system. The looters can't function without corrupt
politicians, a complacent propagandizing media, or complicit enabling academics. With kleptocracy, there is no middle ground.
You either stand with the looters or their victims. I think this is the critical choice we all must make.
"Those conflicts of interest that the academic economist might not be limited to those between the university and the other
job but could well be between the private job and their role as public expert. Furthermore, even when these conflicts of interest
are reported to the university it does not signify that they are reported to the public. Thus, university conflict of interest
codes, although important for the university, do not alleviate the problem academic economists face who occupy a concurrent role
in the private sector and as a public expert."
Here's a page from the SAFER site , where you'll find a list of some of the economic "good guys" ( by my standards , at least
):
I think we all underestimate the pervasiveness of the ethics problem. As an engineer for the last thirty years, I've noticed
the same attitude towards corruption slowly invade my own profession. It's become a real problem.
I honestly don't think teaching ethics is a viable solution, it's a bandaid stuck on a heart attack. Making people live with
the real economic consequences of their actions is a must. Wall St banks needed to go under, and Wall St bankers needed to go
to jail. Until that starts happening, we will not have the necessary reform required to fix our economy, and in an even larger
picture, our society.
Goldilocksisableachblonde:
What I liked best about this video was the title of the segment starting at the 2:26 mark :
"The Corruption of Academic Economics"
Clear and succinct use of the English language. I admire that.
You'll never find this phrase used in a MSM piece discussing this topic , because they're complicit in the corruption. Try
it. Google "Corruption of Academic Economics" (in quotes) and you'll not likely find a link to a mainstream source , unless it's
through a blog commenter's post.
Defining and describing the problem in clear and compelling language is the first step to a solution to that problem , but
it's the one we seem to consciously avoid in this case.
I wish I'd thought of it sooner , but a DVD of "Inside Job" would've made for a great Christmas present. Oh well , maybe next
year.
Happy Holidays , everyone , and cheer up . Remember , things can get worse only until 12/12/2012 , and not beyond.
"J. R. Wedel analyzed superbly the privatization of Russian State assets under B. Yeltsin. A small group of insiders from Harvard
and from PM A. Chubais's office sold a major chunk of State assets for token sums to seven (!) preselected bank chiefs. Free marketeers
created a new authoritarian State. "
With truly in depth investigations (the notes are excellent), Janine Wedel discovered disturbing facts about how the US is actually
governed. The loud call for a `small government' is for her pure rhetoric. The de facto US government is in fact growing rapidly,
albeit in a very peculiar manner.
The real story behind the `shouting façade' is the `redesigning of government', its privatization.
Actually, three-quarters of the work of the federal government (measured in terms of jobs) is contracted out (a multi-billion
dollar business). This outsourcing of governmental tasks created a new power system, a kind of parallel (shadow) government.
This parallel power base consists of a small set of players (the author is naming names) who are acting inside or outside the government
and who are all the time changing jobs between the government itself, private companies, consulting firms, NGOs or think tanks. They
always follow their own agenda or the orders of their masters.
Result
Hiding behind their `grand narratives of democracy and freedom', those who forced the merging of State and private businesses, created
less competitive markets and less accountable governmental services. The fusion even eroded national sovereignty. `Ambiguous institutional
arrangements are making it difficult to establish where authority resides.'
Moreover, the government is `emasculated' because the eventually gathered information stays in private hands, which gives contractors
an edge over government overseers.
Russia
J. R. Wedel analyzed superbly the privatization of Russian State assets under B. Yeltsin. A small group of insiders from Harvard
and from PM A. Chubais's office sold a major chunk of State assets for token sums to seven (!) preselected bank chiefs. Free marketeers
created a new authoritarian State.
The author is not really optimistic that all the players `who operate largely above public input, knowledge and visibility' can
be reined in.
This superbly researched book with an excellent index is a must read for all true democrats and for all those who want to understand
the world we live in.
Economic profession were thoroughly penetrated by financial services industry. Many prominent economist earn majority of their money
from cooperation with financial services industry not from teaching so they are just PR arm of financial industry. That compromises
their integrity, their research and especially their policy advice. Those conflict of interest in academia are pervasive and universities
does not require any disclosure of outside contract and universities never collect information on outside income received from those
contract.
Ferguson is astonished by the lack of regulation demanding financial disclosure of all academics and is now pushing for it. "At
a minimum, federal law should require public disclosure of all outside income that is in any way related to professors' publishing and
policy advocacy," he writes. "It may be desirable to go even further, and to limit the total size of outside income that potentially
generates conflicts of interest."
In his new documentary
Inside Job, filmmaker
Charles Ferguson
spoke to some of the biggest names from Wall Street to Washington to academia to get a first hand account of what caused the 2008
financial meltdown and how the financial system reach its breaking point.
Ferguson points to 20 years of deregulation, rampant greed (a
la Gordon Gekko) and cronyism. This cronyism is in large part due to a revolving door between not only Wall Street and Washington,
but also the incestuous relationship between Wall Street, Washington and academia.
The conflicts of interest that arise when academics take on roles outside of education are largely unspoken, but a very big problem.
"The academic economics discipline has been very heavily penetrated by the financial services industry," Ferguson tells
Aaron in the accompanying clip. "Many prominent academics now actually make the majority of their money from the financial
services industry, not from teaching or research. [This fact] has definitely compromised the research work and the
policy advice that we get from academia."
Example after example of this revolving door between Academia and Wall Street and academia and Washington are brought to light
in Inside Job. Ferguson showcases this unspoken problem by actually interviewing a number of academics with ties to the government
and/or financial sector. To wit:
Martin
Feldstein is currently the George F. Baker Professor of Economics at Harvard University and President Emeritus of the
National Bureau of Economic Research. While holding advisory positions in both the Reagan and GWB administration he also
served on the board of both AIG and AIG Financial Products from 1988-2009.
Glenn
Hubbard is currently the Dean of the Columbia Business School. Hubbard was Chief Economic Advisor during the Bush Administration,
currently on the board of Met Life and previously on the board of Capmark.
Frederic
Mishkin is currently a professor of finance and economics at the Columbia Business School. From 2006-2008 he was a member
of the Federal Reserve Board. Also in 2006, he was paid $124,000 by the Icelandic Chamber of Commerce to write a
report on Iceland's financial sector.
Academics at 20 Paces
This last example is probably the most notable in Inside Job. Mishkin became combative and seemingly uncomfortable at some
of Ferguson's questions – especially regarding the report commissioned by Iceland's Chamber of Commerce.
"In July 2009, I agreed to be interviewed on camera for a film that was presented to me as a thoughtful examination of the
factors leading up to the 2008 global economic collapse," Mishkin writes. "About five minutes after the microphone was clipped
to my lapel, however, it became clear that my role in the film was predetermined - and I would not be wearing a white hat."
Feguson tells Aaron there is little truth to what Mishkin contends. "I conducted an interview with professor Mishkin that lasted
over an hour and touched on many subjects. I certainly did ask him his views on the crisis, but it did turn out that professor Mishkin
did have a number of things to conceal and he became very uncomfortable during the interview."
Since our interview,
Ferguson wrote a response to Mishkin in the FT. "Professor Frederic Mishkin misrepresents both his own activities, including
his interview for my film, and the widespread conflicts of interest which have distorted academic economics and its role in the financial
crisis," Ferguson writes. "The only reason we now know of Prof Mishkin's payment for the Iceland report is that he was later forced
to disclose it when he was appointed to the U.S. Federal Reserve Board."
Feguson is astonished by the lack of regulation demanding financial disclosure of all academics and is now pushing for it. "At
a minimum, federal law should require public disclosure of all outside income that is in any way related to professors' publishing
and policy advocacy," he writes. "It may be desirable to go even further, and to limit the total size of outside income that potentially
generates conflicts of interest."
It should be noted that Ferguson himself has ties to academia. He spent many years as a visiting scholar at M.I.T. and U.C. Berkley.
Inside Job is currently playing in theatres nationwide.
A Yahoo! User:
Criminals do not tend to investigate themselves, file charges against themselves or sentence themselves to prison. Hence nothing
has been done.
Truth Detective:
BRAVO! Unless you are an American, on the congressional gravy train, a finer reform could not be devised. Everyone should push
the President to implement these changes via executive order, until the Congress polices itself; which will never happen. Please
refer to this re-posting & forward to the White House. Thanks to the honest Americans who are able to still see the greatness
of our system:
The time has come to get past the democrat/republican blame game.
Congressional Reform Act of 2010. We need to get a Senator to introduce this bill in the US Senate and a Representative to
introduce a similar bill in the US House. These people will become American heroes
1. Term Limits. 12 years only, one of the possible options below.. A. Two Six-year Senate terms B. Six Two-year House
terms C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of
office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund
move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates
with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
The American people did not make these contracts with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving
in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and
back to work.
If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, don't. This is America, you have choices\
Stephen:
Academics have been shills for the bogus arguments supporting globalization for decades. This enabled congress to sell out
the American middle class in return for huge bribes from corporations who wanted tax breaks to move their operations to slave
wage countries and bring products into the US market tariff free.
A Yahoo! User
Unfortunately, experience and connections beget experience and connections, and everyone wants someone in the post with both
experience and connections. Thus the revolving door.
Academics get by making money in the financial services industry because it serves as "real-time research". And (yes, the truth
hurts...) how difficult would it be to criminalize the money center bank executives when all of their skullduggery was blessed
by the ratings agencies and guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the insistence of the Democrats in Congress and over the
negligence of GW Bush's head of the SEC? The banks should have been split up and required to hire new management. Given we didn't
do that we are doing the next best thing which is ousting as many people as we can from elected government.
Al
Feguson is astonished by the lack of regulation demanding financial disclosure of all academics "
It should have been obvious, since Big capital, and its 35000 lobbyists, writes the bills for their politcal cronies in Washington,
and the state level, which often times is not read by the politician...
Who says we live in a democracy? And now, corporatations, aka capitalist elites aka rich and super rich, can throw unlimited
money (bribes) at this process so... It will definitely not get any better, that is certain.
One of Sachs' strongest critics is William Easterly,
a professor of
economics at
New York University. Easterly reproached The End of Poverty in his review for The Washington Post, and Easterly's 2006 book
White Man's Burden is an even more thorough rebuttal of Sachs' argument that poor countries are stuck in a "poverty
trap" from which there is no escape, except by massively scaled-up
foreign aid, though Sachs himself has clearly emphasized the
need for a complex, multi-faceted, clinical and unique approach to economic development, of which increased and responsible foreign
aid is nearly always a necessary but insufficient part.[10] Easterly presents
statistical evidence that he claims proves that many emerging
markets attained their higher status without large amounts of foreign aid as Sachs proposes.[11]
This point is also echoed by the economist Dambisa Moyo who
points out that when Sachs was her lecturer at Harvard it was he himself who taught that "the path to long-term development would
only be achieved through private sector involvement and free market solutions".[12]
She continues "Perhaps what I had not gleaned at that time was that Mr. Sachs' development approach was made for countries such as
Russia, Poland and Bolivia, whereas the aid- dependency approach, with no accompanying job creation, was reserved for Africa."[12]
Another Sachs critic is Amir Attaran, a
scientist and
lawyer and currently the Canada Research Chair in Law, Population
Health and Global Development at the University of Ottawa.
Sachs and Attaran have worked closely as colleagues, including coauthoring a famous study in The Lancet documenting the dearth of
foreign aid money to fight
HIV/AIDS in the 1990s, which led to the creation of the
Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria. However, Sachs and Attaran part company in their opinion of the
Millennium Development Goals, and Attaran
argued in a paper published in PLoS Medicine and
an editorial in the New York Times that the
United Nations has misled people by setting specific, but
immeasurable, targets for the MDGs (for example,
to reduce maternal mortality or
malaria).[13] Sachs
dismissed that view in a reply to PLoS Medicine by
saying that only a handful of the MDGs are immeasurable, but Attaran then cited the
United Nations' own data analysis (which the UN subsequently
blocked from public access) showing that progress on a very large majority of the MDGs is never measured.[14]
Sachs has also been criticized by leftists for having an overly
neoliberal perspective on the
economy. Nancy Holmstrom and Richard Smith pointed out that, in
advising implementation of his shock therapy on the collapsing
Soviet Union, Sachs "supposed the transition to capitalism
would be a natural, virtually automatic economic process: start by abandoning state planning, free up prices, promote private competition
with state-owned industry, and sell off state industry as fast as possible…". They go on to cite the drastic decreases in
industrial output over the ensuing years, a nearly halving
of the country's GDP and of
personal incomes, a doubling of the
suicide rate, and a skyrocketing
unemployment rate.[15]The Lancet[16] has recently reported that rapid privatization of the Soviet
Union caused a 12.8% death rate increase among males in just two years,[17] a claim
that The Economist attributed to alcoholism, though
The Lancet article attributed the rise in alcoholism to changes in the economy.[18]CanadianactivistNaomi Klein argues in her 2007 book The Shock Doctrine: The
Rise of Disaster Capitalism that Sachs' Bolivian "success" is not true. In her analysis, the radical reforms pushed by Sachs
were neither democratically agreed upon nor achieved without violent state repression and left the majority of Bolivians in worse
circumstances.[19]
"Well let me take a moment to congratulate the few Harvard, LSE, Princeton, Chicago, MIT grads serving Wall Street, the Fed primary
dealer cartel, the IMF, and the World Bank (Larry Summers deserves extra credit). These economists drive the field, and they've brought
it to a point that has taken us back to the days of medieval feudalism. "
Harvard Lobotomies And The Disgrace Of The Economics Profession
It's worth stepping back on occasion to consider the progress that has been witnessed in particular academic fields. Astronomy
took a giant step forward centuries ago when it finally realized the sun was at the center of the solar system. Geology adapted to
the fact of a round earth. The continuous evolution of Physics boggles the mind. Engineering perpetually pushes into new frontiers.
And how does Economics compare?
Well let me take a moment to congratulate the few Harvard, LSE, Princeton, Chicago, MIT grads serving Wall Street, the Fed
primary dealer cartel, the IMF, and the World Bank (Larry Summers deserves extra credit). These economists drive the field, and they've
brought it to a point that has taken us back to the days of medieval feudalism. The field is now more primitive than flat-earth Geology
and Ptolemaic Astronomy. Congratulations economists!
Of course it's not entirely the economists' fault. They were taught from day one in Economics 101 that they will undergo a moral
lobotomy. Economics goes to great lengths to indoctrinate new recruits that it's a positive vs. normative "science." Oother to do
that because the fact is there should be no conflict between the positive and the normative. Why is Economics the only field that
does this? Because it wants to avoid the questions that good students interested in true progress would otherwise ask. It knows it's
hiding something in its content that conflicts with the normative and it doesn't want students to search for and find the truth.
Just remember this helpful indicator in your next life--anything that goes to such lengths to admit upfront that it's morally bankrupt
might be something around which you should NOT build your life!
The truth is that Economics has been designed to completely hide the monetary system that hovers above the economy. Economics
assumes money is just a medium of exchange floating through the economy to facilitate a free market and generate wealth. At times
that has been true, but today it's probably the biggest lie of modern history. The current system does not generate wealth and freedom
for most people. It generates debt and servitude. And it is not a free market. Today's money flows from a top-down imperial power
system expanding globally. It creates a master-servant relationship because all money comes from privately held debt.
Let me say that again. ALL MONEY COMES FROM DEBT (for those of us who suffered the most indoctrination by attending schools like
Harvard, let's pause here for a moment so we can catch up to the rest of the class). This means in order for governments, businesses,
and people to have the liquidity necessary to live, they must agree to sign over a claim on their assets to banks. As the banking
system inflates over time passing out credit, which makes everyone feel good with more digits in their accounts, it gathers claims
on all the assets in the system for its private capital holders. Admittedly, this is one way of facilitating development (good students
would've figured out a better way had they not been stifled). But it's also the method for transferring everyone else's assets to
the balance sheets of the capital holders behind the banks once deflation sets in.
This is what we're facing today. The global banking system has a claim on most assets in the world (except those in places like
Iran, so it's no surprise we're fanning the flames of war so the military can eventually conquer the region for JP Morgan Chase and
its Harvard employees...of course Chase was one of the first corporations to move in on the mineral assets seized in Afghanistan
because it's the primary bank that pays the military-industrial complex to conquer territory for it...they're giving us an obvious
lesson in how the world really works today).
Once the system has gathered all the claims it wants, senior capital will be removed, kicking off the next phase of deflation
and a transfer of assets from the people to the banks. At that point we'll probably see JPM Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, another Harvard
lobotomy victim (there's a high correlation between Ivy League lobotomies and billionaires), on CNBC threatening Americans to pay
up as his firm jacks up their rates and takes their homes like he did in early 2009.
In this transfer process, the people's equity will be eliminated. And this means, they will be returned to the life of a feudal
servant to the capital holders behind the banks. This is not rhetoric, but the unarguable math and accounting of the banking system.
It's very simply a mechanism to transfer assets/equity from the balance sheets of the many to the balance sheets of the few.
So a final word for all the top economists out there:
Congrats again! It didn't take much to buy you off. Today's financial elite, those who control the global debt machine, have rewarded
you with some meager paychecks and the status of the high priests of old. Sad. Do you have any pride, or is it really that easy to
co-opt you with retreats in Jackson Hole, hobnobbing in Davos, and membership in the CFR?
Come on. Rise above it. You are obligated to fix this immediately:
1) Develop an interim solution in concert with the old time-tested bondage/jubilee, growth/rest cycles which gave the people,
communities, land a breath of fresh air in the midst of empire growth. (if you're writing that off as religious romanticism, ask
yourself what top athlete doesn't live by training/rest cycles...over-training results in deterioration, not progress)
2) Then develop and advocate a humane money system that facilitates the rebuilding of real community as opposed to one based on
debt servitude that parasitically sucks the life OUT of communities.
We know the debt holders have a lock on Harvard and LSE (my days at Harvard were marked by professors preaching the benevolence
of Enron finance and Wall Street derivatives, so most Harvard grads are probably beyond recovery). But what about the rest of you?
It's time to step up and work toward progress like your colleagues in other fields. It's time to move beyond the dark ages.
