Re: Capitalism versus socialism
Louis,
Your question is solid. How much is this boom is due to high oil prices?
Some estimates suggest as much as half to 2/3rds Yet, I really think it
hard to dismiss the role of the ruble's devaluation in creating this new
growth. It created the first investment in Russian industry since the USSR
as its products again became price competitive. It also contributed to the
first growth from below I observed in Latvia, where I have lived on and off
since 1995. In many ZNet articles I too described the hagiographic accounts
of the former Soviet bloc's "rise" in the 1990s as horseshit, but what's
happening now in Russia and the Baltics looks different, and again, the data
I have seen in Latvia shows much growth coming from consumer demand.
That said, the Baltics are very dependent on FDI from Scandinavia and
offshore money racing through from Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. If that
dried up the Baltic economies would crash
Jeff
on 3/9/04 17:48, Louis Proyect at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chris Doss wrote:
>> How do you fix that damn line thing anyway?
>
> Tell me what mail client you are using (Eudora, MS Outlook, or whatever)
> and I'll tell you.
>
>> I write: Well, there were "trebuyetsya srochno prodavets" ("we're hiring
>> vendors urgently") signs in all the shop windows I passed on my way to work
>> this morning. The Russian economy has been taking off now for the past
>> several years. I think the Western Left missed this little fact almost
>> deliberatelty because it didn't fit the metanarrative they had constructed
>> for Russia.
>
> But we heard the same thing about Poland, Hungary and other Eastern
> European nations as well. Anecdotal evidence is less interesting to me
> than broader questions of the nature of the growth. For example, Saudi
> Arabia had rapid growth throughout the 1970s, but once you build an
> economy that revolves around oil exports your run into the same
> difficulties of any other commodity-exporting nation, including those
> who export coffee, the second most valuable import into the USA in terms
> of asset value. You are subject to crises of overproduction.
>
> The New York Times
> January 11, 2004, Sunday, Late Edition - Final
>
> In Post-U.S.S.R. Russia, Any Job Is a Good Job
>
> By TIMOTHY L. O'BRIEN
>
> DATELINE: KIROVSK, Russia
>
> Despite needle-prick winds, numbing cold and winter days that crawl into
> constant darkness, miners seldom stop hollowing out the hills
> surrounding this Arctic town.
>
> Few of the workers, it seems, want to stay. But even fewer have better
> options. In a country where a quarter of the population lives in poverty
> and the average wage is $190 a month, a steady job is a good job.
>
> The lodestar in town is Apatit, a fertilizer factory that used prison
> labor and reindeer to haul minerals when the Soviets opened its doors
> more than 70 years ago and that went into private hands in questionable
> circumstances in 1994.
>
> Apatit is now Exhibit A in the state's criminal fraud case against the
> tycoon Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky; more broadly it is a test of the
> post-Soviet society's tumultuous encounter with capitalism.
>
> Apatit's managers note that the company employees 14,000 people, but as
> three Apatit machinists tipped back vodkas at a grocery store one recent
> evening, they complained that their circumstances had diminished under
> capitalism.
>
> "Life was better under the Communists," said Aleksandr, 49, who said he
> has worked here since he was 19; like the others, he asked that his last
> name not be used for fear of reprisal from the company. "The stores are
> full of things," he recalled, "but they're very expensive, and labor
> isn't worth a thing."
>
> Victor, on the other hand, said the main problem was the long-gone
> stability of an earlier era of affordable health care, free higher
> education and housing, and the promise of a comfortable retirement --
> things now beyond his reach.
>
> Most of all, he wants his children to live elsewhere but even that dream
> is faint. "I don't really believe that's possible." Victor said.
>
> "You want them to leave?" asked Aleksandr.
>
> "Yes, to leave here is freedom."
>
> Managers in their modest executive offices enthusiastically defend Mr.
> Khodorkovsky's stewardship, arguing that the operation was on the brink
> of collapse when he took over. "Privatization was new to all of us,"
> said Vadim Svinin, Apatit's technical director. He said the managers had
> to succeed "because if we don't the towns that depend on us will die."
>
> Yet prosecutors accuse the jailed tycoon of rigging an auction to gain
> control of Apatit a decade ago, then failing to pay the bid of $283 million.
