BTW the two "big" parties the interviewer refers to, SPS and Yabloko, or only "big" in comparison to my immediate family. They are miniscule, and everybody hates them. Well, Yabloko's more seen as irrelevant than actually hated.
I snipped out almost everything not related to the "why did the USSR fall" issue. I also find the interviewer's intro bemusing for a variety of reasons, e.g., who the Hell in Russia cares about Trotskyites? INTERVIEW WITH ILYA PONOMAREV March 24 - April 2, Moscow Ilya Ponomarev is a director of the information-technical center of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) and an organizer of the Youth Communist Front which is in a stage of development. Formerly he was an IT-manager of Yukos and other leading Russian and transnational companies. I should add he's only 28. When he became a CP Information-technical center director in early 2003, Ilya organized many provocative actions such as: releasing balloons with CP symbols over the city; the red flag over state Duma (a young activist infiltrated the state parliament and raised a red flag on the roof, replacing the three-color Russian flag, just when the communist demonstration was passing in front of the building on November 7, the anniversary Day of the October Revolution); the political flash mob (before the presidential elections in March, many young people went to the former house of Putin in Saint-Petersburg wearing Putin masks and T-shirts with sarcastic slogans about the misdeeds of his regime, and started to cry: "Vova (diminutive of Vladimir) come home!"). Due to the efforts of Ilya Ponomarev the whole IT-policy of the communist party has been transformed and the http://www.kprf.ru site - which includes materials on new leftists, antiglobalism, and even Che-Guevara songs - became among the top 10 visited sites of political parties. Under Ilya's curatorship two Forums of leftist forces were organized (in June and November 2003) with a broad representation of different organizations. When I first learned about his remarkable activities, I was experiencing a final disillusionment about the CP (though it's hard to say if it wasn't final before that) and had even written articles claiming that the CP was becoming not only compromised, but also spectacular (see first of all the Nettime contribution at http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0311/msg00062.html). But something that happened made me change my mind. First of all, it was the installation of the computerized alternative system for counting votes - - "FairGame" - for the December'03 parliamentary elections, which was initiated by Ilya and his colleagues in the CP Information-technical center. The FairGame system had revealed that approximately 3,5 million votes were faked during the elections, which made it possible for the Kremlin to discount two big parties because the faked numbers showed they were under the 5% minimum barrier for inclusion. Due to the data collected by the FairGame system, now we can more clearly understand and explain what current Russian politics is. When Joanne Richardson came to Moscow in March, we had many discussions about antiglobalism, and what kinds of alliances antiglobalists should make and which blocs it is better to avoid. Joanne was telling me several stories about the refusal of alliances with what is considered the old "Leninist" left both in Romania and in Italy. For example, in Romania, anarchists are criticizing the inclusion of members of communist parties and even Trotskyist groupuscules in international demonstrations and forums, and in the preparation of the first Romanian Social Forum several individuals from different groups are protesting the inclusion of the Romanian chapter of ATTAC because its members are considered old-style Leninists who advocate hierarchical structures and ideological purity. In Italy, the situation is more complex, as there is a growing debate about whether or not to unite all the leftist movements into a coalition led by Rifondazione Communista. Although many activists argue it is the only parliamentary chance for an opposition to Berlusconi in the next election, many others - especially people active in the centri sociali autogestiti (squats) and in the tactical media networks - want nothing to do with such a coalition. Even the voices among the alternative scene like Wu Ming, who initially supported Tute Bianche and their reorganization into Disobedienti, now criticize Disobedienti after their alliance with the RC. So, when we had a chance to meet Ilya Ponomarev in Moscow I immediately suggested we talk to him about the recent changes within the CPRF and why many young people with an interest in new technologies, independent media and tactical street actions are choosing to join what seems to be such an archaic political organization. The interview touches really diverse issues from the fall of the USSR to the future of new technologies. For the convenience of reading, we divided the interview into two parts: COMMUNIST POLITICS and PR AND IT. You can also check Ilya's homepage (or at least his photo, for now) at http://www.kprf.ru/ponomarev - O.K. OK: My question is: why do you think the Soviet Union failed? IP: The managers of the different industries were quite strong specialists in their areas. But the system in general was very inertial - there was a very limited inflow of energetic and young people who could make some new initiatives. In general in the Soviet Union the system of vertical mobility was strong but it was tending toward later ages, and when you have seventy year old people making decisions it's not good. So I think this was one of the major reasons. Also it has to do with economic laws. The Soviet Union always tried to create an economy which was closed and had no connections with the rest of the world, which was possible at the beginning of the twentieth century. But the globalization process started because of the changes of technology and this meant that the number of people who needed to live on your territory to make the economy self-sufficient was always increasing at a higher rate than the actual rate of the population. At first the Soviet Union suspended a possible collapse by expanding to the Soviet bloc, but with these new changes in technology with the introduction of computers, there should have been a next step in the expansion of the population. Without that expansion the economy failed to be self-sufficient and it had to be opened. This is what Gorbachev wanted to do, it was why he started the reforms, he had no other option. But he just opened the market without any sufficient internal reforms in the economy and the two systems couldn't cooperate with each other. If he would have went with the Chinese model - the Chinese also opened the market but first they reformed themselves, and they have a very large population and were protected by that - maybe it would have worked. JR: Do you think the Soviet Union would not have failed if it would not have entered the global market? Because it seems that it was at the moment when the Soviet bloc countries tried to reorient production toward a global market that their internal economy collapsed and this led to all the international debts which they undertook as a desperate measure to keep things going. IP: Exactly, and it was because the price of currency was different. The Soviet Union accepted trading at world prices and this destroyed all the competitive advantages that the Soviet economy had and also added an element of competition from the Western countries. So I think that was the reason. We should first make internal reforms and rearrange the processes of the internal economy and then start to slowly and cautiously open economically and to stimulate small business in the country without touching heavy industry at all. And only then, when we have small businesses, when we have more or less developed economic connections with the rest of the world, only then we can start the processes of democratization. Gorbachev was just a poor manager. JR: If you look at Hungary, one of the reasons that it is competitive now in a global market is that it has reformed its technological infrastructure. The development of IT has been one of the strongest among the former communist countries, for instance. IP: Yes, I understand. But this is a bad example for comparison because with Russia we have our blessing and our curse and this is our natural resources. They are very distant and in very hard climate and conditions, and in order to produce we have to work there, and the taxes should be redistributed in the interest of the Northern territories to support the cities that are there. So it's really a very long story. But now there is no way back because of privatization. As I said first there should be small business like in the Chinese model. Only after that you should start to privatize, very carefully, certain large enterprises. I do not disagree for example that oil companies are more efficient when they are in private hands but it is quite clear that they are completely socially irresponsible - especially in the Russian context, and it is quite clear that they are very attractive because it's very easy to get money out of them, and it is quite clear that they are the last things that should be privatized in the country + absolutely the last.