While several good people-including several of my wife's relatives and
one of our bloggers-graduated from Pravda-on-the-Chuck, I am saddened
to note that their faculty's efforts in creating the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has been muted.
Consider that N. Gregory ("Greg") Mankiw was not
even nominated. The man who shepherded and shilled for the 2003 tax evisceration* in specific, and author of the textbook that corrupts
more Econ 101 people than any other was not even nominated.
Then Michael Jensen-whose theories (purely by coincidence,
to be sure) are used to justify shifting corporate profits on a massive basis from the company that makes them to the CEO who "runs"
it-did not make the final ballot.
Even more than the damage done to their endowment-at least
the guy who did that is on the final ballot, though for his general U.S. work, not his Endowment-during-his-divorce work-not
being cited as responsible for the GFC, and therefore not being seen as Masters of the Universe, is saddening.
The remaining nominees are Very Worthy, to be certain (excepting Paul Samuelson, with whom people much have confused Robert).
Vote early and often.
*It is remotely possible to make the argument that the 2001 cut was based on semi-legitimate (though silly) projections of surpluses.
There is no such excuse for the 2003 abomination.
"And that's where we are today: A record portion of the earnings that would go in their entirety to owners-if they all just stayed
in their rocking chairs-is now going to a swelling army of helpers," Buffett said in the letter. "Particularly expensive is the recent
pandemic of profit arrangements under which helpers receive large portions of the winnings when they are smart or lucky, and leave
family members with all of the losses-and large fixed fees to boot-when the helpers are dumb or unlucky (or occasionally crooked.)"
... ... ...
Hedge fund managers can lock in investors for longer periods, said Nancy Zimmerman, principal at the hedge fund Bracebridge Capital.
This allows for a greater scale on returns and a better alignment of interests between investors and managers. She questioned why
all investments aren't managed by people who are better aligned with the interests of their clients.
Zimmerman said she started her hedge fund 12 years ago with $55 million; it now manages $3 billion. She said she is as proud of
her firm's exponential growth as she is of its more low-key investments.
Taibbi assumes intent and damns the actors as a result. He writes as if Froman and Geithner openly colluded in some way to favour
Citi. But you don't need to prove intent,
you only need to prove motive. I don't care if Froman or Geithner 'intended' to favour Citi over other institutions; I care whether
they were mentally predisposed to helping Citi and other large institutions at the expense of others because they ascribed unwarranted
and disproportionate importance to them. Unfortunately, cognitive regulatory capture leads to crony capitalism just as outright corruption
would do.
Selected Comments
earthtodc:
"cognitive regulatory capture leads to crony capitalism just as outright corruption would do"
WTF is the difference? This is not rocket science. There is a guy running from a burning building with arm fulls of cash, now
on the phone calling his buddies to tell them to "get down here" and you want to worry about the intent of the original act of
arson. All of the evidence is being destroyed anyway by the firefighters pumping gasoline into the fire.
charcad:
"Taibbi assumes intent and damns the actors as a result."
Nope. Taibbi knows the actors well. He's seen them peform in person before. So have I.
Matt Taibbi had the best possible apprenticeship for this kind of MSM journalism: several years on the eXile.ru e-zine in Moscow
in the 1990s during the Yelt$in era. There is no one who can do it better now.
Most of the same personalities who were on the USA end then are central players now in the Obama Administration. Taibbi knows
this. Yves' old alma mater at Harvard, Lawrence Summers and the whole Rubin gang were integral players, then and now:
During the early 1990s, Andrei Shleifer was an advisor to Anatoly Chubais, the then vice-premier of Russia, and was one
of the engineers of the Russian privatization. During that time, Harvard University was under a contract with the United States
Agency for International Development, which paid Harvard and its employees to advise the Russian government. The results of privatization
in Russia were criticized widely in Russia and western academic circles. Under Anatoly Chubais, privatization led to valuable
Russian business assets being acquired at extremely cheap prices amid accusations of rigged auctions.
Boy, does this sound familiar! Real deju vu. Public assets flowing into private pockets. Subsequent lawsuit against Harvard
University over Schleifer's activities obligingly settled by one Lawrence Summers…
"Froman…spent much of his career within the United States Department of the Treasury,[2] where he served as Chief of Staff
between January 1997 and July 1999, having previously held the role of Treasury Deputy Assistant Secretary for Eurasia and the
Middle East. As Deputy Assistant Secretary his work related to economic policy towards the former Soviet Union and Central and
Eastern Europe"
Taibbi (and I) were privileged to watch this entire gang's work up close earlier. And if you missed 1990s Moscow then I'm sorry
for you. It's like having missed late 1920s Berlin. Definitely material for a "Cabaret" remake there. Gonzo journalism was the
only kind able to effectively mirror gonzo times.
Well, don't worry. All coming soon to your neighborhood for a live performance. Question is whether you'll be able to afford
to enjoy the show.
I think that calling his a clown is underestimation of his vast abilities. My God, is there any nonsense that a crooked market fundamentalists
can't say or do ?
Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, in his capacity as an AIG board member, actually opposed accepting a Fed rescue. According
to Wessel, Feldstein "said it wasn't the government's role to forcibly buy private companies." (Apparently Feldstein thought
his duty was to his personal economic philosophy, rather than to the shareholders. What a clown.) ...
...Feldstein was a board member of AIG Financial Products, the part of the biz that lost all the money.
That's a hardly appropriate level of thinking for a Treasury secretary, of even for a freshman in college ;-). But in taking out
a competitor end justifies the means...
Hank Paulson, to Geithner and Bernanke, on the possibility of bailing out Lehman: "I'm being called Mr. Bailout. I can't do it
again." ...
Academic Mafiosi is still a Mafiosi :-). "Stiglitz, more than anyone on the Washington scene, was the biggest fly in the ointment
of "free-market fundamentalism" pressed on the world in the '90s by Summers, Geithner and their mentor, former Treasury secretary Robert
Rubin-advice that has now contributed to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression"
Michael Hirsh wonders why the Obama administration hasn't consulted Joe Stiglitz more often on economic policy issues, and suggests
the answer is an ongoing feud with Larry Summers:
...Even in the contentious world of economics, [Joe Stiglitz] is considered somewhat prickly. And while he may be a Nobel laureate,
in Washington he's seen as just another economic critic-and not always a welcome one. Few Americans recognize his name... Yet
Stiglitz's work is cited by more economists than anyone else's in the world... And when he goes abroad-to Europe, Asia, and Latin
America-he is received like a superstar, a modern-day oracle. ...
... ... ...
... Stiglitz's defenders say one possible explanation for his outsider status in Washington is his ongoing rivalry with Summers.
... Since the early '90s, when Summers was a senior Treasury official and Stiglitz was on the Council of Economic Advisers, the
two have engaged in fierce policy debates. The first fight was over the Clinton administration's efforts to pry open emerging
financial markets, such as South Korea's. Stiglitz argued there wasn't good evidence that liberalizing poorly regulated Third
World markets would make any one more prosperous; Summers wanted them open to U.S. firms.
The differences between them grew bitter in the late 1990s, when Stiglitz was chief economist for the World Bank and took issue
with the way Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and Summers, who was then deputy secretary, were handling the Asian "contagion"
financial collapse. After World Bank president James Wolfensohn declined to reappoint him in 1999, Stiglitz became convinced that
Summers was behind the slight. Summers denies this...
Selected comments
Chris Rich says...
I'm increasingly convinced that this is the outcome of a deal with the Clintons. Obama's economic team is mainly the Clinton
government in exile with Volcker as a kind of garnish.
Maybe he was insecure over the inexperience accusations during the campaign.
My hope is he'll eventually get rid of them by mid term. Summers is still widely despised over at Harvard. Last month I was
doing a paint job on the edge of the campus and overheard a facilities manager in a huddle with two contractors.
The manager was treating them to juicy details about Harvard presidents, past and present. The current one is liked but when
talk turned to Summers the guy's voice dropped to a near whisper as if the trees were bugged.
Larry once made a complete pest of himself during a routine fire drill where he demanded to return to his office before
the drill was finished in some spoiled brat outburst of exceptionalism.
The undergrad alumni is still seething over the aggressive risk investment policy Summers introduced after years of staid
careful investing.
The outcome was a multi billion dollar endowment haircut and craters in lower Allston where there were supposed to be
new buildings in a campus expansion.
Gregory Mankiw is another "interesting" Harvard professor of economics ;-)
should read Sensible Centrist
J. Bradford DeLong on the difference in forecasting between the current Administration and the CEA under N. Gregory Mankiw.
Romer/Bernstein/Kreuger et al., 2008-9 edition:
As I understand matters, last December the median private-sector forecast had the unemployment rate topping out at 9% in the second
half of 2009. The incoming Obama administration simply adopted that forecast. At the time I thought that was a mistake: (I thought
that was a mistake: I thought they should have made a bifurcated forecast with a "good case" 80th-percentile scenario and a "bad
case" 20th-percentile scenario; they should then have stressed that in the bad case we would need a large stimulus indeed to prevent
high unemployment, and that in the good case we could restrain inflation via monetary policy.)
Mankiw et al., 2003 edition:
it would make it extremely difficult for things to happen like what happened to the Mankiw CEA over the winter of 2003-2004, when
high politics appears to have reached down into the forecast,
changed the table for payroll
employment (and only payroll employment: the rest of the forecast is not out of line with contemporary professional forecasts),
and produced an estimate for December 2004 (a) inconsistent with the rest of the forecast, and (b) high by 2.3 million in its
estimate of payroll employment--all because Karl Rove and company thought it important to avoid headlines like "Bush administration
forecasts 2004 payroll employment to be less than when Bush took office." (link from original)
The positive-spin version is that Mankiw plays politics better than the Obama Team.
I vote to banish Larry Summers. Not from the planet. That wouldn't be nice. Just from public life.
The criticisms of President Obama's chief economic adviser are well known. He's too close to Wall Street. And he's a frightful
bully, of both people and countries. Still, we're told we shouldn't care about such minor infractions. Why? Because Summers is brilliant,
and the world needs his big brain.
And this brings us to a central and often overlooked cause of the global financial crisis: Brain Bubbles. This is the process
wherein the intelligence of an inarguably intelligent person is inflated and valued beyond all reason, creating a dangerous accumulation
of unhedged risk. Larry Summers is the biggest Brain Bubble we've got.
Brain Bubbles start with an innocuous "whiz kid" moniker in undergrad, which later escalates to "wunderkind." Next comes the requisite
foray as an economic adviser to a small crisis-wracked country, where the kid is declared a "savior." By 30, our Bubble Boy is tenured
and officially a "genius." By 40, he's a "guru," by 50 an "oracle." After a few drinks: "messiah."
The superhuman powers bestowed upon these men -- and yes, they are all men -- shield them from the scrutiny that might have prevented
the current crisis. Alan Greenspan's Brain Bubble allowed him to put the economy at great risk: When he made no sense, people assumed
that it was their own fault. Brain Bubbles also formed the key argument Greenspan and Summers used to explain why lawmakers couldn't
regulate the derivatives market: The wizards on Wall Street were too brilliant, their models too complex, for mere mortals to understand.
Back in 1991, Summers argued that the subject of economics was no longer up for debate: The answers had all been found by men
like him. "The laws of economics are like the laws of engineering," he said. "One set of laws works everywhere." Summers subsequently
laid out those laws as the three "-ations": privatization, stabilization and liberalization. Some "kinds of ideas," he explained
a few years later
in a PBS interview, have already become too "passé" for discussion. Like "the idea that a huge spending program is the way to
stimulate the economy."
And that's the problem with Larry. For all his appeals to absolute truths, he has been spectacularly wrong again and again.
He was wrong about not regulating derivatives. Wrong when he helped kill Depression-era banking laws, turning banks into
too-big-to-fail welfare monsters. And as he helps devise ever more complex tricks and spends ever more taxpayer dollars to keep the
financial casino running, he remains wrong today.
Word is that Summers's current post may be a pit stop on the way to the big prize, Federal Reserve chairman. That means he could
actually make "maestro."
Mr. President, please: Pop this bubble before it's too late.
If you have not read "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, you will not fully understand how critical her plea to get rid of Summers
really is. Summers is no different from Phil Graham, whose disdain both as a Senator from Texas and the Uber-lobbyist for USB in
Switzerland, for the middle class and common working people has driven the US and world economies into the ground.
Kevin Phillips' book, Wealth and Democracy precisely foresaw the financial sector coup that has taken place. In fact, every vibrant
national economic power for the past four centuries has been co-opted and off shored by the extra-national financial elite who know
no national boundaries and revere no government or constitution. They simply go where the resources and labor can most easily be
exploited and expropriated, and the national governments most easily manipulated. They will usurp power at virtually any cost. They
represent the greed that has become the world's most potent form of terrorism, from slavery to dictatorships around the globe. Alas,
Obama is either oblivious to, or part of the scheme. Either way, we lose.
It was bound to happen to America sooner or later. The only true upside is the potential for this nation settling into a more
humane, laid back, economic lethargy much as "old Europe" has since America donned the mantle of world economic and military hegemony.
We can only hope.
This article goes hand in hand with Prof. Fukuyama's calling for an end to tenure. Summers is not the only economist with a "brain
bubble," which an accurate, clever, and concise characterization. I would like to add: Ken Lay, Phil and Wendy Gramm, Alan Greenspan,
and Ben Stein. Check out Steve Keen's "Debunking Economics."
The Summers quotations in the early 1990s came as he said that Russia should introduce pure markets, have shock therpy, decimate
all government expenditures (including health care in a socialized medicine country), and postpone all industrial investment for
five years until new market mechanisms and personnel (those produced by voucher privatization) were in place. It was not brilliance,
but the most obviously foolish ideological nonsense. Absolutely obvious stupidity when China had been showing the way for 15 years
on how to make a transition in a Communist country. Plain stupidity. It literally killed millions of people in places like Russia
and Ukraine--literally as male life expectancy fell to 57 as a result. Read Stiglitz's first book on globalization. Stiglitz had
Russian right and Summers was his bete noire.
Because the press will not cover the Administration accurately, it downplays Summers' power and the nature of policy. In gutting
Sarbanes-Oxney, the Administration has de-regulated, not regulated. As economists as opposed as Paul Krugman and Martin Feldstein
agree, Summers has induced the President to have a tiny stimulus. All the money has gone to a non-productive buying of bad debts
at a time when people and business do not have confidence or creditworthiness to seek new loans in the next year or so--and should
not. His top foreign economic policy adviser was a Citi VP under Robert Rubin with a big bonus last year. In the early 1990s privatization,
this official was Summers' top man in charge of Russia and then in 1997 Rubin's undersecretary for foreign relations.
As a political scientist and a former supporter of Obama, I think it is unbelievably frightening. Read Hoagland, Ignatius, and
Herzenhorn's article on the front page of the NYT Times, all today. They all say the same thing. The President has not shown the
ability or willingness to make a hard economic decision standing up against even the Larry Kudlow's of this world who think we have
a great President. He did not make a single major appointment that would be criticized by the right. Hoagland and Ignatius are talking
about his failure to make a single decision in foreign policy except those on Iraq, Afghanistan, and defense spending that suggest
a right-wing orientation. He has had his people create trying to create a feeling of euphoria about an economic upturn this fall--and
has succeeded in producing a market bounce that Soros says flatly is a sucker rally.
If it all works out, fine. But what happens if it doesn't? I think a third party financed by someone like Soros and led by someone
like Spitzer is the benign scenario. It is easy to imagine those that are worse.
When Summers was president of the World Bank, he asked: "Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration
of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]?"
Europeans are doing just that - dumping toxic and radioactive waste in Somalia. It is reported that "it costs European companies
$2.50 per ton to dump the wastes on Somalia's beaches rather than $250 a ton to dispose of the wastes in Europe."
Europeans and Asians are estimated take fish out of Somalia valued at more than $450 million annually-EU alone takes out more
than five times the value of its aid to Somalia every year.
Somalia's complaints to the United Nations have not been heeded.
Obama made a huge mistake in hiring Summers. The man's ego is uncontrollable.
Besides, his ties to Wall Street are so obviously a conflict of interest that it is a disgrace that this man has the capability
to continue throwing god money (ours) after bad to keep his Wall Street cronies from ever being accountable for ruining our financial
system.
By the way, Geithner also has to go. Like Sumers, he is wedded to the welfare princes of Wall Street, particularly Goldman Sachs.
In fact, it looks like Treasury exists purely to serve Goldman Sachs.
I cannot believe that Obama made the mistake of hiring that crew. It's not as if there were no other brilliant minds around (Nobel
Prize Stiglitz comes to mind), with beter ideas than plundering Treasury coffers to ensure that (likely) insolvent monsters such
as Citi and B of A continue to sc*ew up as usual.
Larry Summers traveled to Asia in the summer of 2007, just as the
storm clouds gathered over the banking system, trying to sell AAA-rated structured securities to sovereign funds and other investors.
Whether he was trying to unload D.E. Shaw's assets or pitching a soon-to-be-busted D.E. Shaw strategy, I do not know - although the
collapse of a Bear Stearns hedge fund engage in that strategy makes the latter surmise less likely.
A spokesman for Shaw said Mr. Summers's main job was not to act as a salesman. But in the fall of 2007, as the
financial crisis simmered, Mr. Summers traveled to Dubai for a series of meetings with Shaw's marketing staff and potential
investors. Bankers from across the region flew in for the event. Mr. Summers spoke at several lavish dinners and met with local
parties involved in Shaw's real estate investments in the area, people briefed on his trip said.
The account adds, "A White House spokeswoman says his actions supporting hedge fund regulation prove he is not biased." Not quite
true: regulation benefits the very large funds who can (for example) access non-recourse leverage from the Treasury, and makes it
very difficult for challengers to overtake them. In a market in which returns are sparse unless one has a connection to a government,
$5.2 million seems like a very reasonable price to pay for access. The TImes added:
At Harvard and at Shaw, Mr. Summers cultivated a small circle of financial professionals - particularly hedge fund managers
- to serve as an informal brain trust. He consults with them on policy matters from his perch in the White House.
Among these insiders are Kenneth D. Brody and Frank P. Brosens, the founding partners of another hedge fund, Taconic Capital
Advisors, for whom Mr. Summers did consulting work from 2004 to 2006.