>
> Mr. Svinin, a former miner who has an easygoing mastery of Apatit's
> business and a devotion to his work, contends that Mr. Khodorkovsky has
> invested more money in Apatit than the $283 million originally required.
> He said the company spent more than $100 million on new equipment in
Re: Capitalism versus socialism
I think Louis right to suggest caution in asking who benefits from the current growth in Russia, but there has been a qualitative shift since the 1990s. Growth is not merely being absorbed at the top of the economy. The 1998 collapse of the ruble delivered the unintended Keynesian consequence of demand from below. In Riga, anyway, small and mid-size businesses are proliferating and the sense of desperation that one observed in the 1990s is evaporating. From what little I saw of Moscow this past November, this seems somewhat mirrored in Moscow. Of course, reports from the rest of Russia are, to mildly put it, discouraging. In sum, the market seems to be creating a broad-based growth, but in spite of neoliberal policies pursued in the 1990s, not because of them. All that said, this has caused some inflation and none of these states has adjusted pensions appropriately, thus resulting in declining living standards for many. At any rate, the whole criminal enterprise of the 1990s came at the greatest cost to the region since Stalin in the 1930s, although at least that left them with a modern industrial infrastructure Jeffrey Sommers, Assistant Professor Department of History North Georgia College & State University Dahlonega, GA 30597 Ph.: 706-864-1913 or 1903 Fax: 706-864-1873 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Associate, World History Center Northeastern University, Boston Url: www.whc.neu.edu Research Associate Institute of Globalization Studies, Moscow http://www.iprog.ru/en/ -- on 3/9/04 17:25, Louis Proyect at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Chris Doss wrote: >> Under communism the economic decisions and property were national and >> publicly owned. Over the past 15 years of the transition to capitalism >> almost all basic industries, energy, mining, communications, infrastructure >> and wholesale trade industries have been taken over by European and US >> multi-national corporations and by mafia billionaires or they have been >> shut down. >> --- >> >> Uh, something like 40% of the Russian economy is state-owned. Gazprom is >> state-owned. Almost none of the Russian economy has been sold off to >> foreigners. > > Chris, you might want to set your mailer to 72 characters or something > since your sentence is floating into the horizon and makes a reply more > difficult. > > The fact that 40 percent is "state-owned" does not contradict the > assertion that industries have been taken over by multinationals or > mafia billionaires. If 60 percent of Cuba's sugar, tobacco and other key > productive assets were bought up in fire-sales, you can be sure that the > impact would be enormous. And if the other 40 percent became the > fiefdoms of people like Khodorkovsky, so what? > > The bourgeois press is now filled with reports about how the Russian > economy is finally "taking off". It would be unfortunate if the left > became influenced by this happy talk. > > > -- > > The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Capitalism versus socialism
Chris makes a good point regarding Russia. The experience of the Soviet bloc and the USSR itself have differed. Peter Gowan provides a nice summary of how the Soviet bloc industries were taken over by foreigners, sometimes, merely to be shut down. Russia, by contrast, has kept control over much of its economy, but has helped subsidize the West by decreasing consumption of its own industry and people so raw materials could be sold abroad, with much of that capital then leaving Russia for foreign offshores. Regarding Petras' look a the general direction of Soviet bloc economies, some are doing well. The Baltic economies are today among the strongest growing in the world. Sandwiched between Scandinavians looking for investment outlets and Russia's need for neighboring offshore zones, the Baltic economies are growing very fast and with the exception of pensioners (a big group) few Balts would select a return to the Soviet past. Of course, the IFIs and their local compradors argue this growth is the result of strict adherence to neoliberal policy. Yet, one can argue that those policies delayed growth in Latvia, where a consumer driven growth had to struggle to emerge despite tight-credit policies, etc. And, of course, the devaluation of Russia's ruble in the wake of 1998, contra Washington orthodoxy, has led to growth in the Baltics too. Indeed, dirigiste Belarus, neighboring the Baltics, is also growing, further diminishing the argument that neoliberal policies generated Baltic growth. The growth appears regional and is affecting countries regardless of what economic policies they pursue. Petras is more on target examining Poland's weaknesses. Unemployment is high and growth is slow, yet their economy is larger than under socialism. This is in part due to their proximity to Germany and debt forgiveness extended to encourage other Soviet bloc nations to follow Poland's early bolt from Moscow's embrace. Poland may have peaked as the first and fastest growing post-socialist state, thus suggesting the limitations of the liberal model and unlikely convergence of West and East European living standards, unless the former drops to meet the latter. In sum, Petras' analysis would have been on-target in the 1990s, but needs modification to account for changes since then. Yet, given the limitations of neoliberalism, especially in Latin America, an area Petras can speak with