Competent ? No, Creeps ! ( was Ceaucescu and Romanian transition)
From: Sabri Oncu Hi Charles! Good to hear from you. I have not seen you around for quite a while. How have you been? I don't think there is much point in furthering this "debate", as it appears to me to be more about what certain words mean and they don't but let me object one last time and I will leave this at that. Getting underlings to the tough work does not take any competence. The underlings are already prepared to do the tough work when they join these firms. The incompetents are us: I have tried many times to convince my coworkers that the real power resided with us and if we got organized and stopped production until we get what we want, the upper management had nothing to sell and hence no way to make profits. But of course I had always failed. Whenever I made such arguments my coworkers told me things like this: "It is dangerous to have such ideas such as organizing against the upper management in the US. If you do that, they throw you out." So it is us who are incompetents and competence does not reside with the upper management either. It has to be looked for elsewhere. Best, Sabri Greetings , Sabri ! I feel you. Professionals, professionals everywhere, but not a competent one in the lot . Although, we might have to give the Devil a bit of due credit. The Man is making superprofits still. But one day ! We'll get Competent. Charles
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Quite a time before, unless I am mistaken. He is still an associate member. (I am assume you mean Berezovsky? Gusinsky quit directing I think in the 80s to go into various forms of sordid business, if my fuzzy memory serves). Khodorskocky was head of the Moscow Komsomol. -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:41:47 -0800 Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition > > Was that before or after he became rich? > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:09:07PM +0300, "Chris Doss" wrote: > > He's an associate member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Gusinsky was a > > theater director. > > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu >
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
> There is no contradiction. Carrol means they are > competent at power politics, getting underlings to > do the tough work (exploitation) i.e. political > economy. > > Charles Hi Charles! Good to hear from you. I have not seen you around for quite a while. How have you been? I don't think there is much point in furthering this "debate", as it appears to me to be more about what certain words mean and they don't but let me object one last time and I will leave this at that. Getting underlings to the tough work does not take any competence. The underlings are already prepared to do the tough work when they join these firms. The incompetents are us: I have tried many times to convince my coworkers that the real power resided with us and if we got organized and stopped production until we get what we want, the upper management had nothing to sell and hence no way to make profits. But of course I had always failed. Whenever I made such arguments my coworkers told me things like this: "It is dangerous to have such ideas such as organizing against the upper management in the US. If you do that, they throw you out." So it is us who are incompetents and competence does not reside with the upper management either. It has to be looked for elsewhere. Best, Sabri
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Was that before or after he became rich? On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:09:07PM +0300, "Chris Doss" wrote: > He's an associate member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Gusinsky was a theater > director. > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
There is no contradiction. Carrol means they are competent at power politics, getting underlings to do the tough work (exploitation) i.e. political economy. Charles From: Sabri Oncu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: > > Carrol Cox wrote: > > > > Most of them (unfortunately for us) are pretty > > damn competent, though it's because of their > > connections that they get to exercise that > > competence. > > If this is the case, I have not seen it in thirty > years in ANY place I have worked. I will have to agree with Joanna. Those in the upper management are there not because they are more competent than others but generally because they are better than others in playing power politics and, putting connections aside, most of the time the ones who rise to the top are the ones with the brownest noses. Businesses, at least, big businesses, are more like military establishments: there are privates and officers, and while privates do most of the fighting, they also helplessly watch the officers fight among themselves to move up in the hierarchy. Best, Sabri
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
- Original Message - From: "Chris Doss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 6:50 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition > > There is a man in a cell in Matrushina Tishina prison who can tell you that such sell-offs are not a very wise move in contemporary Russia... EXACTLY> > Putin and the dread "siloviki" (God do I hate that word) have a state-dirigiste model of capitalist development. We'll see what happens to the shares of Yukos that were frozen. I suspect they will either go to the state or to someone (Abramovich?) who can serve as a proxy for the state. Yukos will be like an oil Gazprom. EXACTLY AGAIN > > > Hu? Why? I go to movie theaters all the time. Bad Joke. Probably not worth explaining dms
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
> > There was a very interesting article in the Financial Times several months > ago that the only course really open to the current Russian "oligarchs" was > the sale of "their" corporate assets to international companies. The > oligarchs, the FT reported candidly, had obtained their businesses through > fraud, flim-flam, etc and were not really interested or competent to manage > these operations. Thus sale at the current height of the oil-induced > recovery was the future. There is a man in a cell in Matrushina Tishina prison who can tell you that such sell-offs are not a very wise move in contemporary Russia... > > Clearly, Putin represents interests opposed to that future, but his opposing > interests are no less capitalist, and Putin's power depends on that > representation and not his ability to "run the country." Putin and the dread "siloviki" (God do I hate that word) have a state-dirigiste model of capitalist development. We'll see what happens to the shares of Yukos that were frozen. I suspect they will either go to the state or to someone (Abramovich?) who can serve as a proxy for the state. Yukos will be like an oil Gazprom. > > Quick tip to businesspeople enroute to Russia: When in Moscow, in-room > movies are the safe entertainment choice. Avoid theaters. Hu? Why? I go to movie theaters all the time.