Mr. Summers reached out to Mr. Brosens in December to discuss the Obama administration's economic priorities. This year, he
campaigned to have him run the federal office overseeing the
$700 billion bailout program. Mr. Brosens withdrew his name from consideration last month.
Others in this inner circle include Nancy Zimmerman, a longtime friend and hedge fund manager in Boston;
Laurence D. Fink, the chairman and chief executive of BlackRock, a large money management company that hopes to play a potentially
lucrative role in the administration's bank rescue plan; H. Rodgin Cohen, the chairman of the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, who
was briefly considered for a senior Treasury post; and three other top fund managers, Orin S. Kramer, Ralph L. Schlosstein and
Eric M. Mindich.
And poor Sheila Bair gets beaten up in the blogs. Nobody said life was fair.
Back in the spring of 1998, when Boris Yeltsin was still at Russia's helm, I led a group of global investors to Moscow to find
out firsthand where the Russian economy was headed. My long career with the International Monetary Fund and on Wall Street had taken
me to "emerging markets" throughout Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America, and I thought I'd seen it all. Yet I still recall the
shock I felt at a meeting in Russia's dingy Ministry of Finance, where I finally realized how a handful of young oligarchs were bringing
Russia's economy to ruin in the pursuit of their own selfish interests, despite the supposed brilliance of Anatoly Chubais, Russia's
economic czar at the time.
It's too bad that Mr. Lachman works for the American Enterprise Institute. It weakens his credibility.
He might have mentioned the Lawrence Summers - Andre Shleifer scandal which contributed in no small way to Summers' stepping down
from the presidency of Harvard University. A bit of raping and pillaging, economically speaking, done by Mr. Shleifer. Shleifer cost
Harvard a substantial sum (a million dollars or more, I believe) when he was convicted of fraud, while doing work for them in Russia
and essentially lining his own pockets. He was 'advising' the Russian government and being mentored by Summers.
Did Mr. Summers know what his protege was up to? Don't know. The public relations effort to minimize this story has been pretty
successful, despite it first appearing in a magazine. It is never mentioned as a reason for his leaving Harvard. Silly. Such a big
mistake as making a few 'sexist' remarks is cited instead. Articulately expressed sexist remarks. In fact, those remarks turned out
to be a convenient exit stragegy and deflected attention from what was a serious 'steal big' strategy on the part of Mr. Shleifer,
in my opinion.
Google 'Shleifer' AND 'Schleifer' (since that seems to be another spelling of his name) 'Harvard' and 'Summers' and see how 'hot'
this topic is (that is to say, not very).
Actually, Our Corrupt U.S. Brain Trust of Neo-Market-Worship Ideology Helped Make Post-Soviet Russia What It Is
Since we're in the national mood for retrospection about the insanely deregulatory and shock treatment environment of 10-15 years
ago, how about a look back at the Nation covering how the U.S. and the Harvard Institute for International Development did
all it can to screw up the emerging Russian economy and grab all they could when they could?
We funded and encouraged yet another set of market worshiping, non-overseen arrogant twits to help screw over that developing
country, in moves beginning under the Bush Sr. administration but increasing under Clinton, led by Larry Summers and Jeffrey
Sachs. The Harvard Institute for International Development was the agency, and it was later sued by the U.S. government in
a case settled in 2005.
The Harvard Boys Do Russia
By Janine R. Wedel | June 1, 1998 edition | The Nation | May 14, 1998
After seven years of economic "reform" financed by billions of dollars in U.S. and other Western aid, subsidized loans and
rescheduled debt, the majority of Russian people find themselves worse off economically.
The privatization drive that was supposed to reap the fruits of the free market instead helped to create a system of tycoon
capitalism run for the benefit of a corrupt political oligarchy that has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars of Western
aid and plundered Russia's wealth.
The architect of privatization was former First Deputy Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais, a darling of the U.S. and Western
financial establishments. Chubais's drastic and corrupt stewardship made him extremely unpopular. According to The New York
Times, he "may be the most despised man in Russia."
Essential to the implementation of Chubais's policies was the enthusiastic support of the Clinton Administration and
its key representative for economic assistance in Moscow, the Harvard Institute for International Development.
Using the prestige of Harvard's name and connections in the Administration, H.I.I.D. officials acquired virtual carte
blanche over the U.S. economic aid program to Russia, with minimal oversight by the government agencies involved.
With this access and their close alliance with Chubais and his circle, they allegedly profited on the side. Yet few Americans
are aware of H.I.I.D.'s role in Russian privatization, and its suspected misuse of taxpayers' funds.
At the recent U.S.-Russian Investment Symposium at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, Yuri Luzhkov, the Mayor
of Moscow, made what might have seemed to many an impolite reference to his hosts. After castigating Chubais and his monetarist
policies, Luzhkov, according to a report of the event, "singled out Harvard for the harm inflicted on the Russian economy
by its advisers, who encouraged Chubais's misguided approach to privatization and monetarism."
Luzhkov was referring to H.I.I.D...
...The activities of H.I.I.D. in Russia provide some cautionary lessons on abuse of trust by supposedly disinterested
foreign advisers, on U.S. arrogance and on the entire policy of support for a single Russian group of so-called reformers.
The H.I.I.D. story is a familiar one in the ongoing saga of U.S. foreign policy disasters created by those said to be our "best
and brightest."
Through the late summer and fall of 1991, as the Soviet state fell apart, Harvard Professor Jeffrey Sachs and other Western
economists participated in meetings at a dacha outside Moscow where young, pro-Yeltsin reformers planned Russia's economic
and political future.
Sachs teamed up with Yegor Gaidar, Yeltsin's first architect of economic reform, to promote a plan of "shock therapy"
to swiftly eliminate most of the price controls and subsidies that had underpinned life for Soviet citizens for decades.
...H.I.I.D. had supporters high in the Administration. One was Lawrence Summers, himself a former Harvard economics professor,
whom Clinton named Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs in 1993. Summers, now Deputy Treasury Secretary,
had longstanding ties to the principals of Harvard's project in Russia and its later project in Ukraine.
...H.I.I.D. projects were never adequately monitored by U.S.A.I.D. In 1996, a General Accounting Office report described
U.S.A.I.D.'s management and oversight of H.I.I.D. as "lax." In early 1997, U.S.A.I.D.'s inspector general received incriminating
documents about H.I.I.D.'s activities in Russia and began investigating.
In May [HIID's] Shleifer and Hay lost their projects when the agency [USAID] canceled most of the $14 million still earmarked
for H.I.I.D., citing evidence that the two managers were engaged in activities for "private gain."
The men had allegedly used their positions to profit from investments in the Russian securities markets and other private enterprises.
According to sources close to the U.S. investigation, while advising the Russian government on capital markets, for example, Hay
and his father allegedly used inside information to invest in Russian government bonds...
...In early 1996, after [Chubais] was temporarily removed from high office by Yeltsin because he represented unpopular economic
policies, H.I.I.D. came to his rescue by placing him on its U.S.A.I.D.-funded payroll, a show of loyalty that former
U.S.A.I.D. assistant administrator Thomas Dine says he supported.
Western policy-makers like Morningstar and Dine have depicted Chubais as a selfless visionary battling reactionary forces.
In the spring of 1997, Summers called him and his associates a "dream team." With few exceptions, the U.S. mainstream media
have promulgated this view...
[Excerpted. Follow link for full text at Nation site.]
http://tinyurl.com/Harvard-Boys-Do-Russia
What's funny is that simultaneously we were allowing these same "best & brightest" to attack the long-term stability of U.S.
economic interests domestically in the name of arrogant market boosterism.
So, at least a few people in Russia must feel better now that they know they weren't being singled out, that the same types of
people and ideologies were also being unleashed upon the same U.S. which was foisting it upon them.
-- El Cid
@ tribulation periwinkle: To me it's not about Harvard per se
Although, yes, Harvard and Harvard-connected institutions and individuals figure prominently in many elite-led efforts, I don't
think this is so much the case of the institution creating elite-led efforts, but the natural tendency of the upper class and power
elites to work with the leading elite intellectual institutions of the nation, particularly the most established and well-connected
among them.
When it's not Harvard, it's Yale, or Stanford, or whichever. When the academics won't play along directly, you establish some
private-backed institute or foundation or 'think tank' to carry out your agenda.
Example, from sociologist G. William Domhoff (from 2005 though):
Table 2: The 15 most central organizations in the corporate/foundation/think tank/policy-planning group/university/charity/advisory
committee network.
Organization Sector/Subsector Centrality score
Committee for Economic Development Think Tank 140.81
University of Chicago University 3.66
Conference Board Think Tank 3.60
Verizon Business 3.29
Proctor & Gamble Business 3.21
National Bureau of Economic Research Think Tank 3.01
Network Reliability and Interoperability Council Government Advisory Board 2.41
President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee Government Advisory Board 2.38
Allied Signal Business 2.36
Exxon Mobil Business 2.36
President's Export Council Government Advisory Board 2.32
Columbia University University 1.66
Ford Foundation Foundation 1.66
Sara Lee Corporation Business 1.66
National Petroleum Council Government Advisory Board 1.66
Thanks for the links to the power and influence crowd. But I think that Harvard influence lurks even there - the directors'
primary roles and educational backgrounds aren't listed. it was interesting to see my own alma mater, Columbia, listed. I'll be
paying more attention to that, and it's interesting that I haven't perceived that influence to the extent that I have Harvard's,
and to a slightly lesser extent, Yale's.
There are, however, Harvard Clubs, in several key metro areas, and those are conservatories for growing Harvard power and influence.
If you haven't visited one before, do so if you have an opportunity.
Ondelette, your most recent comment spurred me to think of the old saw, "it isn't personal, it's simply business" as making
its own case that corporations should not under any circumstances ever be given rights of citizenship. That phrase denies the
inherent worth of individuals, and assumes that business has the right, power and authority to do anything it desires, unfettered,
and regardless of the consequences to individuals', communities' and societies' human members.
And yet so far the debate over Summers has been largely confined to two outrageous moments in his career: his
1991 World Bank memo calling Africa "UNDER-polluted,"
and his more recent declarations, while serving as president of Harvard, about women's genetic inferiority in math and science. By
themselves, these two incidents might be dismissed as merely provocative in a maverick-moron sort of way, as many of Summers' supporters
argue; but in the context of Summers's track record, in which he oversaw the destruction of entire economies and covered up cronyism
and corruption, his Africa memo and sexist declarations aren't exceptions but rather part of a disturbing pattern.
From the start, Summers has been on the wrong side of Obama's supporters. In 1982, while still a graduate student
at Harvard, Summers was brought to Washington by his dissertation advisor Martin Feldstein, the supply-side economist, to serve on
Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors. Those first years in the Reagan administration were crucial in the right-wing war against
New Deal regulation of the banking system and financial markets--a war that Reagan's team won, and that we're all paying for today.
Although Summers eventually identified himself with the Democratic Party--albeit the right wing of that party--nevertheless, as the
New York Times's
Peter T. Kilborn wrote in 1988:
He worked for 10 months as a top analyst in President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers when his mentor, Martin S. Feldstein,
was running it, and his colleagues don't recall him venting anti-Reagan heresies then....
"One of the ironies of this business is that Summers's economics are quite close to Feldstein's," said William A. Niskanen,
who was a member of the Feldstein council.
It's ironic if you expected Summers to be a liberal Democrat--but par for the course in the context of Summers's real record.
Some fifteen years after Summers's stint in the Reaganomics war room, he reappears as one of the key villains fighting to suppress
the regulatory efforts of a top official,
Brooksley
Born, who was trying to call attention to the dangers of the unregulated derivatives, such as credit swap defaults, which today
are considered the key to the current economic crisis.
But let's return to the Summers timeline. After his stint in the Reaganomics brain trust, he returned to Harvard to serve as one
of the university's youngest professors. In 1988, he was Michael Dukakis's chief economic advisor, but when that campaign failed
to bring Summers to power, he turned to America's great rival, the former Soviet Union, to try out his economic experiments. In 1990,
Lithuania, a restive Soviet republic seeking independence, hired Summers to advise on that country's economic transformation. Poor
Lithuania had no idea what it got itself into. This was Summers's first opportunity to tackle a country in economic crisis and put
his wunderkind theories into practice. The results were literally suicidal: in 1990, when Summers first arrived, Lithuania's suicide
rate was 26.1 per 100,000 and falling. Just five years after Summers got his hands on Lithuania's economy, life became so unbearable
under the economic transition that the suicide rate nearly doubled to 45.6 per 100,000, worse than any other ex-Soviet republic in
transition. In fact, it was the highest suicide rate in the world, suggesting something particularly
harsh and brutal about the economic transition in that
country as opposed to the others, where suffering and pain were common. Things got so bad that in 1992, after just two years of Summers-nomics,
the traumatized Lithuanians voted the communist party
back into power,
the first East European nation to do so--even though just a year earlier Lithuanians actually died on the streets fighting communism.
Fresh off his success in Lithuania, Summers moved to the World Bank, where he was named the chief economist in 1991, the
year he issued his famous let's-pollute-Africa memo. It was also the year that Summers, and his Harvard protégé Andrei Schleifer
(who worked with Summers on the Lithuania economic transformation), began their catastrophic "rescue" of Russia's crisis-ridden economy.
It's a complicated story involving corruption, cronyism and economic devastation. But by the end of the 1990s, Russia's GDP had collapsed
by more than 60 percent, its population was suffering the worst death-to-birth ratio of any industrialized nation in the twentieth
century, and the financial markets that Summers and Schleifer helped create had collapsed in what was then the world's biggest debt
default ever. The result was the rise of Vladmir Putin and a national aversion to free markets and anything associated with Western
liberalism.
But that's not all. Summers, through Schleifer, was also tainted with some of that country's corruption, which resulted in a US
Justice Department lawsuit against Schleifer and others. While Schleifer was being paid by US taxpayers to advise the Russians on
capital markets in the 1990s, his wife, Nancy Zimmerman, bought and traded Russian equities for a Boston hedge fund she ran--they
even used Schleifer's US taxpayer-funded offices to run Zimmerman's Moscow-based hedge fund operations.
How close were Larry Summers and Andrei Schleifer? According to former Boston Globe economics correspondent
David Warsh, Summers and Schleifer "were
among each other's best friends," and Summers taught Schleifer "as an undergraduate, sent him on to MIT for his PhD, took him along
on an advisory mission to Lithuania in 1990, and in 1991, shepherded his return to Harvard as full professor, where he was regarded,
after Martin Feldstein and Summers, as the leader of the next generation."
In 2000, the Justice Department sought $102 million in damages from Schleifer, one of Schleifer's Harvard associates and Harvard
University in a conflict-of-interest suit resulting from Schleifer's role as the lead US adviser to Russia's economic reforms--questioning
the way Schleifer and his wife profited from his position. Schleifer's Harvard team in Moscow was funded by USAID in a no-bid contract,
and supported by Summers as soon as he moved into the Treasury Department in 1993. So Schleifer benefited from his relationship with
Summers twice: first, by getting a choice contract as the US government's man in Moscow in the 1990s when Summers was in power in
the US government, one that benefited his wife's hedge fund (earlier this year, Portfolio suggested that the Schleifers' hedge
funds
made
them billionaires ). Then after Schleifer returned to Harvard to face the lawsuit, Summers, now president of Harvard, presided
over a controversial settlement that all but let his protégé off the hook. Thanks to pressure by Summers, Schleifer kept his chair
at Harvard, where he continues to teach today.
Summers's other favorite man in Russia was Anatoly Chubais--who consistently ranks at the top of Russia's "
most hated man" polls. Chubais was executor of the Russian government's privatization program, in which state companies worth
tens of billions of dollars were handed over to insiders for a fraction of their worth in blatantly rigged auctions. Summers praised
Chubais as a "demigod" and called Chubais and his free-market cohorts "the dream team." In September 1998, after Russia's capital
markets collapsed, along with billions in US-taxpayer-backed loans, Chubais boasted to a Russian newspaper, "We swindled them." By
"them," he meant the Western and American aid institutions that funded his reforms.
In light of all of the corruption, cronyism and devastation that have marked his career, Summers' statements about an under-polluted
Africa or intellectually-inferior women no longer seem like provocative eccentricities but part and parcel of the Summers shtick.
And now there's talk that President-elect Obama may hand the keys to national treasury to Summers--meaning that he'll be in charge
of overseeing a trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of the entire financial industry, a process already rife with conflicts of interest,
cronyism and corruption--as detailed by Naomi Klein.
The bailout, as currently implemented, threatens to devastate America's economy much as Russia's and Lithuania's were devastated
before. The idea that this is exactly the right time and place to put Larry Summers in charge of our economy's future is so frightening
that it makes the Sarah Palin vice presidential choice seem almost quaint by comparison. Let's hope the rumors are wrong.
As part of her campaign to
stop the bailout
profiteers, Naomi Klein has put our petition on her home page, joining
2800 of you who have signed up to protest Larry Summers
as Treasury Secretary. It came out today that Larry Summers
warmly embraced deregulation
as Treasury Secretary, as
Dean Baker notes. Summers fought aggressively against pro-regulatory elements within the Clinton administration to do the industry's
bidding, so it's no surprise he's now a managing director at hedge fund and private equity group DE Shaw.
Kim Gandy of NOW
has issued a critical statement bringing up a point I hadn't before considered.
"I'm torn on the subject. Part of me thinks his opinions on women's capacities for math and science don't have relevancy to financial
markets. On the other hand, economics is a very math-heavy field. Does that mean he'd be less likely to include women in his own
circle of advisers? I don't know the answer to that question; I don't know him. But I do wonder whether if his comments about
women's lack of aptitude for math and science had instead been a comment or an opinion about African Americans having less capacity
for math and science, would he be on anybody's short-list. That's a fair question to ask."
Summers certainly did this when pushing to keep derivatives free from regulations. He was part of a gang of free marketeers which
included Alan Greenspan, industry lobbyists, and Robert Rubin to keep a steel-spined lawyer, Brooksley E. Born, head of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, from regulating derivatives even after the collapse of long-term capital management.
Born didn't back off on derivatives, either. On May 7, 1998, two weeks after her April showdown at Treasury, the commission issued
a "concept release" soliciting public comment on derivatives and their risk.