more authority on, Washington policies will increasingly be questioned and new possibilities open. And, while not trying to provoke a food fight, we need to recognize the successes of Soviet/Soviet bloc socialism, but activists need to make clear that nobody wants its return if they hope to get mass support. Jeffrey Sommers, Assistant Professor Department of History North Georgia College & State University Dahlonega, GA 30597 Ph.: 706-864-1913 or 1903 Fax: 706-864-1873 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Associate, World History Center Northeastern University, Boston Url: www.whc.neu.edu Research Associate Institute of Globalization Studies, Moscow http://www.iprog.ru/en/ -- on 3/9/04 10:57, Chris Doss at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Under communism the economic decisions and property were national and > publicly owned. Over the past 15 years of the transition to capitalism > almost all basic industries, energy, mining, communications, infrastructure > and wholesale trade industries have been taken over by European and US > multi-national corporations and by mafia billionaires or they have been > shut down. > --- > > Uh, something like 40% of the Russian economy is state-owned. Gazprom is > state-owned. Almost none of the Russian economy has been sold off to > foreigners.
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Yep! Indeed, many oligarchs came from academic backgrounds. Gregory Luchansky, who made one of the original Soviet era fortunes by selling Soviet oil purchased at domestic prices and diverting it to world markets at global prices, was a Vice-Rector for Administration at the University of Latvia. He was removed in 1982 for corruption. He later went on to found offshore oil companies run out of Austria, such as Nordex, originally as a way to launder $ for the KGB to run global intelligence operations. He then ran it for immense personal gain and began selling off Russia's natural resources, and reputedly tutored Clinton's associate Mark Rich in the business of creating energy offshores. Jeffrey Sommers, Assistant Professor Department of History North Georgia College & State University Dahlonega, GA 30597 Ph.: 706-864-1913 or 1903 Fax: 706-864-1873 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Associate, World History Center Northeastern University, Boston Url: www.whc.neu.edu Research Associate Institute of Globalization Studies, Moscow http://www.iprog.ru/en/ -- on 3/6/04 22:37, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Wasn't he a Ph.D. mathematician also? > > > On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:40:21PM +0300, "Chris Doss" wrote: >> Yes, this goes for Russia as well. Berezovsky sold used cars. Actually all >> the oligarchs with a few exceptions (e.g. Khodorkovsky) were lumpens, >> nobodies. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 09:38:18 -0800 >> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition >> >>> I don't know much about Eastern Europe, but it seems to me that many of the >>> rising class of capitalists (and capitalist politicians) there also were >>> "entrepreneurs" in the illegal markets. I would guess that in Poland, some >>> of them were corrupt unionists from Solidarnosc. >>> Jim Devine >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: "Chris Doss" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Sat 3/6/2004 9:27 AM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Cc: >>> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition >>> >>> >>> >>> Well, yeah, but I was just trying to say that the only people who had any >>> experience with administration in e.g. Poland were former Communists, for >>> obvious reasons. People running around publishing samizdat aren't usually >>> experts on city planning. >>> >>> Russia's a big exception to this. >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 07:41:05 -0800 >>> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition >>> of course, back when they ran "communist countries," they tried to make sure that no-one else _could_ govern unless they'd already proved their loyalty... Jim D. -Original Message- From: "Chris Doss" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 3/6/2004 3:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition I don't know about the Romanian situation in particular, but one reason why former "Communist" leaders are in power thruought EE is that they are the only ones with experience in actually running a country. -Original Message- From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:46:35 -0800 Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition > given how bad the Rumanian government was before Ceaucescu was overthrown, > I find the view presented by NPR poet-commentator to be a bit more > plausible: the same thugs that ruled before the "revolution" ended up in > power afterwards (with the notable exception of Ceaucescu and his family). > >>> >>> >>> > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Haiti expert
Doug, The Haitian scholar and scion of Haiti's elite, Patrick Bellegarde-Smith, is at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. His email is [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 3/5/04 03:52, Doug Henwood at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'd love to find someone who could talk about the history & political > economy of Haiti on my radio show next week - e.g., how did it get to > be so poor? Any ideas? > > Doug
Re: Haiti expert