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
He's an associate member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Gusinsky was a theater director. > > 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.
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: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Sabri Oncu wrote: Even if they stayed, most of the white-collar "workers" are not needed. Ain't that the truth! Joanna
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Carrol: > No one said anything about "more competent." I > myself am suspicious of almost all comparative > judgments of competence, ... You are right! Yours was not a comparative statement. It was my mistake. You said "most of them ... are pretty damn competent." I am sure there are a few among them who are competent but I find it difficult to accept that most of them are, if for nothing, for what I have observed when I was out there. Of course, my sample set is not very large so you can discount my "inference" as you like but I assure you that my distaste of what I experienced is quite large. I strongly suggest everyone on this list to spend a few years as an employee at a money management firm or an insurance company to better understand why I feel the way I feel. They are among the most Kafkaesque places to be. Putting aside the issue of the meaningfulness of what they are doing, what they are doing can be done by less than ten percent of the people that are currently employed in that "industry". You don't need a "ticket writer", whose sole jobs is to write a ticket which gets written when there is a trade, for every portfolio manager who trades once or twice every two weeks. And they are talking about productivity! These Romans are crazy! Forget about this "white-collar jobs flying to India" thing. Even if they stayed, most of the white-collar "workers" are not needed. Sabri
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Carrol, Of course it, the notion that all those with connections are leaders, is too simple. It's also something nobody has argued, logically, morally, empirically. Your version is that somebody, me I guess, argued "ALL A (those with connections) ARE B (leaders), and then proceed to refute "NOT ALL B are ALL A. So much for logic. Competence is an historical characteristic, based, literally on coincidence, the co-inciding the class need and individual performance. So the "great" "practical" bourgeois functionary, Richard Nixon is revealed to be petty thief whose venality perfectly matches that of his bankrollers, and then years after his resignation is feted as a statesman. If the same people now "running" the countries of Eastern Europe are the same people who presided over the previous collapse of those countries, how can competence be a factor? We're not talking morality. The promises of the ex-Soviet era bureaucrats/present quasi Soc Dems are not qualitatively different than the promises made by any and all bourgeois politicians who represent different moments of the same class interests. There was a very interesting article in the Financial Times several months ago that the only course really open to the current Russian "oligarchs" was the sale of "their" corporate assets to international companies. The oligarchs, the FT reported candidly, had obtained their businesses through fraud, flim-flam, etc and were not really interested or competent to manage these operations. Thus sale at the current height of the oil-induced recovery was the future. Clearly, Putin represents interests opposed to that future, but his opposing interests are no less capitalist, and Putin's power depends on that representation and not his ability to "run the country." Quick tip to businesspeople enroute to Russia: When in Moscow, in-room movies are the safe entertainment choice. Avoid theaters. dms - Original Message - From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition This is too simple. Not _all_ the people with connections and loyalty to > exploiting class interests are also leaders. Some of them prefer to go > and drown in New Guinea for sport or act in their own porn movies or > loll on beaches in private Mediterranean islands. Others prefer to be > CEO of Chase Manhattan or Under Secretary of State for Latin American > Affairs. > > Most of them (unfortunately for us) are pretty damn competent, though > it's because of their connections that they get to exercise that > competence. >
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Sabri Oncu wrote: > > > > > Those in the upper management are there not because > they are more competent No one said anything about "more competent." I myself am suspicious of almost all comparative judgments of competence, whether we are talking about the CEOs of the Fortune 500, the drivers in the department of sanitation, or the nurses' aides in the ER. Carrol
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
> > Carrol Cox wrote: > > > > Most of them (unfortunately for us) are pretty > > damn competent, though it's because of their > > connections that they get to exercise that > > competence. > > If this is the case, I have not seen it in thirty > years in ANY place I have worked. I will have to agree with Joanna. Those in the upper management are there not because they are more competent than others but generally because they are better than others in playing power politics and, putting connections aside, most of the time the ones who rise to the top are the ones with the brownest noses. Businesses, at least, big businesses, are more like military establishments: there are privates and officers, and while privates do most of the fighting, they also helplessly watch the officers fight among themselves to move up in the hierarchy. Best, Sabri