The response was swift and blistering. Within hours, Greenspan, Rubin and Levitt cited their "grave concerns" in an unusual
joint statement. Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers decried it before Congress as "casting a shadow of regulatory uncertainty
over an otherwise thriving market."
At least one major progressive group has plans to come against Summers shortly. This possible appointment is a travesty. As Ian
Welsh notes, Obama should
pick someone who got this right.
Shleifer also reveals the sheer size of the funds which were founded by Shleifer and his wife, Nancy Zimmerman. Zimmerman's hedge
fund, he says, now has $3 billion in assets under management, while LSV Asset Management, which was co-founded by Shleifer, has an
astonishing $66 billion in AUM.
Which makes Warsh's tentative stab at Shleifer's net worth extremely modest: "together the pair,
through their start-ups, may have amassed net worth of $40 million or more," he writes. Going on those AUMs alone, my guess is that
the Shleifer-Zimmerman family has a net worth of vastly more than $40 million, and quite possibly something in the billion dollar
range.
In fact, the $3 billion number for Bracebridge Capital, Zimmerman's fund, is
two years old; if she's
merely performed in line with other $3 billion funds circa 2006, my guess is she might well be at double that level right now.
Zimmerman founded Bracebridge in 1994 with $55 million; she's been in there since day one, collecting what we can reasonably assume
to be 2-and-20. We can also assume, from the 50-fold increase in AUM, that her investment returns have been very good. And since
she's the founder, we can assume too that the vast majority of her wealth has been (re)invested in Bracebridge.
The reason that hedge fund managers can get so magnificently wealthy is that they take their enormous fees, reinvest them in their
own funds, earn high returns, and get paid even greater fees the next year. By the time a fund reaches $3 billion, it's not uncommon
for the founding partner to be a billionaire. But in any case, if Bracebridge is at $3 billion and is making 2-and-20 on, say, 12%
returns, then that works out at $132 million per year in performance fees. Even if less than half of that goes to Zimmerman personally,
it's likely to have compounded to something in the billion-dollar range by now: after all, she's been in the business for 14 years,
which is a long time to be compounding alpha.
As for Shleifer himself, Warsh reports that he sold his share in LSV "for a large but undisclosed sum several years ago". How large
is that sum likely to have been? Well, LSV probably didn't have $66 billion under management back then, but on the other hand it
was probably growing quite fast. Let's say that Shleifer had a 30% stake in the company, that when he sold out there was $30 billion
of funds under management, and that he sold at a valuation of 4% of AUM. That would mean he received $400 million for his stake.
(It's also fair to assume that the proceeds were invested well, and have grown substantially since then.)
The real numbers might
be lower than that - or they might be higher, we don't know. But between Zimmerman and Shleifer, it's probably reasonable to assume
that they could quite easily lose $40 million down the back of the sofa and not notice. These guys are rich
WHEN LAWRENCE Summers resigned the Harvard University presidency last month, his action was attributed in large part to difficulty
in human relations. Whatever the true reason, when Summers's legacy is examined, he should be held to account for his role in a scandal
with which he was intimately involved, both as a Treasury official and at Harvard. Yet the strange ... (Full article: 710 words See:
harvard_boston_globe)
The following two paragraphs that appeared in my original article but (for space reasons) were mostly cut from Saturday's Boston
Globe piece may provide further clarification:
"The system is virtually incapable of dealing with such players' infractions and lack of transparency in a timely fashion. It
is not for lack of inquiries. A series of governmental and business investigations into the handling of U.S. assistance for Russian
economic reforms entrusted to Harvard began as early as 1996. That year the Government Accountability Office published a report calling
USAID's oversight over Harvard's Russia project "lax." (GAO staff entrusted to me a copy of their original draft report, which is
even more critical.) The following year the Justice Department embarked on its investigation. Yet another case charging Harvard University,
Shleifer, and another Harvard principal with fraud was brought by The Forum Financial Group, a Portland, Maine-based mutual funds
firm working in Russia. That case was settled out of court in 2002. Only recently has Harvard opened an investigation.
While these probes were in process, Shleifer's star, like that of many such players, was steadily rising, not falling. Remarkably,
Shleifer has continued to testify before congressional committees and publish articles in reputable journals as an expert on corruption,
work with a World Bank anti-corruption unit, and write for Foreign Affairs on the supposed success of Russian "reforms"--without
disclosing his role in crafting them. He was awarded the American Economic Association's prestigious John Bates Clark Medal in 1999.
And, of course, he remains a tenured full professor at Harvard."
"The new paradigm" economy concocted by the Harvard-connected Clinton Administration appointees in the U.S. Treasury, was designed
to extend the federal government's meddling hand worldwide through its control of the multilateral and bilateral public lenders,
enabling government a free ride on the back of a re-structured U.S. economy grown vigorous and ever more innovative on account of
the benefits the Reagan era's low taxation, moderate inflation, reduced regulation and expanding world trade had delivered. The overall
scheme works as follows:
Sell assistance programs on an alleged "free market" and "humanitarian" basis by awarding government grants to those academics
who can be relied upon to supply the intellectual camouflage politicians and journalists then repeat ad nauseum to a distracted
public, move the IMF and the World Bank to target, induce target to raise taxes, fine tune target's central banking operations, encourage
borrowing and debt creation through the target's government and its national banks, allowing IMF lending to pay yields if necessary;
induce target to privatize national property while building a flimsy, artificial "infrastructure" for an equities market good enough
to attract high risk foreign investors. Once the target nation's government flounders, step back and watch speculators assert
discipline through a run on the target's currency. The subsequent devaluation delivers, in turn, a flood of cheap imports to American
manufacturers and producers.
The finishing touch on the swindle is to confiscate more money from G-7 citizens (the lion's share from Americans) to pay for
what is said to be an "essential" IMF bailout; thereby allowing Uncle Sam's IMF minions to entrench themselves more deeply in the
target's government. Taxes are raised, the population struggles beneath indebtedness, government funding demands and the inevitable
domestic inflation a devaluation delivers. Western neo-colonialists then bully the target over its rapidly compounding debt in order
to extract yet more property. Once successful, the world's insiders then turn around and deliver cheap shares from privatizations
and initial public offerings into the maw of U.S. mutual funds and portfolio investors. US taxpayers get hit coming (foreign aid)
and going (bailouts) and innocent foreigners' property is finagled away either from, or on account of, inattentive and corrupt leaderships.
The big winners are the world's increasingly corrupt and cozy governing class, international bureaucracies and global banks.
What U.S. policy has wrought across much of the post-cold war landscape is a moral, political and financial abomination based
on fraud, theft and deceit. In Russia the results of the Clinton Administration's policies are the perpetuation of the longest depression
of the 20th century in what is increasingly an unpoliced deadly weapons dump, the biggest swindle of national property since Vladimir
Lenin muscled the country early in the century and the discrediting of the ideas of free markets and democracy.
The Chickens Come Home
But as the old saying has it, what goes around comes around. Unfortunately, all those dollars the Fed printed to get Bill Clinton
re-elected in return for Alan Greenspan's third appointment as central bank chief, are now returning to the United States in the
form of manufactured goods and commodities with which U.S. producers can not compete on price.
When exchange rates fluctuate against one another as they do now, some countries will inflate more quickly than other countries.
The G-7 are the only nations that try to co-ordinate their monetary policies and the effort usually ends up a failure over time.
When one country inflates too quickly, the value of its currency will decline.
Some governments - especially those with an election on the horizon - actually want to devalue since national exporters, their
goods now being cheaper, sell more goods. Global lenders like the IMF are also fond of devaluations because a rising national income
from bargain exports leaves plenty in the national kitty for principal and interest payments to them. (Global direct investors who
stick to the dollar, quasi-"good guys", fear devaluations, because their profits calculated in a devalued domestic currency buy fewer
dollars for repatriation.)
But when exchange rates depreciate rapidly the specter of capital flowing out of a country appears. Foreigners and residents put
their savings elsewhere. The currency goes into free fall, its value plummets, more investors flee and at the end of the cycle, interest
rates skyrocket. This is exactly what happened in Asia in 1997, in Russia in 1998 and in Brazil in 1999.
One World, One Currency, One Tax Collector
Yet to curse the speculators is useless; since the 1973 collapse of Bretton Woods that broke the international link between the
dollar and gold, the fear of the syndrome described above is the only remaining bit of discipline in the international system. How
much better, the globalists reason, if there were to be one central bank and one fiat currency for everyone so that then national
leaderships (and the financial oligarchies they sustain) could inflate and rob their own populations in unison.
In time, U.S. corporate profits will decline as a consequence of the IMF-induced deflation and share prices of all but premiere
multinational corporations will follow suit. Alas, those Americans up to their necks in credit card debt may well be the next class
of debtors to be rolled, and American farmers are already suffering serious losses from the collapse of farm commodities prices.
In time, credit will dry up, government receipts will dwindle, the national debt will skyrocket and unemployment will increase. Eventually
the government will inflate its way out of its accumulated debt.
Camdessus & Fischer: the Inmates Run the Asylum
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to recall one curious and mostly unremarked detail from 1994, that sticks out in this
sad story like a boy's unruly cowlick. In mid-July 1994 - at the very moment dollar-based Mexican tesobonos were being oversold
to prosperous clients of Goldman Sachs and other U.S. investment banks, which, in turn, would lead to the 1995 Mexican bailout and
the introduction of moral hazard into the world's financial system - Michel Camdessus told a press conference that he intended to
press for the creation of a new IMF facility to give members resources with which to defend themselves against speculative attacks
in financial markets.
In other words, long before bailouts of entire countries became routine Camdessus wanted a new loan program to feed the last disciplinarians
in the world's financial system - currency speculators - so that national governments might become even more unaccountable to their
citizens. At the time, The Economist slammed the proposal, saying it was "absurd and almost certainly unworkable," since Camdessus
"bizarrely" was assuming the IMF would know more about economic fundamentals than the markets. And that assumption, The Economist
noted, was the very assumption which had been the undoing of the USSR's centrally planned empire. But Camdessus' 1994 plan is the
very one the Clinton Administration implemented and seeks to institutionalize.
So who wags the tail of the money dog? Citizens who labor to create wealth for themselves and their families or folks like IMF
chief Michel Camdessus, a French socialist and lifetime bureaucrat, and his deputy, Stanley Fischer, who together are quite possibly
the two most incompetent people on the planet? Sadly, it appears a once free people are slowly but surely being enserfed to globalism's
useless hors d'oeuvres eaters and incompetent lenders.
It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to observe that the downward arc of citizens' liberties, independence and civic competence
and of American culture generally parallels the declining value of the U.S. dollar, which has lost 99 percent of its value since
the founding of the Fed, and 75 percent of that debasement has occurred since the last link with gold established by Bretton Woods
collapsed in 1971. From that perspective, it's really not very surprising that at the end of the century, not quite a century after
America instituted the Federal Reserve and thereby began the process that would deliver the power of creating unlimited debt to the
political class, the White House is occupied by a couple who share not so much a marriage as they do a collection of felonies.
Throughout the 1990s, finance capitalism's shills have been a "new paradigm" economy so glorious one might have thought Beatrice
awaited us each and every one at the very lip of Heaven itself. Their brassy tune celebrated the defeat of the business cycle by
globalization, productivity gains and computer technology. Inflation was tamed, the golden horns sounded, and we were to dwell eternally
in lush fields of full employment, low interest rates and a booming stock market. And, insiders winked, foreign money once mugged
by speculators would have nowhere else to go but directly into Wall Street's money machine.
But what if - instead of Beatrice - what waits over our collective shoulder down Purgatory way is a repeat of the European currency
instabilities of the 1930s, which culminated in the most vicious and widely-fought war in world history?
Mother Russia
From the perspective of the many millions of her children, Mother Russia in late 1991 was like an old woman, skirts yanked above
her waist, who had been abandoned flat on her back at a muddy crossroads, the object of others' scorn, greed and unseemly curiosity.
It is the Russian people who kept their wits about them, helped her to her feet, dusted her off, straightened her clothing, righted
her head scarf and it is they who can restore her dignity - not Boris Yeltsin, not Anatole Chubais, not Boris Berezovsky nor any
of the other aspirants to power. And it is the Russian people - their abilities, efforts and dreams - which comprise the Russian
economy, not those of Vladimir Potanin or Viktor Chernomyrdin or Mikhail Khodorkovsky or Vladimir Gusinsky. And that is where we
should have placed our bet - on the Russian people - and our stake should have been the decency, the common sense and abilities of
our own citizens realized not through multilateral lending but through the use of tax credits for direct investment in the Russian
economy and the training of Russian workers on 6-month to one year stints at the U.S. offices of American firms in conjunction with
the elimination of U.S. tariffs on Russian goods.
Russia is a fabled land, home to a unique and provocative thousand year-old culture, and a country rich in the resources the world
needs whose people had the courage and resilience to defeat this century's greatest war machine, Hitler's invading Wehrmacht.
Yet, thanks to Boris Yeltsin's thirst for power and megalomaniacal inadequacy, Russia has become the latest victim of American
expediency and of a culturally hollow and economically predatory globalism. Consequently, Americans, who thought their money
was helping a stricken land, have been dishonored; and the Russian people who trusted us are now in debt twice what they were in
1991 and rightly feel themselves betrayed.
The worst of it was that some pretty good ideas - private property, sound money, minimal government, the inviolability of contract
and public accountability - that have delivered to the West's citizenry the most prosperity and the most liberty in world history,
and might have done the same for the Russians, were twisted into perverse constructions and only then exported via a Harvard-connected
cabal of Clinton administration appointees who funded - without competition - their allies at Harvard University courtesy the public
purse. Joining the US-directed effort were the usual legions of overpaid IMF/World Bank advisers whose lending terror continues to
encircle the globe.
But where, in a land in which today more of the people die each year than are born, lies the gain? History's yardstick will measure
out the answer, and I suspect it will not suit us.
[Jun 2, 2008] Andrei Shleifer, Billionaire?
David Warsh has a great
piece on Andrei Shleifer this week. Shleifer is known as a first-rate economist, and is also notorious for some shenanigans in Russia
in the 1990s; Warsh makes a strong case that it's time "to close the book on Andrei's Shleifer's role at the center of Harvard's
Russia scandal".
Shleifer also reveals the sheer size of the funds which were founded by Shleifer and his wife, Nancy Zimmerman. Zimmerman's hedge
fund, he says, now has $3 billion in assets under management, while LSV Asset Management, which was co-founded by Shleifer, has an
astonishing $66 billion in AUM.
Which makes Warsh's tentative stab at Shleifer's net worth extremely modest: "together the pair, through their start-ups, may
have amassed net worth of $40 million or more," he writes. Going on those AUMs alone, my guess is that the Shleifer-Zimmerman family
has a net worth of vastly more than $40 million, and quite possibly something in the billion dollar range.
In fact, the $3 billion number for Bracebridge Capital, Zimmerman's fund, is
two years old; if she's
merely performed in line with other $3 billion funds circa 2006, my guess is she might well be at double that level right now.
Zimmerman founded Bracebridge in 1994 with $55 million; she's been in there since day one, collecting what we can reasonably assume
to be 2-and-20. We can also assume, from the 50-fold increase in AUM, that her investment returns have been very good. And since
she's the founder, we can assume too that the vast majority of her wealth has been (re)invested in Bracebridge.
The reason that hedge fund managers can get so magnificently wealthy is that they take their enormous fees, reinvest them in their
own funds, earn high returns, and get paid even greater fees the next year. By the time a fund reaches $3 billion, it's not uncommon
for the founding partner to be a billionaire. But in any case, if Bracebridge is at $3 billion and is making 2-and-20 on, say, 12%
returns, then that works out at $132 million per year in performance fees. Even if less than half of that goes to Zimmerman
personally, it's likely to have compounded to something in the billion-dollar range by now: after all, she's been in the business
for 14 years, which is a long time to be compounding alpha.
As for Shleifer himself, Warsh reports that he sold his share in LSV "for a large but undisclosed sum several years ago". How
large is that sum likely to have been? Well, LSV probably didn't have $66 billion under management back then, but on the other hand
it was probably growing quite fast. Let's say that Shleifer had a 30% stake in the company, that when he sold out there was $30 billion
of funds under management, and that he sold at a valuation of 4% of AUM. That would mean he received $400 million for his stake.
(It's also fair to assume that the proceeds were invested well, and have grown substantially since then.)
The real numbers might be lower than that - or they might be higher, we don't know. But between Zimmerman and Shleifer, it's probably
reasonable to assume that they could quite easily lose $40 million down the back of the sofa and not notice. These guys are rich.
First, a reminder of the outlines of the story. A kid, newly emigrated with his family from
Russia, turns up at Harvard, still learning English, and is assigned J. Bradford Delong as
a roommate. (Today DeLong is professor of economics at the
University of
California at
Berkeley, where, among many other pursuits, he maintains a popular
blog.) A year later, he is adopted as research assistant by MIT assistant
professor Lawrence Summers, and begins a meteoric rise. He earns his PhD at MIT, demonstrating the advantages of an innocent eye
with a remarkable thesis titled "The Business Cycle and the Stock Market." He spends a year teaching at Princeton (where he acquires
a disciple in Edward Glaeser, then an undergraduate, today a Harvard professor), then goes on to Chicago. He meets and marries Zimmerman.
Five years out of graduate school, Andrei Shleifer returns to Harvard and goes to
Russia as head of Harvard team advising President Boris Yeltsin on behalf of the
US government.
In 1997, he is discovered to be investing in
Russia, along with his wife, deputy, deputy's girlfriend, and their in-laws.
He and Harvard are fired by the State Department, the project collapses, and its failure used to discredit both Yeltsin and US ambitions
in
Russia. He maintains that he was within his rights. In 1999, Shleifer
wins the John Bates Clark Medal, awarded every two years to the most influential economist under forty. And, in 2000, the US Department
of Justice abandons its criminal investigation of him and instead files a huge civil suit. Harvard and Shleifer dig in their heels
and begin a protracted battle. Summers, soon after president of
HarvardUniversity, stands by his protégé throughout.