Paul Farmer would be the natural choice, but if unavailable, then Patrick Bellegarde-Smith Jeffrey Sommers, Assistant Professor Department of History North Georgia College & State University Dahlonega, GA 30597 Ph.: 706-864-1913 or 1903 Fax: 706-864-1873 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Associate, World History Center Northeastern University, Boston Url: www.whc.neu.edu Research Associate Institute of Globalization Studies, Moscow http://www.iprog.ru/en/ -- on 3/5/04 06:21, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Paul Farmer. > > On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 07:52:35PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: >> I'd love to find someone who could talk about the history & political >> economy of Haiti on my radio show next week - e.g., how did it get to >> be so poor? Any ideas? >> >> Doug > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: the curse
Anders Aslund's take on this, predictably, is that resources are only a curse when not privatized. He put forward this thesis as the Khordokovsky affair got underway: the linkage transparent to all! A counter-example would be Chile, whose state sector possesses significant portions of its copper mining. Moreover, in the past has covered something like 15% of govt. budget, thus giving lie that Chile's economy is purely market driven Jeffrey Sommers, Assistant Professor Department of History North Georgia College & State University Dahlonega, GA 30597 Ph.: 706-864-1913 or 1903 Fax: 706-864-1873 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Associate, World History Center Northeastern University, Boston Url: www.whc.neu.edu Research Associate Institute of Globalization Studies, Moscow http://www.iprog.ru/en/ -- on 2/19/04 21:46, Devine, James at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > an interesting article on "the curse" (and I don't mean the one that > haunts the Red Sox) -- > > February 19, 2004/New York TIMES > > ECONOMIC SCENE > Resources Form the Basis for Economic Growth > By JEFF MADRICK > > POPULAR notion in economics today is that an abundance of natural > resources is a "curse" for developing nations. Such an endowment, it is > argued, encourages corruption, undermines institutional development, > pushes the value of a currency uncompetitively high and cannot support > long-term growth because the reserves eventually run out. Small wonder, > then, that oil-rich nations like Iraq and Venezuela are poor or in > decline. > > Gavin Wright will have none of this. Mr. Wright, an economic historian > at Stanford and long a specialist in the role that natural resources > play in economic growth, agrees that overdependence on a single resource > can lead to poor policies, but it is by no means inevitable. To the > contrary, many developed and developing nations have used their mineral > resources as springboards to wealth and broader-based development - not > least the United States itself. > > Mr. Wright and a colleague, Jesse Czelusta, have written a fascinating > study (at www-econ.stanford.edu) on the subject that should be required > reading. The lessons to be drawn are especially pertinent for countries > like Iraq. > > The economists start their analysis by looking at the evidence compiled > by advocates of the resource curse. The seminal study was done by > Jeffrey D. Sachs and Andrew M. Warner in 1995 and showed a strong > statistical relationship between resource abundance and slow growth. > > Many follow-up studies using the same method draw remarkably sweeping > conclusions about the inevitable disadvantages of resource abundance. > One recent study explicitly concludes that poor institutional > development, including weak governance and property laws, is "intrinsic" > to nations with oil and other minerals. Mr. Sachs and Mr. Warner have > recently concluded that the curse is a "reasonably solid fact." > > But Mr. Wright and Mr. Czelusta point out that almost every one of these > studies uses the proportion of exports of the particular natural > resource as a proxy for a nation's mineral abundance. Among other > obvious problems with this measure, a high proportion of resource > exports may simply reflect a lack of other kinds of exports, which is > almost a definition of underdevelopment in the first place. > > A better measure of abundance would be resources per capita or per > worker. New studies using such measures, including one by the World Bank > economist William F. Maloney, published in Economia, can find no telling > relationship between abundance of reserves and slow growth. Some nations > do well with their endowments, others do not. > > Why is that? Historical and contemporary case studies provide some > guidance. America's own rise to economic supremacy in the late 1800's > occurred just as it was becoming the leading producer of almost every > major natural resource of the industrial age, including iron ore, lead, > coal, copper, zinc, timber, zinc and nickel. Such leadership did not > hold America back, nor did it hold back other nations like Australia and > Canada. Britain, where the industrial revolution started, was notably > rich in coal reserves, not to mention wool for its critical textile > industry. > > But what is most relevant to policy, America did not become a leader > simply because it had been endowed by nature with this bounty of > resources, as we are typically taught in our high school textbooks. Nor > was it because it enjoyed enlightened governance in the 1800's, like > open and free markets and clear-cut rules about property ownership. In > fact, millions of acres of coal mines in the 1800's were secretly bought > as farmland. Enormous tracts of iron-rich land were bought cheaply > through fraudulent claims under the Homestead Act. > > Rather, as Mr. Wright and another Stanford economic historian, Paul A. > David, convincingly summarize in a 1997 paper, the nation inve
Re: The economy - a new era?