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Carrol Cox wrote: Most of them (unfortunately for us) are pretty damn competent, thoughit's because of their connections that they get to exercise that competence. If this is the case, I have not seen it in thirty years in ANY place I have worked. What I have seen is that the grunts do the work and succeed in keeping things going, usually in spite of the gross incompetence and bottomless self-satisfaction of upper (and sometimes middle) management. Joanna
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
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: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
"Devine, James" wrote: > > > Even so, we have to recognize that even the most competent power elite can fall for > the trap of believing its own propaganda. This opens the way for being replaced by a > different ruling-class power elite -- or for a fundamental shift in class relations. > There is also a sort of structural stupidity operating in any ruling class: some features of the world emerge from its historicity, but to acknowledge historicity is to acknowledge one's own doom, which is not good for morale. Specifically, for capitalists, they can't really recognize or allow for in their thinking that it is of the essence of capitalism continually to tear itself apart. (That is not a theory of inevitability: capitalism also continually rebuilds itself, or, as Mao said, if you don't hit it won't fall.) Carrol > Jim D. > >
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
It's not only that. It's this idea that everybody with connections in the ruling group is utterly cynical. My impression from dealing with former members of the Soviet nomenklatura is that they were completely convinced that they were doing the right thing for the country (and getting something for themselves at the same time, of course). > This is too simple. Not _all_ the people with connections and loyalty to > exploiting class interests are also leaders. Some of them prefer to go > and drown in New Guinea for sport or act in their own porn movies or > loll on beaches in private Mediterranean islands. Others prefer to be > CEO of Chase Manhattan or Under Secretary of State for Latin American > Affairs. > > Most of them (unfortunately for us) are pretty damn competent, though > it's because of their connections that they get to exercise that > competence. > > The trouble with moral criticism of our enemies is that it is > incompatible with the fundamental principle of warfare (including class > war): Know Your Enemy. > > Carrol >
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
CC writes:>Most of them [member of the rulign class] are pretty damn competent, though it's because of their connections that they get to exercise that competence.< True. The power elite (the organized body of the dominant fraction of the ruling class and its political and military helpers) largely consists of competent people, with obvious exceptions such as Dubya (whose incompetence is compensated for by people like Cheney & Rove). Even so, we have to recognize that even the most competent power elite can fall for the trap of believing its own propaganda. This opens the way for being replaced by a different ruling-class power elite -- or for a fundamental shift in class relations. Jim D.
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
joanna bujes wrote: > > Agreed. > > Joanna > > dmschanoes wrote: > > >Really? I don't think so. I think it has nothing at all to do with > >experience and/or capability, and everything to do with connections and > >representing specific class interests. This is too simple. Not _all_ the people with connections and loyalty to exploiting class interests are also leaders. Some of them prefer to go and drown in New Guinea for sport or act in their own porn movies or loll on beaches in private Mediterranean islands. Others prefer to be CEO of Chase Manhattan or Under Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs. Most of them (unfortunately for us) are pretty damn competent, though it's because of their connections that they get to exercise that competence. The trouble with moral criticism of our enemies is that it is incompatible with the fundamental principle of warfare (including class war): Know Your Enemy. Carrol
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Hi, Joanna. My impression is that the Communists reincarnated as SocDems have had electoral successes because they promised to represent the interests of those who had been hurt by reforms. That is certainly the case in Moldova. It's where Putin gets his popularity from (although he was never in the Soviet elite). > > > >Where former communist leaders are in power, it is the result of their > >experience, not in managing an economy or running a country, but in > >administering the impulse to capitalist restoration. > > > >dms > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Chris Doss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > >>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. > > > > > > > > >
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Agreed. Joanna dmschanoes wrote: Really? I don't think so. I think it has nothing at all to do with experience and/or capability, and everything to do with connections and representing specific class interests. Revolutions, and reactions, have little enough trouble creating "leaders" without official experience. Where former communist leaders are in power, it is the result of their experience, not in managing an economy or running a country, but in administering the impulse to capitalist restoration. dms - Original Message - From: "Chris Doss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
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). > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: 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).