In 2005, the government finally wins its case, including the return of $25.2 million from Harvard. Shleifer capitulates, paying
$2 million in fines. Harvard deprives him of his endowed chair. The
Russia case is closed. But not before, in 2006, his handling of it
helps cost Shleifer's old friend Summers the presidency of Harvard.
So what's changed?
First of all, Shleifer's defenders, at least those who followed the case, now acknowledge he shouldn't have been investing in
Russia while officially advising its government. Moreover, most recognize the negative effect
when a Russian expatriate with close links to the US Treasury Department (and, in anti-Semitic Russia, a Jew), is seen to be running
a family business out of his USAID-financed Harvard office in Moscow.
A little more attention has been paid to the role of wife may have played in egging him on. Shleifer's long-promised defense of
his actions has not materialized.
It appears, now that his best friend, Larry Summers, is no longer Harvard president, that Harvard has finally slapped the wrist
of superstar economist Andrei Shleifer for costing the university $26 million in fines, plus enormous legal fees. The Boston Globe
reports:
Star Harvard economist Andrei Shleifer has been stripped of his honorary university title, following an investigation into whether
he violated the university's ethical rules while advising the Russian government.
This morning, the entry for Shleifer in the on-line campus directory changed from "Whipple V.N. Jones Professor of Economics,"
to simply "Professor of Economics." A Harvard spokesman confirmed that the new title was accurate.
[By the way, that's a great name for an Old Harvard Man: Whipple
VanNess Jones. He was founder of the Aspen Highlands ski mountain. (Does that make him a mogul mogul?) The name "Whipple
Jones" was borrowed for a character on the soap opera The Bold and Beautiful]
The title, known as a "named chair," is an honor bestowed upon a distinguished senior professor. However, at Harvard, named chairs
are generally not tied to salary, so the loss of the title doesn't mean that Shleifer will be penalized financially. The title "professor,"
indicates that he will retain tenure.
"I was a Professor of Economics last week, and I am a Professor of Economics this week," Shleifer said in a written statement.
"My students, my colleagues and my work are what matter to me."
It is unclear if he faces other punishments. Shleifer was found by a judge to have conspired to defraud the federal government
by making personal investments in Russia while advising the country on the United States' behalf. In a settlement with the U.S. Department
of Justice, he agreed to pay $2 million. Harvard agreed to pay $26.5 million, and a former Harvard staff member, Jonathan Hay, agreed
to pay between $1 million and $2 million.
Harvard's interim dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Jeremy R. Knowles, acknowledged this week that the university had
concluded its investigation, and said "appropriate action" had been taken. But he said Harvard would not comment on the nature of
the action. Shleifer issued a brief statement Thursday saying he was "delighted" to have the matter behind him.
Controversy over Shleifer hurt former President Lawrence H. Summers, because some professor suspected he had intervened on behalf
of his fellow economist, a close friend, even though Summers recused himself from the case.
Neither his critics nor his supporters were pleased by the change in Schleifer's title.
"Does that place him in an extraordinarily embarrassing position? I don't think so," said mechanical engineering professor Frederick
H. Abernathy, who has denounced Harvard's handling of the case. "If students put two or three lines in a paper without a proper quote,
they are hauled before a [disciplinary] board and they are often given six month off."
Economics professor Lawrence F. Katz called the disciplinary action gratuitous.
"Andrei Shleifer is one of the finest social scientists on the planet, a huge magnet for students and a wonderful colleague,"
he said. "I don't think we should be playing games with names of chairs.
So, will the economics profession ever discipline Shleifer for his role in the looting of Russia, or is he too connected?
In 2003, in the middle of the scandal, he was appointed editor of the
Economic Principals by the American Economics
Association. Fellow big name Harvard economist Edward Glaeser
denounced prominent investigative journalist David McClintick's Institutional Investor report on Shleifer as "a potent piece of hate
creation-not quite 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' but it's in that camp."
WHEN LAWRENCE Summers resigned the Harvard University presidency last month, his action was attributed in large part to difficulty
in human relations. Whatever the true reason, when Summers's legacy is examined, he should be held to account for his role in a scandal
with which he was intimately involved, both as a Treasury official and at Harvard. Yet the strange saga of Harvard's involvement
in US aid to Russia in the 1990s is more than a scandal about Summers and Harvard. The case illustrates the overall failure of the
US accountability system.
Ten years ago my article about the role of the US-funded Harvard advisers in Russia's economic reforms exposed their maze of networks.
I analyzed the web of interconnections that enabled Harvard economist Andrei Shleifer, a friend of then Treasury official Lawrence
Summers, and a close-knit group of Russians and Americans to largely shape US economic aid policy and Russian economic ''reforms"
while managing virtually the entire nearly $400 million US flagship economic aid project. Summers helped Shleifer and Harvard gain
noncompetitive government awards through arrangements that were highly unusual in foreign aid contracting at the time, according
to US officials.
This maze of networks guaranteed the Harvard players their success in the 1990s. It also enfeebled the multiple investigations
of their activities during the same period. Although the US Justice Department filed suit in 2000 (following a three-year investigation),
alleging that Shleifer and Harvard had conspired to defraud the US government, the case came to a head only last summer with a negotiated
settlement that required the university to pay $26.5 million in fines and Shleifer to pay $2 million. And despite being versed in
Summers's entanglements, in 2001, the Harvard Corporation, with sole authority to hire and fire the Harvard president, appointed
him the university's president.
The Harvard case points to the failure of modern democracy to adapt its monitoring and accountability systems to a new breed of
players exemplified by Shleifer. These peripatetic players have gained influence in the reorganizing, networked world in which authority
has been diffused by the profusion of government outsourcing contracts and the end of the Cold War.
The result is that accountability has been undercut by relationships between governments and contractors that are too tenuous,
flexible, and ambiguous to be genuinely monitored. Shleifer, for example, played sometimes indistinct and overlapping roles as he
lobbied in favor of his projects and advised both the United States and Russia while making investments for his own personal gain,
all the while presenting himself as independent analyst and author. The endowment funds of both Harvard and Yale gained access to
valuable investments through networks inhabited by Shleifer and/or his currency-trading wife. His investments in Russia, which he
does not deny, included securities, equities, oil and aluminum companies, real estate, and mutual funds -- many of the same areas
in which he was being paid to provide impartial advice.
Shleifer's defense in the Justice Department's lawsuit is revealing: Although US prosecutors charged that his investments violated
federal conflict-of-interest regulations, defense lawyers maintained that he was a ''mere consultant," and thus not subject to these
rules. Yet as director of the project, the buck stopped with him.
The system is virtually incapable of dealing with such players' infractions and lack of transparency in a timely fashion. It is
not for lack of inquiries, including a 1996 Government Accountability Office investigation and a lawsuit brought by a US mutual funds
firm working in Russia, which was settled out of court in 2002.
Traditional accountability frameworks are no match for the ways in which today's diffused authority provides new opportunities
for players to brandish influence, evade culpability, and gain deniability, while writing the new rules of the game. While Shleifer
must pay a settlement and legal fees, it is too late for the Russian people, who, instead of wise guidance, got corruption and a
system wide open to looting. Until the United States devises better ways to track the networks and activities of these new players,
it is destined to have an ever more untransparent and unaccountable system, with grave implications for democracy.
Janine R. Wedel, professor of public policy at George Mason University, is author of ''Collision and Collusion: The Strange Case
of Western Aid to Eastern Europe."
Author David McClintick,
writing in Institutional Investor, details the intricate web of corruption, fraud, and abuse, paid for by the US government through
USAID, that eventually cost America Russia's friendship--an NGO called the Harvard Institute for International Development (ht Johnson's
Russia List):
Since being named president of Harvard University in 2001, former U.S. Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers has sparked a series of
controversies that have grabbed headlines. Summers incurred the wrath of African-Americans when he belittled the work of controversial
religion professor Cornel West (who left for Princeton University); last year he infuriated faculty and students alike when he seemed
to disparage the innate scientific abilities of women at a Massachusetts economic conference, igniting a national uproar that nearly
cost him his job; last fall brought the departure of Jack Meyer, the head of Harvard Management Co., which oversees the school's
endowment but had inflamed some in the community because of the multimillion-dollar salaries it pays some of its managers.
Then,
in quiet contrast, there is the case of economics professor Andrei Shleifer, who in the mid-1990s led a Harvard advisory program
in Russia that collapsed in disgrace. In August, after years of litigation, Harvard, Shleifer and others agreed to pay at least $31
million to settle a lawsuit brought by the U.S. government. Harvard had been charged with breach of contract, Shleifer and an associate,
Jonathan Hay, with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government.
Shleifer remains a faculty member in good standing. Colleagues say that is because he is a close longtime friend and collaborator
of Summers.
In the following pages investigative journalist David McClintick, a Harvard alumnus, chronicles Shleifer's role in the university's
Russia Project and how his friendship with Summers has protected him from the consequences of that debacle inside America's premier
academic institution.
ff duty and in swimsuits, the mentor and his protégé strolled the beach at Truro. For years, with their families, they had summered
together along this stretch of Massachusetts' famed Cape Cod. Close personally and professionally, the two friends confided in each
other the most private matters of family and finance. The topic of the day was the former Soviet Union.
"You've got to be careful," the mentor, Lawrence Summers, warned his protégé, Andrei Shleifer. "There's a lot of corruption in
Russia."
It was late August 1996, and Summers, 42, was deputy secretary of the U.S. Treasury. Shleifer, 35, was a rising star in the Harvard
University economics department, just as Summers had been 15 years earlier when he had first taken Shleifer under his wing.
Summers' warning rose out of their pivotal roles in a revolution of global consequence -- the attempt to bring the Russian economy
out from the ruins of communism into the promise of Western-style capitalism. Summers, as Treasury's second-in-command, was the architect
of U.S. efforts to help Russia. Shleifer's involvement was more intimate. Traveling frequently to Moscow, he was directing key elements
of the reform effort under the banner of the renowned Harvard Institute for International Development.
Working on contract for the U.S., HIID advised the Russian government on privatizing its economy and creating capital markets
and the laws and institutions to regulate them. Shleifer did not report formally to Summers but rather to the State Department's
Agency for International Development, or AID, the spearhead of the U.S.'s foreign aid program.
Personal affection as much as official concern prompted Summers' admonition. He had come to know that Shleifer and his wife, Nancy
Zimmerman, a noted hedge fund manager, had been investing in Russia. Though he didn't know specifics, he understood just enough to
worry that the couple might run afoul of myriad conflict-of-interest regulations that barred American advisers from investing in
the countries they were assisting.
Summers did not restrict his warnings to Shleifer.
"There might be a scandal, and you could become embroiled," Summers told Zimmerman. "You should make sure you're clear with everybody.
People might want to make Andrei a problem some day. The world's a shitty place."
Summers' warnings proved at once prophetic and ineffectual. Even as Shleifer and his wife strove to reassure their friend, they
were maneuvering to make an investment in Russia's first authorized mutual fund company. Within eight months their private Russian
dealings, together with those of close associates and relatives, would explode in scandal -- bringing dishonor to them, Harvard University
and the U.S. government. The Department of Justice would deploy the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office
in Boston to launch a criminal investigation that would uncover evidence of fraud and money laundering, as well as the cavalier use
of U.S. government funds to support everything from tennis lessons to vacation boondoggles for Harvard employees and their spouses,
girlfriends and Russian pals. It would, in the end, be an extraordinary display of an overweening "best and brightest" arrogance
toward the laws and rules that the Harvard people were supposed to live by.
Says one banker who was a frequent visitor to Russia in that era, "The Harvard crowd hurt themselves, they hurt Harvard, and they
hurt the U.S. government."
Mostly, they hurt Russia and its hopes of establishing a lasting framework for a stable Western-style capitalism, as Summers himself
acknowledged when he testified under oath in the U.S. lawsuit in Cambridge in 2002. "The project was of enormous value," said Summers,
who by then had been installed as the president of Harvard. "Its cessation was damaging to Russian economic reform and to the U.S.-Russian
relationship."
Reinventing Russia was never going to be easy, but Harvard botched a historic opportunity. The failure to reform Russia's legal
system, one of the aid program's chief goals, left a vacuum that has yet to be filled and impedes the country's ability to confront
economic and financial challenges today (see box, page 77).
Harvard vigorously defended its work in Russia, but in 2004, after protracted legal wranglings, a judge in federal district court
in Boston ruled that the university had breached its contract with the U.S. government and that Shleifer and an associate were liable
for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Last August, nine years after Summers and his protégé took their stroll along that Truro beach,
Harvard, Shleifer and associates agreed to pay the government $31 million-plus to settle the case. Shleifer and Zimmerman were forced
to mortgage their house to secure their part of the settlement.
Russia's struggles today certainly don't result entirely from Harvard's misdeeds or Shleifer's misconduct. There is plenty of
blame to share. It is difficult to overstate the challenge of transforming the economic and legal culture, not to mention the ancient
pathologies, of a huge, enigmatic nation that once spanned one sixth of the earth's land surface, 150 ethnicities and 11 time zones.
The Marshall Plan, by comparison, was simple.
Summers wasn't president of Harvard when Shleifer's mission to Moscow was coming apart. But as a Harvard economics professor in
the 1980s, a World Bank and Treasury official in the 1990s and Harvard's president since 2001, Summers was positioned uniquely to
influence Shleifer's career path, to shape U.S. aid to Russia and Shleifer's role in it and even to shield Shleifer after the scandal
broke. Though Summers, as Harvard president, recused himself from the school's handling of this case, he made a point of taking aside
Jeremy Knowles, then the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences, and asking him to protect Shleifer.
Months after Harvard was forced to pay the biggest settlement in its history, largely because of his misdeeds, Shleifer remains
on the faculty. No public action has been taken against him, nor is there any sign as this magazine goes to press in late December
that any is contemplated.
Throughout the otherwise voluble university community, there has been an odd silence about the entire affair. Discussions mostly
have taken place sotto voce in deans' offices or in local Cambridge haunts, such as the one where a well-connected Harvard personage
expressed deep concern, telling II: "Larry's handling of the Shleifer matter raises very basic questions about the way he governs
Harvard. This is fraught with significance. It couldn't be more fraught."
The silence is now beginning to break, thanks to the leadership of academic worthies like former Harvard College dean Harry Lewis,
who is finishing a book about the university to be published in the spring by Perseus Public Affairs. Lewis agreed to show II the
manuscript, in which he asserts, "The relativism with which Harvard has dealt with the Shleifer case undermines Harvard's moral authority
over its students."
Big Biznis, Russian-style, functions according to some strange rules. If you have a market rival who threatens you, you can simply
murder him. If you want to take over a big state-owned company, you bribe the relevant official to give it to you. Then, instead
of investing in this company and growing it, you soak it of all the cash flow and park the money in your personal offshore account.
Why did Russia go wrong? How did Russians get such a warped conception of capitalism? Westerners pondering this mystery may find
some answers by looking at the people who taught Russian businessmen what it means to be a capitalist.
One of their first and most important modern role models was Marc Rich. The fugitive American commodities trader -- most recently
of Clinton pardon fame -- traded Soviet oil and aluminum for years. But he really hit his stride after 1989, when the Soviet Union
began falling apart and corrupt Communist Party bosses and unscrupulous young traders from the Communist Youth League began staking
their claims to Russia's most valuable assets.
Russian officials, including former trade minister Oleg Davydov, have asserted to me that Mr. Rich's companies set a bad example
of how to set up shell companies in obscure offshore tax havens, how to open Swiss bank accounts, how to buy Russian commodities
at the domestic price (5% or 10% of the world market price) and resell them abroad at a huge profit. Mr. Rich's commodity business
boomed: In the early 1990s, he sold billions of dollars of Russian oil, and thanks to his purchase of Russian aluminum, he came to
control a third of the world spot market of this metal.
The corruption of Russia's new business class stems from much more than one person's influence, of course. The deeper problem
is that the Russians have long had a completely perverted understanding of capitalism and the West. Indeed, news of the Marc Rich
pardon was received with little surprise in Russia. I suspect that the tycoons see this is as just a routine example of the corruption
rampant in America.
Over the past decade, whenever I asked Russian tycoons why their market was so penetrated by organized crime, they always argued
that capitalism in the United States had been violent and lawless initially too. Many Russian businessmen related to some fantasy
image of modern America, too. In 1993, having heard that a dozen bank presidents had been assassinated in the mob war raging in Moscow,
I asked the head of Aeroflot Bank if he was nervous being a banker. "Why should I be?" he replied. "There is nothing unusual in this.
Bank managers get killed in the West all the time."
Such references can come from the most sophisticated people; even Anatoly Chubais, the architect of Russian privatization. "During
the formation of capitalism in the United States, there was a phenomenal amount of killing, bloodshed and lawlessness," Mr. Chubais
pontificated to me.
The difference, obviously, is that in the U.S., gangsters and criminals operated on the fringes of society and usually ended up
in jail. In the new Russia, they came to dominate the nation's business and politics.
Why was the democratic government of Boris Yeltsin so deeply corrupt? In 1996, I posed the question to Boris Berezovsky, a car
dealer who had acquired Russia's premier television, airline and oil companies and become the country's most influential businessman.
He also offered a familiar excuse for the triumph of organized crime in Russia: "I, for one, know that a mass of people in the West
are corrupted," he said. "There are incessant denunciations of high-ranking functionaries in the United States, in France . . . Mayors
of major cities are being thrown in jail."
Where did the Russian oligarchs get such twisted ideas? All of Russia's big businessmen were members of the communist establishment
and received the best Marxist-Leninist education the Soviet Union had to offer. This upbringing
left an indelible imprint on them. Mr. Berezovsky, for instance, loves to say that he and other oligarchs are engaged in the "primary
accumulation of capital." Marx used the term to describe the most primitive stage of capitalism -- the way a medieval baron would
loot and pillage his way to his first fortune.
Often I tried to disabuse the biznismen of the notion America's early capitalists were simply crooks or gangsters who had made
good. Their success was due to innovation, hard work and steady reinvestment in their businesses, I pointed out. They had earned
their money honestly, had paid their taxes and had succeeded in a market that gave all participants an equal chance. I was met with
disbelief, and smirks, by my Russian acquaintances. Surely I was smart enough to understand that any successful human endeavor was
accompanied by intrigue and double-cross?