I too would expect GE to go right rather than left, today. But, Thomas Ferguson in his _The Golden Rule_ showed how in the US the experience was very different in the 1930s into the post war. GE and capital intensive industries tended to go New Deal, while the small and labor intensive businesses representing the NAM crowd, supported the right Jeffrey Sommers, Assistant Professor Department of History North Georgia College & State University Dahlonega, GA 30597 Ph.: 706-864-1913 or 1903 Fax: 706-864-1873 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Associate, World History Center Northeastern University, Boston Url: www.whc.neu.edu Research Associate Institute of Globalization Studies, Moscow http://www.iprog.ru/en/ -- on 2/12/04 02:22, Louis Proyect at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Jim Stanford in his book "Paper Boom" discusses this issue at great >> length including a lot of empirical data demonstrating the superior >> economic and 'political' position of large firms vs small business. >> Small business tends to gravitate to a demagogic, right-wing populist >> position, often tinged with racisim because of competition from >> immigrants who 'self-exploit' in easy to enter sectors such as ethnic >> restaurants, mom-and-pop stores, truck farming and personal services. >> >> Paul Phillips > > On the other hand, it was the big monopolies based in heavy industry that > backed Adolph Hitler. Light industry, retail and real estate tended to back > the social democrats or the liberal parties. Small business did provide > many of the Nazi activists, but in the final analysis it was the Krupps et > al who made Nazism possible. In the USA, if we ever face such a threat in > the future, I would fully expect GE, GM, Exxon and Boeing to fund our > home-grown fascist parties. > > > Louis Proyect > Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: The economy - a new era?
You have to be careful with this. Gorbachev tried it with disastrous results, of course, however, in highly specific historical context. Workers voted for management offering more pay when production was declining and hoarding already pandemic. To paraphrase Sam Huntington, from his Trilateral Commission report "The Crisis of Democracy," there are times when democracy does not help. Conversely, the Latvian Riflemen would be an example of workers (in this case soldiers) effectively running and electing managers (officers). They successfully staved of the Whites and foreign interventions until the Red Army, based on an entirely different, and undemocratic model, was created Jeffrey Sommers, Assistant Professor Department of History North Georgia College & State University Dahlonega, GA 30597 Ph.: 706-864-1913 or 1903 Fax: 706-864-1873 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Associate, World History Center Northeastern University, Boston Url: www.whc.neu.edu Research Associate Institute of Globalization Studies, Moscow http://www.iprog.ru/en/ -- Jeff on 2/12/04 21:42, Doug Henwood at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Michael Perelman wrote: > >> Marx represents an important boys in that tradition. He believed that >> the rise of the corporate form would provide the basic infrastructure >> for a socialist society. This part of his work, of course, conflicted >> with the other part that promotes socialism from below. > > Not really - if shareholders could hire managers, why not the workers? > > Doug
Re: Tim Russert interview with President Bush
The transcript text from this url will not show on my computer. Any chance anyone can copy the text and email it to me. Much obliged Jeffrey Sommers, Assistant Professor Department of History North Georgia College & State University Dahlonega, GA 30597 Ph.: 706-864-1913 or 1903 Fax: 706-864-1873 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Associate, World History Center Northeastern University, Boston Url: www.whc.neu.edu Research Associate Institute of Globalization Studies, Moscow http://www.iprog.ru/en/ -- on 2/8/04 18:42, Jurriaan Bendien at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/