> >
>
>
>
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Come to think of it, this can even contribute to popularity. Lukashenko runs as "the only member of tbe Belarussian CP to vote against breaking up the USSR." It's where his populist image comes from, as the only member of the elite not to betray the country. Where I am (Russia) having been a member of the Soviet elite hurts liberal politicians and helps Communists. But then everybody hates liberal politicians. :) -Original Message- From: "Chris Doss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 20:27:46 +0300 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). > > > > > > > > > >
Re: 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). > > > > >
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Really? I don't think so. I think it has nothing at all to do with experience and/or capability, and everything to do with connections and representing specific class interests. Revolutions, and reactions, have little enough trouble creating "leaders" without official experience. Where former communist leaders are in power, it is the result of their experience, not in managing an economy or running a country, but in administering the impulse to capitalist restoration. dms - Original Message - From: "Chris Doss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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.
Re: 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).
>
Re: 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). >
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Although I have not read any helpful articles about the "revolution" in Romania -- I can relate anecdotal evidence from Romanians both in and out of the country that what James says below is absolutely true. (I was born and raised in Romania and I am still fluent.) I tried reading Romanian newspapers on the web, but I have not found anything useful. Joanna Devine, James wrote: 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).
Re: 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). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > Reactionary coup in Romania > http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/sam90/1990html/s900104.htm > > An excerpt from this report written at the time: > > "What the millions saw on U.S. television, for instance--the > burning of > public buildings, the shooting up of libraries--is > characteristic of the > period long ago when the bourgeoisie, in fear of discontented and > rebellious peasants, redirected their hatred against the boyars (the > landlords) into anti-Semitic channels. > > Anti-Semitism has disappeared as an official policy. But we are seeing > its recurrence in another form. How else can one take the proclamation > that the "anti-Christ" (meaning Ceausescu) was fittingly killed on > Christmas Day? The forces of deepest reaction now claim control of the > Bucharest government. This is a recrudescence of the vicious, > reactionary clericalism that dominated the political scene > there for the > whole period stretching from the first to the second world wars. " > > Bill Lear wrote: > > > My nephew asks: Do you know of any good articles or web sites that > > comprehensively discuss the Romanian transition and expelling of > > Ceaucescu? > > > > I answer, "No, but I know lots of smarties on PEN-L who > surely will". > > If I remember, Ceaucescu was shot, not expelled, for starters... > > > > [sorry for post without subject.] > > > > > > Bill >
Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Reactionary coup in Romania http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/sam90/1990html/s900104.htm An excerpt from this report written at the time: "What the millions saw on U.S. television, for instance--the burning of public buildings, the shooting up of libraries--is characteristic of the period long ago when the bourgeoisie, in fear of discontented and rebellious peasants, redirected their hatred against the boyars (the landlords) into anti-Semitic channels. Anti-Semitism has disappeared as an official policy. But we are seeing its recurrence in another form. How else can one take the proclamation that the "anti-Christ" (meaning Ceausescu) was fittingly killed on Christmas Day? The forces of deepest reaction now claim control of the Bucharest government. This is a recrudescence of the vicious, reactionary clericalism that dominated the political scene there for the whole period stretching from the first to the second world wars. " Bill Lear wrote: My nephew asks: Do you know of any good articles or web sites that comprehensively discuss the Romanian transition and expelling of Ceaucescu? I answer, "No, but I know lots of smarties on PEN-L who surely will". If I remember, Ceaucescu was shot, not expelled, for starters... [sorry for post without subject.] Bill
Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
My nephew asks: Do you know of any good articles or web sites that comprehensively discuss the Romanian transition and expelling of Ceaucescu? I answer, "No, but I know lots of smarties on PEN-L who surely will". If I remember, Ceaucescu was shot, not expelled, for starters... [sorry for post without subject.] Bill