At any rate, the new Russian kapitalisty are a completely different species from the pioneers of American capitalism. The Robber
Barons of the 19th century presided over the biggest economic boom the world had ever seen. Rockefeller created the world's largest
oil industry. Carnegie built the world's largest steel company. J.P. Morgan mobilized American capital to fuel the country's industrial
boom and made Wall Street a more honest marketplace. They all created something out of nothing.
Russia's tycoons, by contrast, are almost without exception mediocre businessmen. They have not created a single noteworthy business
enterprise. The big state-owned companies they have taken over with their inside deals have almost all languished under their management.
Not surprisingly, the Russian economy has been ravaged by the crony capitalism of the Yeltsin years (GDP contracted by 41% between
1990 and 1999). Russia has suffered the biggest catastrophe -- economically, socially and demographically -- since the Nazi invasion
in 1941.
The tragic irony of Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich is that it confirms Russians' worst suspicions of how the president of
the United States colludes with the schemes of big businessmen. You can skip your high-minded principles, they say, we know that
America is just a slightly more polished version of, well, Boris Yeltsin's Russia.
(Paul Klebnikov, 02.03.01)
From RIA Novosti
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
August 19, 1998
CHUBAIS ADMITS THAT RUSSIA IS ON BRINK OF POLITICAL CATASTROPHE
By Natalya KONSTANTINOVA
There is reason to believe that the Russian leaders will
soon overcome the psychological taboo which prevented them for
several weeks to admit the terrible but obvious fact that at
least during the past five days Russia was not only on the
brink of bankruptcy and budget collapse, but also political
catastrophe. All that time the highest-ranking Russian
bureaucrats, let alone the President, whose Friday statement in
Novgorod that there would be no devaluation of the ruble drove
all his economists, financiers and negotiators with the
International Monetary Fund into a corner, refused to admit the
obvious thing for fear of causing panic among bankers, foreign
investors and ordinary Russians, whom constant surprises had
already driven crazy. Kiriyenko, Zadornov and Livshits did not
say what everyone else kept saying all the time because Yeltsin
did not allow them to.
That argument, as might be expected, fired back:
fortunately, it has only upset the IMF and has not caused a
protest march to the Government Building. As a matter of fact,
Government officials do not preclude this possibility.
Although "we have not made any serious blunders", as a
high-ranking source in the Russian Government has told this
correspondent, and it is mostly the external factors that are
to blame, the Government lost in that critical financial
situation from the viewpoint of the reaction to the
developments, that is psychologically. This does not matter now
anyway, because in private the premier, Sergei Kiriyenko, and
Russia's chief negotiator with the IMF, Anatoly Chubais, and
some analysts close to the Government depict the present
situation in Russia in the following way.
Until the last moment the authorities had realised that
the sign of change in Russia's relations with the IMF and the
main psychological indicator would be in the long run the
admission of the fact that Russia was fulfilling its
obligations and the IMF trusted its Government.
For three days the Government also hoped that the
situation in the world and Russian markets would change for the
better, but the market did not believe us and confronted the
Government with an almost hopeless choice: realising the
disastrous reality, the Government had either to make decisions
that would have extremely serious consequences for the economy
or continue to pretend that nothing happened. In both cases (to
a lesser extent in the second case), according to Chubais, the
country would face a collapse of the banking system, the
failure of many big banks and, finally, inflation with all its
social and political concomitants and aftereffects.
In addition, the situation was compounded all the time by
the lack of unity in the IMF leadership on the night of Sunday
to Monday. At about 3 a.m. Moscow Time a high-ranking IMF
official told Chubais that the IMF was severing all relations
with Russia. Two hours later when Moscow made the decision on a
new ruble/dollar exchange rate band, which had not yet been
announced, the IMF demanded that this decision be cancelled and
that the State Duma convene immediately to approve tight fiscal
measures. According to eye-witnesses, the whole affair looked
like a conversation of a deaf person with a madman.
At 7 a.m. the Government discussed such possibilities as
urgent talks between Yeltsin and Clinton or Yeltsin and
Camdessus, but Chubais assumed the responsibility for just
waiting.
It may seem at first sight that the devaluation and other
tough economic measures such as the moratorium on debt payments
to foreign creditors and the freeze on the treasury-bill market
are illegal, because they mean, in effect, confiscation of
property and capital, but the people who are linked with the
Government's Monday decisions reject this view and claim that
there have been no violations of law.
In any case, there have been no complaints or legal suits
from any victims of the new economic policy. Although the
number of such victims is growing, bankers are sticking to some
strange gentleman's agreement and this may only please the
Government and negotiators with the IMF.
However, there is a question that can't be ignored: who is
to blame? "If there are no culprits, they must be found by all
means," the same sources involved in the elaboration of the
climacteric decisions told this correspondent.
Yesterday in the afternoon Boris Yeltsin accepted the
resignation of his top economic advisor Alexander Livshits. No
other resignations and dismissals have been announced yet.
According to Yeltsin's spokesman, Sergei Yastrzhembsky,
personnel changes in the Government are possible, but there
will be no immediate shake-up.
As a matter of fact, Anatoly Chubais is categorically
against replacing Sergei Dubinin and Mikhail Zadornov, because
the replacement of the Bank of Russia Chairman and Finance
Minister is "fantastically dangerous" now.
No one can say how and when the President's "effective"
personnel policy will manifest itself and in what form.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug
From: Stefan Lemieszewski <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on "Why Call It Reform? (Stephen Cohen)
Stephen Cohen legitimately raises the question of "Why call it reform?" (The Nation; 1Sep98; JRL #2316) but does not provide an
answer as to why it is called "reform." Seems to me "reform" is a very effective propaganda term--both for the West and for Eastern
Europe.
For the West, reform connotes change and when used with "free markets," "democracy" and "capitalism" implies that the change in
Eastern Europe is for the better, away from the evil enemy of Communism of the Cold War to something more familiar, less threatening,
and preferable as a common goal. The change is anticipated to become something like us Westerners.
This deflects criticism and makes the approval for various foreign aid program funding much easier. "Reform" labelled policies
can be much more easily portrayed in the media and government circles as irrefutable common sense. There is a ring of congruence
to common Western values.
To the Eastern Europeans, initially "reform" connoted a change to become like the West--more opportunity, more prosperity, more
freedom and thus very desirable. This hope made their citizens patient and willing to go along with the changes initially. However,
after the disastrous results of a serious decline in the standard of living during the past several years, citizens of the former
Soviet Union have lost much hope and are beginning to blame "reforms" and their associated reformers for the demise as their patience
runs out. The latest devaluation and default in Russia only adds fuel to their fires of dissatisfaction.
Cohen speaks of "demodernization" and observes that the Russian economists are now trying to distance themselves from the "the
'neoliberal' monetarist orthodoxies of the State and Treasury departments, the IMF, World Bank and legions of Western advisers, which
have done so much to abet Russia's calamity."
The failure of these IMF/World Bank/State/Treasury programs should not come as a surprise. Economists such as Michel Chossudovsky
(University of Ottawa) go further and suggest that they are by design. In his book, "The Globalization of Poverty: Impacts of IMF
and World Bank Reforms" Chossudovsky writes:
"The IMF-Yeltsin reforms constitute an instrument of "Thirdworldisation"; they are a carbon copy of the structural adjustment
programme imposed on debtor countries in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs, advisor to the Russian
government, had applied in Russia the same 'macro-economic surgery' as in Bolivia where he was economic advisor to the MNR government
in 1985. The IMF-World Bank programme adopted in the name of democracy constitutes a coherent programme of impoverishment of large
sectors of the population. It was designed (in theory) to 'stabilize' the economy, yet consumer prices in 1992 increased by more
than one hundred times (9,900 per cent) as a direct result of the "anti-inflationary programme". As in Third World 'stabilisation
programmes', the inflationary process was largely engineered through the 'dollarisation' of domestic prices and the collapse of the
national currency. The 'price liberalisation programme' did not, however, resolve (as proposed by the IMF) the distorted structure
of relative prices which existed under the Soviet system."
Chossudovsky forewarns of these programmes and goes on to describe the collapse of civil society in Russia.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:45:47 -0400
From: Anne Williamson <[email protected]>
Subject: "Sdyelka", Adil Rustomjee? [JRL #2300, August 6]
Hey! You in the Yale beanie, yeah you! Adil Rustomjee! Come on down! We'll be mighty glad to have you join the Truth Brigade,
even if you are about six years too late. Why've you been so long in the tall grass? Nevermind, you don't have to answer that! Honest,
it's not as if we've got so many recruits here we can afford to start giving them interrogatory buzz cuts upon induction.
After reading that mighty fine plea for an economic treatise cum literary masterpiece on Russian privatization you cranked out
for the JRL, I gotta hand it to you, Adil. You were the clever one to hold off sounding a clarion call until after the bondsmen
had swallowed their commissions, the bankers their underwriting profits, the bondholders their giddy yields, the consultants their
yummie fees, the Big Six their tax-payer subsidies for their foreign start-up costs, the academics their grants and fees and the
multilaterals, well, gee, like those ingenious parasites modern science has developed to eat oil spills; they just swallow and swallow
and swallow and go on swallowing and now it turns out they've swallowed an entire people, culture, nation! Holy Moses, Adil,
how we gonna wipe those whiskers clean? But sure a fella like you knows, there's no glory amongst that crowd for letting cats outta
bags.
But first, you gotta catch the cats.
So your secret decoder ring is in the mail along with your first personally-tailored assignment, as follows:
Why has the Academy stood by in silence while a single, foreign "scholar" with broadly-based financial interests in Russia,
a hefty file at the Russian Federation's Interior Ministry, a long history of pumping sunshine within the conference rooms of global
investment banks, of shilling behind closed doors at the US Treasury and NSA on behalf of a certain billionaire speculator philanthropist
moralist and one perky Harvard University public relations genius masquarading as an economist in pursuit of yet more US taxpayers'
cash, while posing under cover of well-known think tanks as an "objective" analyst? Hmmm?
Oh, and while you're at it, why don't you drop round the editorial offices of the NYT, the FT and the Weekly Standard and ask
why they publish regularly said "scholar's" analytical pieces and letters-to-the-editor written to perfume a dubious role in
formulating self-serving, boneheaded policies without - here's the unique part - informing their readers of that fact? I
say we need a slew of truth-in-scholars or maybe truth-in-byline regs, Adil! That way we could clear up some of those pesky CONFLICTS-IN-INTEREST.
Oh, and Adil, since a certain allegedly heroic Russian "reformer" advised certain well-connected Russian Washingtonians that same
said "scholar" is his personal emissary, don't you think it best to check to see if this diplomatic retread has complied with US
legislation and registered as a lobbyist for a foreign power? Oh, I almost forgot, see if you can get the rundown on exactly why
a nascent Moscow investment bank, which said "scholar" advises, aced out the august Kleinwurst Benson in getting the particularly
handsome mandate of handling Gazprom's new 5% foreign share offering? That wouldn't be some kind of pay-off to an accomodating mouthpiece,
would it? Do you think? Could it be?
Like I said, Adil, we acolytes of the great god Shoe Leather, are just thrilled you've thrown your beanie in the ring. And I for
one am bursting with anticipation of the literary triumph that you - "in all probability" - will spin "from basic documents found
at the World Bank, Harvard, and USAID". How could the finished product be otherwise with gripping primary sources like that?
Best of luck, Adil. (Fake ruby on ring is a 2-way radio, just twist.)
From: [email protected] (Adil Rustomjee)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 13:18:14 EDT
Subject: Role of foreign advisers in the Russian Privatization Program.
From: Adil Rustomjee, Yale University, 135 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511
Email: [email protected]
Dear David,
Many thanks for your superb news service. Johnson's Russia List is fast becoming an excellent resource for those who work, who
have worked on, or who just share a fascination with that disturbing country. I am writing this letter to humbly suggest a research
topic that should be of great interest to JRLs readers. It is a subject that deserves better treatment than that received to date.
The topic itself is the exact role of foreign advisers in
the Russian Privatization Program.
It is a marvelous tale waiting to be plainly told. The Russian Privatization Program, despite its subsequent vilification, ranks
as one of the great experiments at social engineering in the twentieth century. It attempted an authoritative allocation of property
rights - and consequently of power - within society on a scale never attempted before. It is therefore a very significant historical
process, more significant in the long reach of events than even Stalin's collectivization campaigns of the 1930s. It deserves its
own Robert Conquest.
The process itself went through two distinct phases - the voucher phase, and what for want of a better word, we call the "loans
for shares" phase. It is the "loans for shares" phase of the program that has attracted the most attention, primarily because of
its spectacular abuse by Russia's oligarchs. The real story is in the first voucher stage of the process and the dubious principles
it was based on.
The entire voucher program was a product of foreign economic advice. Consider the basic timeline. The Soviet Union
itself was dissolved in December 1991. In June 1992, the crucial document governing the voucher privatization effort came out - the
State Privatization Program. This seminal document outlined the basic concepts behind the voucher phase of the program. It also rationalized
what became a state sponsored giveaway of Russia's national patrimony to the country's managers. The implementation of the State
Privatization Program document took a little over two years. By June 1994, Anatoly Chubias , Russia's privatization chief, was announcing
the end of the voucher program. In a scant two years, Russia had gone from a communist country with no private sector, to a country
with a private sector - that on paper at least - was larger than Italy's !!! Such progress could never have been possible without
substantial foreign economic advice. It is a commonplace that privatization is essentially a "learning by doing" process.
Russia could never have gone through a learning curve in such a short time span. Its reformers basically rubberstamped a scheme
conceived by Western economists in the crucial 6 month period between December 1991 and June 1992.
Yet despite this, the precise story of the economists behind the entire effort has not been told. Good attempts have been made
by Janine Wedel and Anne Williamson - and I will discuss them later - but from a technical standpoint, the story has yet to be told
well.
Who were these advisors and what did they achieve? Three groups of actors may be identified - academic economists, bureaucrats
from the World Bank, and Western consulting firms. A close examination of the interaction between these three groups itself will
offer interesting insights into the birth and dissemination of ideas. For the major ideas behind the Russian program came from a
group of academics - many associated with Harvard. These ideas were picked up in the early years and became established "transition
economics"
orthodoxy at the World Bank. The substantial implementation of the basic ideas was carried out by consulting firms like the Big Six
working (often) on USAID contracts.
This is as it should be. Academia is usually the source of the most original thinking on economics. International bureaucrats
- particularly those associated with the World Bank - are surprisingly timid and cautious people. They are institutionally incapable
of boldness - and great audacity was called
for in the Russia of 1992.
Was this boldness misplaced? I believe it was. A rational examination of the process will, I suspect, lead to a damning indictment
of Russia's foreign advisors. They created desolation and called it reform. The defining feature of the program was based on remarkably
dubious ideas. Foremost among these was the belief that privatization was a series of payoffs - or bribes, as one of its leading
advocates, Harvard's Andrei Shleifer, called it - to various " stakeholders" in the program. Given an uncertain legal environment
and some
appropriation of state assets by these stakeholders, - euphemistically referred to as "spontaneous privatization" - , better to legalize
what was believed to be a trough feeding frenzy. This was the program's dominant idea.
There is little empirical evidence from the early years about the exact extent of " spontaneous privatization". Anecdotal evidence
abounds, especially from many near - hysterical accounts of the early 90s but the actual empirical evidence is slender. The decisions
to sell a great nation's patrimony - a one shot historical phenomenon with irreversible long range implications - were basically
conceived within a six month time frame by a bunch of frightened foreigners, using dubious assumptions, with little basis in empirical
understanding. Astonishing.
The actual privatization was accomplished through basically giving away large segments of Russian assets - and consequently cash
flows - to these stakeholders. The most notable insider stakeholders - the managers - ended up the biggest winners. They ended up
owning most of Russian industry. This august group, more often than not, makes the Marx Brothers seem like models of German efficiency.
For a variety of reasons, insider-owned firms are very inefficient, and indeed a long list of papers from the Bank - Fund complex
testifies to this. Consequently, Russia is today reaping the whirlwind of its privatization policy. The long delayed supply-side
response of the economy, that is supposed to be led by these insider-owned firms, simply refuses to happen.
To round out this stupidity ( and to make it theoretically neater), the advisors had to deal with the problem of insider ownership.
They dealt with it in time honored economist fashion - they assumed it away. This was done by trotting out that most venerable of
economic propositions - something called the Coase Theorem. In a series of seminal papers written at Chicago in the thirties, Ronald
Coase reached a blindingly obvious conclusion on property rights. He proved that the initial allocation - or misallocation - of property
rights would not matter as long as those rights could be traded till they found their highest valued end use. In other words, the
advisors told the Russians, "Sure, we're making second-best or third-best policy choices on privatization , but hey guys, it doesn't
matter. Through the magic of Coase, even if we misallocated the rights, they'll trade up to their highest valued end user, and we'll
all live happily ever after ". Consequently, nothing mattered except getting the assets away from the government (depoliticization)
and into the "private sector", thereby allowing
the Coase Theorem to work its magic.
The Russians believed this nonsense. The problems with using Coase as a rationale were commonsensical : too much monopoly power
in the Russian economy and the fact that Coase himself never had anything remotely resembling Russia in mind, when he formulated
the theorem. More crucially, capital markets which would be needed to trade property rights to their highest valued end use, were
nonexistent or nascent, and continue to be so. One marvels at the Russians' own capacity for advice of this nature. My comfort is
philosophical : It has often been said of the Russians, that they exhibit in extreme form, certain universal characteristics of the
human condition.
Perhaps this tendency to extremes applies to their propensity for social engineering too.
In response to critiques of their advice, the foreign advisors resort to a "burden of proof " defense. In other words, they say,
" What a pity it's a mess and had to be this way, but you'll have to prove it could have been otherwise". It is this "proving otherwise"
that is a key issue. " Proving otherwise" would require a person with substantial economic expertise. Unfortunately most of the critiques
of the advisors in Russia have come from people outside the economics community, which on Russia is quite tight knit.
Janine Wedel and Anne Williamson have made good first attempts . But given the enormity of the catastrophe in Russia that the
advice has wrought, the definitive account will have to be from a person with some economic stature.
Who were these people anyway ? They include, Wedel and Williamson point out, Andrei Shleifer a Harvard economics professor, Jonathan
Hay a freshly minted Harvard Law graduate, and Makim Boycko who was their man in Moscow. Shleifer, a Russian йmigrй who remains a
tenured professor at Harvard, must have possessed the great advantage of speaking native Russian. In December 1991, Shleifer on a
World Bank consultancy authored a paper titled Privatization in Russia - First Steps. It is, I believe, the first systematic attempt
at outlining the program's defining feature - privatization as a series of payoffs (or bribes as he called it) to key stakeholders
in the process.
Later explications of the basic idea may be found in articles he co-authored with Robert Vishny on the process. Both the unpublished
document and later articles remarkably parallel the basic philosophy of the State Privatization Program of June 1992.
A sense of moral outrage over the effects of their policies - while a great temptation - has to be avoided at all costs. This
is especially difficult when one considers that the principal protagonists - Andrei Shleifer and Jonathan Hay - are under investigation
for alleged insider trading and conflicts of interest in Russia. [ GAO and USAID having found that they "abused the trust of the
US government " etc ]. The temptation might therefore be to focus on that entire shabby episode as Wedel and Williamson have done
( in part, but only in part). There is no need for this. The charges are unproven. Besides the amounts Shleifer and Hay are accused
of improperly dealing in, are a pittance, compared to the wholesale thievery their ideas sanctioned. The real story is in the voucher
scheme they designed and implemented. Told coldly, rationally, and solely concerned with the truth, it will still be a great story.
Behind the story after all, loom the long shadows of the millions of Russians whose lives were effected by these disastrous policies.
They deserve the truth.
Will the story be told with integrity. I am afraid not. There are too many reputations and too much credibility at stake. The
usual candidate would be someone of stature in academia. This is not really an option. The old Kremlinologists have been largely
rendered irrelevant by the pace of events and are struggling to retool themselves. The younger economists who work on Russia, who
have access to the data and hands-on experience, are the least likely candidates given the devastating outcomes of the policies they
advocated. Self serving rationalizations with little intellectual integrity are all that can be expected from this group. Witness
for example, Anders Aslunds' comic absurdity "How Russia became a Market Economy". If Russia is a market economy, then I, sir, am
a monkey's uncle -- Finally it would be too much to expect the protagonists themselves - Shleifer and his collaborators - to say
" We were wrong, terribly wrong". An old man named Robert McNamara looking back on his life, said that about a war that ended twenty
five years back, and look at the condemnation that brought him. It would be too much to expect Shleifer and the others - all reportedly
in their late thirties and early forties - to make such an admission.
The World Bank is another candidate, but they will distort the tale. The Bank's division that does such studies - the Operations
Evaluation Department - will use the standard bureaucratic boiler plate it excels at. Besides the Bank itself picked up the substantial
ideas and policies from the Harvard group, and has its own credibility at stake. While some hand wringing can be expected, so can
a less than zealous concern for the truth. Besides, even if it is honest, the drama of the story will be lost in the telling.
Source material may not be a problem. The basic documents, in all probability, can be found at the World Bank , Harvard, and USAID.
A whistle blower might be necessary at the Bank and at Harvard. Interviews with the key protagonists would also help. The problem
is none of them are talking much - either to the press or to a potential researcher (legal concerns raised by GAO or USAID investigations
may be a reason). They might talk some years later - as MacNamara did after Vietnam - but that would entail a long wait.
The effort calls for a person with the technical acumen of a Milton Friedman, the long historical sweep of a Jim Billington, and
the aloofness of a Padma Desai. It also calls for substantial intellectual integrity. While on the subject of the ideal candidate,
it would not hurt if the person had something of a literary touch - just a touch ( this is Russia after all)!!!!! Consider for example,
Tolstoy as the supreme example. In War and Peace , he looks at the Teutonic military advisors who advise Napoleon at Borodino. How
Tolstoy mocks them - these pedants who reduce war in all its fog and chaos to absurd geometric theorems and matrices. Were Shleifer
and gang a little like that too? Perhaps. Russian privatization will after all, prove as significant to Russia's future, as Borodino
was to Russia's past, and the fog of economics hangs thick on the country. If Tolstoy could analyze and mock Napoleon's foreign advisors,
and reveal them for what they were, why can't our ideal candidate do the same for Chubias' ??
Is there such a person out there?
I'd appreciate a discussion.
Russia: Reform Program's Success Critical To Global Economy By Robert Lyle
Washington, 5 August 1998 (RFE/RL) - The U.S. government's top official
dealing with international finance says the success of the Russian
government in carrying out its reform program is of the "utmost
importance economically and politically" to the global economy.
Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers says Russia's continuing
structural problems have been exacerbated by "contagion effects" from
the Asian crisis. However, he says, these problems raise serious
questions about the future because Russia's troubles have the
"potential" to become those of Central Europe and the world.
Summers spoke to the Association of U.S. State Governors meeting in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Tuesday. He noted the increasing effects on the
American economy of the Asian financial crisis -- such as dramatically
falling exports of farm products from some U.S. states -- and underlined
how important it is that other countries, like Japan and Russia, do
their part to deal with their own problems.
Summers said national financial crises have elements of a
"self-fulfilling prophecy," like bank runs, where everyone expects
failure or everyone expects everyone else to expect failure which leads
to a rush to be the first one out and thus causes failure.
That is where temporary, conditioned international support provides a
"bridge" to overcome this self-fulfilling prophecy, said Summers, and
provides a vehicle for countries to get their policies in order and to
strengthen their financial systems.
He said it is important that international assistance packages, like
those put together for Asia and Russia recently by the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), maintain a balance between building confidence and
avoiding bailouts for investors and bankers who should have known
better.
While the rescue package must not protect those who willingly assumed
serious risks, said Summers, it is "imperative to create confidence and
to avoid disaster (which) in some circumstances compel actions that do
benefit some creditors."
This shows, said the Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary, that the role of
the IMF is "essential" in dealing with financial crises.
To abandon the fund now, he said, would be "like canceling your life
insurance when you have just gotten sick."
Summers called again on the American congress to approve the U.S. share
of the IMF's quota, or member's fee increase, as a necessary step to
assure that its capital base remains large enough to deal with the
current global economy.
The U.S. Congress has balked at approving the $14.5 billion American
share of the quota increase, as well as a U.S. contribution of $3.5
billion to a special fund for lending to the IMF when its own resources
run short.
Most congressional opposition has come from Republican party members who
either object to all international organizations or who believe IMF
assistance is a short-term panacea and eventually only makes things
worse for a national economy.
Summers said, however, that this failure to act, combined with the
refusal of Congress to pay back dues owed the United Nations, leads to
the conclusion "that we are fighting another swing of the pendulum into
perilous isolation."
Summers said America's success and economic strength is not in question,
but what is in doubt in the country's "ability to invest that success
wisely."
I've written maybe 10,000 words
in defense of Harvard President Lawrence Summers's much-denounced speech last year on why women haven't achieved gender equality
with men in elite universities' math, science, and engineering departments. But that doesn't mean he's without flaw. Indeed, it looks
like Summers was peripherally involved in the Scandal of the Century, the looting of post-Soviet Russia, or at least he dragged Harvard
through the legal mud in a misguided attempt to protect a close friend who had gone over to the dark side.
Back in 1993, my elderly father would rant that those Harvard consultants who were advising the Yeltsin government on liberalizing
the post-Soviet economy were ripping off the Russian people. Being a true believer back then in the Magic of the Free Market, I pooh-poohed
his concerns.
Well, my dad was right and I was wrong. We all understand the superiority of the free market these days, but in any kind of market,
it still matters very much who owns what. The "reform" of the Russian economy turned out to be one of the great larceny sprees
in all history, and the Harvard boys weren't all merely naive theoreticians. Veteran economics journalist David Warsh's reported
in 2004:
The US government's long-running wrangle with economist Andrei Shleifer and Harvard University over Harvard's ill-fated Russia
Project in the 1990s was resolved last week, in the government's favor.
A Federal judge ruled that, by quietly investing on their own accounts while advising the Russian government, Harvard professor
Shleifer and his Moscow-based assistant Jonathan Hay had conspired to defraud the US Agency for International Development (USAID),
which had been paying their salary.
Harvard had to pay $26 million and Shleifer $2 million in fines.
The Russian-born 45-year-old Shleifer is a superstar of the economics profession. Like Summers, he is the winner of the Clark
Medal, the award for top economist under 40. Shleifer became the editor of Harvard's Quarterly Journal of Economics at
the age of 28, and is now editor of the American Economic Association's Journal of Economic Perspectives.
"Then, too, Shleifer's oldest friend in economics is Lawrence Summers -- who, first as Undersecretary of Treasury for International
Affairs, then as Deputy Secretary, was to all intents and purposes his ultimate boss during the period of the alleged transgressions,
even though they were separated by several layers of governmental hierarchy."
Summers and Shleifer have vacationed together each year.
Recently, Institutional Investor printed a long expose by investigative reporter David McClintick (author of Indecent
Exposure on movie executive/criminal David Begelman,
who forged actor Cliff Robertson's name on checks) that begins:
The best and brightest of America's premier university came to Moscow in the 1990s to teach Russians how to be capitalists.
This is the inside story of how their efforts led to scandal and disgrace.
Since being named president of Harvard University in 2001, former U.S. Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers has sparked a series
of controversies that have grabbed headlines. Summers incurred the wrath of African-Americans when he belittled the work of controversial
religion professor Cornel West (who left for Princeton University); last year he infuriated faculty and students alike when he seemed
to disparage the innate scientific abilities of women at a Massachusetts economic conference, igniting a national uproar that nearly
cost him his job; last fall brought the departure of Jack Meyer, the head of Harvard Management Co., which oversees the school's
endowment but had inflamed some in the community because of the multimillion-dollar salaries it pays some of its managers.
Then, in quiet contrast, there is the case of economics professor Andrei Shleifer, who in the mid-1990s led a Harvard advisory
program in Russia that collapsed in disgrace. In August, after years of litigation, Harvard, Shleifer and others agreed to pay at
least $31 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the U.S. government. Harvard had been charged with breach of contract, Shleifer
and an associate, Jonathan Hay, with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government.
Shleifer remains a faculty member in good standing. Colleagues say that is because he is a close longtime friend and collaborator
of Summers.
In the following pages investigative journalist David McClintick, a Harvard alumnus, chronicles Shleifer's role in the university's
Russia Project and how his friendship with Summers has protected him from the consequences of that debacle inside America's premier
academic institution.
Summers's enemies within the Harvard faculty circulated copies of this article just before his resignation. (And here's another
article by Warsh on Summers's costly defense
of Shleifer.)
How did the defendants in the Russia project --Harvard, Shleifer, Hay and, though he was not charged with wrong-doing in the matter,
Summers -- convince the [New York] Times, the [Washington] Post and the Financial Times that the
collapse of [Harvard's] Russia Project was not a worthy story? What did they say, and how did they say it? To whom, and how often?
Let me stress that there is absolutely no question of actual money ever changing hands -- of bribery. At the pinnacles of capitalism,
the influence exchange is so deep and liquid that cash is almost never required, except, perhaps, within organizations, in the form
of golden handshakes and the like.
Instead, the informal economy of capitalism is one of deference and respect, of favors today and the implicit promise of favors
later, of jobs and dinner invitations and admissions to exclusive kindergartens.... Anyone who doubts that this informal economy
extends to newspapers knows nothing about how newspapers work.
For at its heart, the Shleifer matter has always had less to do with the failure to export American values to Russia than with
the inadvertent importation of Moscow rules to institutions in the United States. That's why Harvard's cockeyed defense is so alarming,
why Shleifer's elevation to positions of ever-greater authority in the economics profession is worrisome. No one doubts that he is
an original and productive economic thinker. The good news is that it was Shleifer who, as editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives,
published McMillan and Zoido's article on Montesinos [the corrupt Peruvian spymaster who paid much higher prices to suborn media
owners than judges or politicians]. That's the bad news, too, since the editorship confers vast and global favor-trading power.
The worst thing of all is that, starting with his long-time mentor Larry Summers, Sheifer's friends don't seem to understand that
they failed the young Russian émigré in the first instance, that they in turn have been betrayed and embarrassed. It is true, as
Edward L. Glaeser and Claudia Goldin write in their introduction to the forthcoming "Corruption
and Reform: Lessons from America's Economic History" that the United States "changed from a place where political bribery was
a routine event infecting politics at all levels to a nation that now ranks among the least corrupt in the world." But it is also
true that American aid-giving abroad in the 20th century (Herbert Hoover, George C. Marshall, Creighton Abrams) has been remarkably
free of high level corruption -- until now.
Why didn't the press do a good job of covering Russian corruption and the Harvard scandal? Well, who was disproportionately involved
in the corruption at both the Russian and Harvard ends? I, for one, had no idea until I read Amy Chua's 2003 book World on Fireabout "market dominant minorities,"
that six of the seven "oligarchs" who paid for Boris Yeltsin's 1996 re-election in return for the privilege of buying ex-Soviet properties
at absurdly low prices (e.g., Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky was put in charge of auctioning off Yukos Oil, which owns about 2% of the world's
oil reserves -- he sold it for $159 million to ... himself) were
Jewish. (Five
Jewish on both sides of the family, one on one
side). And that's in a country where the Jewish population is about one percent.
For some reason, the American media hadn't been very enthusiastic about publishing that highly interesting fact in the seven years
following the 1996 Russian election. We all saw what happened to
Gregg Easterbrook in 2003
over a triviality, so you can understand why the reticence about this gigantic story.
As I've said before in the context of exploring how
Scooter Libby could serve
as a mob lawyer for international
gangster Marc Rich on and off for 15 years and then move immediately into the job of chief of staff to the Vice President of the
United States, the problem is not that Jews are inherently worse behaved (or better behaved) than any other human group, but that
they have achieved for themselves in America in recent years a collective immunity from anything resembling criticism. And being
immune to criticism doesn't make human beings behave better.
Clarifying the impact of Harvard University's Russia scandal and the Andrei Shleifer/Lawrence Summers affair on the economics
profession (generally) and on Harvard (in particular) will take years. The outlines of one mechanism, however, already can be discerned.
Tracing its workings through offers clues to what may be the controversy's ultimate resolution.
Just as opening the St. Lawrence River to the Great Lakes produced both great economic benefits (the North American Midwest could
export grains, iron ore, machinery to the world on ocean-going ships) and some undesirable side effects as well (the introduction
into the lake system of lamprey eels and zebra mussels), so sending a team of Harvard University experts to advise the Russian government
of Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s improved markets in the former Soviet republic, but at the cost of importing to Harvard certain unattractive
Russian folkways.
The most obvious of these is the tendency to view anti-Semitism as a powerful explanatory variable in the resignation of Harvard
president Lawrence Summers.
Anti-Semitism was a puissant force at Harvard and most other American universities well into the 1950s, but has diminished dramatically
in the past half-century, along with most other social concomitants of religious conviction/association. In Russia, it remains virulent.
Harvard economic professor Shleifer, who grew up in Russia, often has been the victim of prejudice there. It has not harmed him in
the US, nor his co-religionist Summers, especially in this instance.
Yet as Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam noted last week, Harvard professors Alan Dershowitz (law), Ruth Wisse (literature) and
former lecturer Martin Peretz were quick to cite Summers' strong defense of Israel as a factor in what Dershowitz termed an "academic
coup d'etat... by the die-hard left of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences." "The question I'm being asked," Wisse told Beam, (before
praeteritio-otically dismissing it), "is, 'Was anti-Semitism the driving engine of the coup?'"
The traveler furthest down this road was Professor Edward Glaeser (economics), Shleifer's former pupil, long-standing friend and
dogged defender, who told The Harvard Crimson that the act of circulating among the Harvard faculty an article in Institutional Investor
by investigative reporter David McClintick was "a potent piece of hate creation -- not quite 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'
but it's in that camp.""
So far-fetched was that comparison that Glaeser spent the week apologizing to all and sundry -- especially after an article in
The New York Times acknowledged the generally high regard in which the McClintick article is held by asking rhetorically, in its
headline, "Did an Exposé Help Sink Harvard's President?"
I vaguely suspect, judging from the title "Gangsta-nomics" that Warsh might be trying to hint at something beyond what he explicitly
says: that pro-Semitism was a motivating factor among many of Summers's most prominent advocates and may have had something to do
with the mainstream media's reluctance to touch the issue of Harvard's role in Russian corruption.
Steven Pinker, who has become much more objective about Jewish issues in this decade, is an honorable exception -- he was clearly
outraged by the ludicrous controversy over Summers's statements about sex differences.
But sex differences between men and women just aren't a strongly motivating political factor for most people -- lesbians being
the main exception. We almost all have loved ones of the opposite sex, so the corruption of feminist academics who rip off universities
isn't all that motivating -- after all, if Larry Summers has to promise $50 million worth of gender preferences for women to make
up for his faux pas, well, who knows, maybe your sister or wife or mom or daughter or daughter-in-law will get a job she doesn't
really deserve under the Summers Reparations, so it's hard to get too worked up over it.
In contrast, ethno-racial politics are less likely to divide families into payees and payers the way gender preferences do, so
they tend to elicit a lot more organized passion. Thus, many of Summers's most adamant defenders were most outraged not, like Pinker
and myself, because he was getting railroaded for telling the truth about women and higher math, but because he told an arguable
untruth about supporters of Harvard disinvesting in Israel -- that the movement is motivated by anti-Semitism. (In reality, many
of the supporters of Harvard divesting investments in Israel are Jews themselves. Personally, I think Israel divestiture is a bad
idea, but then I was against South African divestiture, too, and for the same reasons.)
Further, Warsh's elaborate analogy about zebra mussels coming up the St. Lawrence Seaway might not really be about American intellectual
life being mildly tainted by the Russian Jewish rational tendency to blame anti-Semitism for their troubles, but about something
much more serious: that American intellectual life might have been corrupted by the vast amounts of money the mostly Jewish Russian
oligarchs had to toss around to American academics and public intellectuals.
We American intellectuals cannot be bought, but our affections can be rented for a lot less than, say, a second rate soccer player.
Jake Rudnitsky writes in the eXile about
how cheaply American politicians can be bought:
American politicians prove that they can be bought for a song compared to their Russian counterparts, in spite of the fact that
the US economy is about 5000 times larger.
While [Jack] Abramoff and his cohort Michael Scanlon have nothing to be ashamed of, thanks to their Abramovich-esque lavish spending
habits, the amounts that the politicians were bought with are downright laughable. The highest netting congressman was Arizona's
J.D. Hayworth, who came away with just $101,000 for his war chest: and now he's got to give it all back, meaning it was little more
than an interest-free loan. More typical were the pols who netted somewhere in the mid-30s, including reps from NY, Michigan and
Ohio. Now all that money - totaling about $4.5 million - is making its way to neutral charities. Bush, for example, picked the American
Heart Association.
What else do they have to show for it? The memory of watching the Redskins or the Wizards endure another losing season from Abramoff's
skyboxes? A few nice meals at one of his fancy-pants restaurants or, for DeLay, Abramoff's favorite, a weekend golf trip to Scotland?
Golfing in Scotland! Can you imagine a Russian politician agreeing to so much as show up for a cup of coffee if the payoff is a ***
golfing trip to a rain-soaked dump! It begs the question, what's the point of being corrupt if it doesn't make your life much better?
Compare, for a moment, Republicans' woeful attempt at abusing power with another corrupt politician currently in the headlines:
Leonid Reiman, Russia's IT and telecommunications minister. The Wall Street Journal wrote him up about a week ago after they got
an insider close to Reiman to admit that he's worth about a billion dollars.
If Duke Cunningham's the most corrupt politician in federal history (although I doubt it), think about how far you can get with
public intellectuals for even less money!
A reader writes:
I will not be surprised if in fifty years historians judge Clinton/Summers/Harvard/Yeltsin/Oligarchs as a worse (more damaging)
scandal than Bush/Oil/Texas/Enron.
Jim Kouri, CPP is fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and served in law enforcement for over
25 years. He writes for many police magazines such as Police Times. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio
news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available
at Amazon.Com. His website is located at http://jimkouri.us
Jim Kouri, CPP August 06, 2005 Harvard University is ordered to pay back over $20 million to the US government as part of a settlement
deal resulting from a multi-million dollar scam. Two Harvard employees are also ordered make restitution bringing the total settlement
to $31 million.
Two senior Harvard University advisors, Andre Shleifer and Jonathan Hay were paid under a US Agency for International
Development grant to lead a project to provide advice to the nascent Russian economy on privatization following the fall of communism
and the creation of fair and open markets and the rule of law. The US Attorney's Office alleged that instead, Shleifer and Hay used
their positions and substantial influence over Russian officials at this pivotal time in Russian history to advance their own and
their spouses' private financial interests.
Under a settlement, the total repayments will exceed $31 million by Harvard University and it's two advisors. Specifically the
settlement calls for Harvard to pay $26.5 million; Shleifer to pay $2 million; and Hay to pay between $1 million and $2 million.
Also factored into the settlement amount total is $1.5 million already paid to the United States by FFIA, formerly known as Farallon
Fixed Income Associates, LP, a company owned by Shleifer's wife, Nancy Zimmerman. In addition, Shleifer and Hay have agreed to be
debarred by USAID.
The defendants were entrusted with the important task of assisting in the creation of a post-communist Russian open market economy
and instead took the opportunity to enrich themselves. Such conflict of interest activities only serve to undermine important development
programs, according to officials.
As evidenced by the hard fought five-year litigation of this matter, the US Attorney's Office is committed to protecting federal
funding from misuse and ensuring the adherence to the requirements of government contracts.
Improper use of federal grant programs for the purpose of self-enrichment will not be tolerated," said Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General for the Civil Division. "[This] settlement demonstrates our commitment to fighting fraud and abuse against the United
States wherever we find it."
The United States' case provided extensive evidence that, despite the clear terms of the agreements, Shleifer and Hay were making
prohibited investments in Russia in the areas in which they were providing advice. The United States government further demonstrated
that Shleifer and Hay were self-dealing by using their positions, as well as USAID-funded resources, to advance their own personal
business interests and investments and those of their wives and friends.
Their self-dealing activities included using their influence over the Russian Securities Commission to which they were key advisors
to secure for themselves and their wives the first ever launched and licensed mutual fund in Russia. The terms of the USAID grant
strictly prohibited any investments in Russia by American advisors funded under the grant.
The Civil Complaint alleged, and the Court found, that while they were being paid by USAID, the two Harvard employees engaged
in the following prohibited investments and businesses in Russia:
Shleifer and his wife Zimmerman invested and reinvested $200,000 through Renova-Invest, a United States/Russian investment
entity, in various Russian companies and in Russian government debt;
Shleifer, Zimmerman and Hay purchased several hundred thousand dollars worth of shares in Russian oil companies, but placed
the ownership of those shares in the name of Shleifer's father-in-law;
Hay and Shleifer participated in the launching and/or financing of: Russia's first licensed mutual fund, which was started
by Elizabeth Hebert, Hay's then girlfriend, now wife; and Russia's first licensed mutual fund depository, the First Russian Specialized
Depository, which was started by Hebert's business partner and provided support services to the mutual fund.
The United States alleged and demonstrated that Shleifer, Hay and Harvard University never disclosed any of these prohibited personal
business activities and/or investments to USAID.
The Civil Complaint alleged that as a result of the misconduct of the defendants, USAID funds expended on the Project were diverted,
abused and wasted. As a result of the defendants' misconduct, USAID suspended and ultimately terminated the HARVARD project in Russia.
Conflicts of interest and corruption attack at the core of what USAID strives to achieve for developing nations throughout the
world and are certainly two of the most serious threats to the success of USAID sponsored programs," stated Acting USAID Inspector
General Bruce Crandlemire.
Eight years of intensive investigation and tireless litigation on this case represents a firm and dogged commitment by the offices
charged with the protection of federal dollars to the principle that power and influence does not provide a free pass to those who
would attempt to exploit their positions of public trust for private gain."
After extensive summary judgment briefings, US District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock, in a one hundred-page opinion, found liability
against Shelifer and Hay under the False Claims Act, and against Harvard University for breach of contract with USAID. At a federal
civil trial, a jury found additional liability against Shleifer for his violation of the conflict of interest policy in USAID's contracts
with Harvard.
Harvard's "Best and Brightest"
Aided Russia's Economic Ruin
Institute that advised "reform" fed corruption
A 1992 front-page story in the Boston Globe (9/22/92), "Red Square Turns to Crimson," announced proudly that Harvard experts
were advising Russia in its conversion to capitalism. "Privatization stands as the centerpiece of Russia's economic-reform program,"
wrote the Globe. It was an equation the "best and brightest" from Harvard would drum home again and again to the media: privatization
equals reform. The piece quoted the head of the Harvard Russia project, Andrei Shleifer: "Once you work with Russians for two weeks,
you become a free-market enthusiast."
As more becomes known about the laundering of Russian money in Western banks, many in the
United States will likely try to hide behind stories of faraway organized crime. But U.S. policy toward Russia has contributed to
that country's sorry conditions--with the Harvard Institute for International Development's Russia project (HIID) playing a major
role.
Among those under investigation for criminal activity in both the west and Russia is longtime Yeltsin aide Anatoly B. Chubais,
the chief architect of Russia's economic "reforms." In the mid-'90s, Chubais and his clique of political and financial power brokers,
known as the "Chubais Clan," were the darlings of the U.S. Treasury and international financial institutions--and of the U.S. establishment
press.
HIID, together with the Chubais "dream team," as the Treasury Department's Lawrence H. Summers called it, presided over Russia's
economic "reforms," many of them U.S.-funded, including privatization. But the so-called reforms were more about wealth confiscation
than wealth creation. Privatization, which had substantial input from U.S.-paid Harvard advisors, fostered the concentration of property
in a few Russian hands and opened the door to widespread corruption and funneling of monies to Western banks.
Chubais was briefly on the HIID payroll, and he is currently head of Russia's electricity monopoly. In 1995, the Economist magazine
(4/8/95) projected that Chubais would be president of Russia by 2010. But by 1998, the New York Times (3/24/98) conceded that he
"may be the most despised man in Russia" since "his early efforts at privatization were widely viewed as vast federal gifts to inside
operators at the expense of millions of workers who got nothing but promises they cannot redeem."
HIID was in the unique position of recommending U.S. aid polices in support of market reforms while being a chief recipient of
the aid--as well as overseeing other aid contractors, some of whom were HIID's competitors. HIID, Chubais and their associates played
a major role in promoting themselves and the "reforms" in the Western media; for example in a 1993 Washington Post piece (5/7/93),
Shleifer complained that the Clinton administration was allowing privatization efforts to "fall through the cracks."
A New York Times "Economic Scene" column (4/20/95) led thus:
Is Russia poised for economic takeoff? After three years of on-again, off-again reforms and with the Pyrrhic military victory
in Chechnya still fresh in the news, skepticism comes easily. But little by little, wary analysts are abandoning their caution.
"Russia is a real market economy now," says Andrei Shleifer, an economist at Harvard who has advised the Russian government on
privatization
Some of those associated with HIID allegedly profited directly from it. HIID helped established Russia's Federal Commission on Securities,
roughly the equivalent of the SEC in the U.S. It was officially established by Yeltsin proclamation, and funded by the U.S. government
through institutions run by those around the Harvard-Chubais coterie. The first mutual fund licensed by the Commission was headedt
man in Moscow.
Hao have benefited from HIID's Russia connection. Harvard Management Company, the university's endowment fund, was
allowed to participate in choice auctions of Russian government property, despite the fact that foreign investors were supposed to
be excluded under auction rules.
In 1996, the GAO found that U.S. oversight over Harvard was "lax," and, following allegations in 1997 that Shleifer and the other
Harvard principals used their positions and inside knowledge as advisers to profit from investments in Russia, the U.S. government
cancelled the last $14 million earmarked for Harvard. Shleifer, now under investigation by the Justice Department, was dismissed
by HIID. (Still, Shleifer, who is a protégé of Treasury Secretary Summers, received the Clark Award from the American Economic Association
this year, an award that Summers, who has been the architect of economic policy toward Russia, received in 1993. The association's
president-elect, Dale Jorgenson, said Shleifer's scandal "was not even mentioned" in their considerations--New York Times, 4/26/99.)
In Privatizing Russia, co-authored by Shleifer with Chubais associate Maxim Boycko, they acknowledge that "aid can change
the political equilibrium--by explicitly helping free-market reformers to defeat their opponents." Richard Morningstar, U.S. aid
coordinator for the former Soviet Union, concurred (Collision and Collusion, Wedel): "If we hadn't been there to provide funding
to Chubais, could we have won the battle to carry out privatization? Probably not. When you're talking about a few hundred million
dollars, you're not going to change the country, but you can provide targeted assistance to help Chubais."
Leonid Krutakov, Russian investigative reporter for the publication Moskovsky Komsolets noted that throughout the Yeltsin years,
"both the foreign and domestic press created a central deception--a false set of 'alternatives.' The idea was pushed on both sides
of that Atlantic that if you didn't support Chubais, you were supporting the communists." Krutakov, who has broken many of the scandal
stories, noted (eXile, 10/23/99):
Obviously it's difficult to come into a country blind and just evaluate the situation instantly. You draw your conclusions from
people you meet. Western reporters came in and talked to Chubais, and Chubais tossed words around like "market," "profit," "openness"--all
the right words. And this was the only view point of view they heard that made sense, as far as they knew.
Andrei Shleifer Degree A.B. 1982 High Point Esteemed Harvard economics professor and advisor to the Russian government, Cambridge, Mass., and Moscow Now Chairless Harvard professor, Cambridge, Mass. The Charges International insider trading The Story When Harvard was given a government grant to help the nascent post-Soviet Russian economy, star economist Shleifer,
his wife Nancy Zimmerman, and fellow Harvard staffer Jonathan Hay set up a scheme to invest heavily in companies and entities
on which they were advising. The Hubris Thinking you can take advantage of the people who beat the Nazis and produced Ivan Drago. Shleifer was one of
the most cited economists in the world and an oft-mentioned candidate for the Nobel, but will forever be remembered for puerile
miscalculation. The Penance Harvard paid back $26.5 million; Shleifer and Hay repaid $2 million each. Both were also disbarred from the
U.S. Agency for International Development. By Any Other Name Shleifer is still on the payroll of the Economics Department, though he was demoted from "Whipple V.N.
Jones Professor of Economics" to plain-old "Professor of Economics."
The two remained friends throughout their time at Harvard, taking classes together and arguing a great deal, though Shleifer
says that DeLong "won every argument."
Like tentacles on a vast octopus, the firsthand investigations in The Blood Bankers all lead to one core. A financial detective
of sorts, investigative journalist Jim Henry analyzes a range of scandals, including the looting of the Philippines by the Marcos
family and the financial collapse of nations throughout the developing world.
A rogues' gallery of international criminals owes its existence to the dramatic growth of the underground global economy over
the last two decades. Our world is being reshaped, often in sinister fashion, by wide open capital markets and an international
banking network that exists to launder hundreds of billions of dollars in ill-gotten gains.
Here is an inside look at globalization's dark side-the new high growth global markets for influence-peddling, capital flight,
money laundering, weapons, drugs, tax evasion, child labor, illegal immigration, and other forms of transnational crime.
About the Author
Former Chief Economist for McKinsey & Co. and VP Strategy for IBM/Lotus, James S. Henry has written for many publications,
including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and U.S. News & World Report.
One of the original "Nader's Raiders," he is founder and managing director of the Sag Harbor Group, a strategy consulting firm
with a special focus on technology strategy and business development. He has managed projects on a wide variety of competitive strategy
issues for many prominent global companies. His clients have included AT&T, Chase Manhattan, GE, GM, IBM, Lucent, Merrill Lynch,
the Samsung Group (Korea), Xerox, the Joint Caribbean Task Force for Scotland Yard and the FBI, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Swedish
Power Board, and the government of Extremadura (Spain). --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
First Sentence:
"One major piece of the puzzle about where all the money loaned to developing countries went, in addition to capital flight, involved
wasteful projects."
Read the first page
The Blood Bankers:Tales from the Global Underground Economy is a non-fiction financial thriller/whodunit that illuminates the
sordid, self-serving, elitist international money trail and the greedy creatures who travel shamelessly on it. Mr. Henry courageously
lifts the veil of monetary indecency and carefully guarded fiscal secrecy as he takes the reader on an insider's guided tour of
global corruption and greed. Truth is indeed, stranger than fiction and The Blood Bankers is a shocking account of unbridled greed,
run wild in plain sight around the world. It features a virtual perp walk of duplicitous international bankers, beyond-corrupt
politicans and heads of state, and a whole supporting cast of money launderers, corporate con men and underworld predators. If
you're ready to lose your intellectual virginity, read this book. The world will never look the same.
RClark: Really interesting new material about Latin America, ME, January 1, 2004
I'm a Latin American scholar. Henry's well-written book manages to get below the surface, and deliver some amazing new revelations
about Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, in particular. I was also interested to find out exactly where Paraguay's
General Stroessner, the Phillipines' Marcos, Pakistan's Bhutto, Zaire's Mobutu, and quite a few other Third World thugs kept their
foreign loot -- and not only in Switzerland! Not easy reading, but it will definitely change your perspective on the global economy....
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Baker III are just discernible to the trained ear.
Another one quite likely to have been cultivating a quiet exhalation was Hongkong and Shanghai Bank boss Sir William Purvis.
Peter Seaman:
Oswald Howe, Jr:
Southeast Bank:
Bankers Trust:
White & Case:
UBS, Lugano:
Indosuez:
THE KESWICK-JARDINE CONNECTION
Jardine Fleming is also listed in the same document as a "role player", a few lines beneath the name of Tony Buckingham – the high-profile head of Executive Outcomes. In an accompanying financial report it is revealed that EO used account number 600774426 at Jardine Fleming Bank Limited, located at Port Moresby, Hong Kong. The account, rendered as at 15 May 1998, held a balance of US$36 million, and included Tony Buckingham among those authorized to sign cheques on the account.
APARTHEID'S MISSING BILLIONS
Gorbachev Called Coward, Traitor by Former Comrade By VIKTOR K. GREBENSHIKOV May 28, 1992 12 AM
1978: The year today's world was made
'Sex is a gift of God': Pope Francis shares benefits of 'passionate' love, slams pornography
Biggest rift in modern Orthodox history? Russian Church won't work w/ Constantinople-chaired bodies
Marek Dabrowski is listed as the current head of the CASE Ukraine board, and one of the founders of both CASE Poland and CASE Ukraine. A Polish national, he is currently employed by CASE in Kiev; he is also a professor at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. He currently lists himself as a member of the scientific council of the Gaidar Institute. The Gaidar think-tank in Moscow rates only one mention in the TTCSP report, trailing far behind CASE in the economic policy line-up. The CASE annual reports identify Dabrowski as one of Hay's co-workers advising President Victor Yushchenko's administration.
Vox Ukraine was financed by Kakha Bendukidze, the Russian business figure who entered Georgian politics in 2004. After the start of the civil war in Ukraine, he joined Poroshenko's economic advisors, but died unexpectedly in November last year.
and relevance of RICO statute against such offenses is a much bigger issue.
A murky ghost government,
I re-watched that section where he threatens Nekrasov.
Because, after Browder stood up, he was partly blocking the camera view and it was a bit unclear.
So, who are Browder’s enforcers? Who can ensure that Krainer’s book and Nekrasov’s film are “disappeared”? That screenings of the film are suddenly canceled?
Is there any way to approach this legally? For instance, who canceled the showing of the film in NYC? Can that be established? Was someone threatened in the same vein the Browder threatens Nekrasov?
After showing, in the docudrama segments of the film, the unpleasant deaths of the three guys who (I think) were the recipients of Browder’s company’s assets, I do hope that Nekrasov is watching hiw own back.
Browder has reinvented himself as an advocate for “human rights” in Russia. So, in our upside-down world, Putin in a thug, Russia is a kleptocracy, and Browder is a “human rights advocate.” What a sick joke. the soon this guy and his story can be blown, the better.
Maybe we can “exchange” Browder for Assange. Browder gets to stay here in the West, and Assange is transferred to Russia.