[Vladimir Yakunin] was one of the most powerful men in Russia for a decade, an old pal of the president who oversaw a million workers and a rail network spanning 11 time zones.
But then Vladimir Yakunin was suddenly out, ending a career that included a stint as an intelligence officer at the United Nations in New York during the Cold War. Now Yakunin, 67, has some parting advice for the remaining members of what he dismissed as Putin’s “so-called inner circle”: know your place.
“This circle will continue to rotate,” Yakunin said in his private office in Moscow during a 90-minute interview. Putin has yet to form a stable “ruling class like Russia had during czarist times,” the former head of state-owned Russian Railways JSC said.This is reflective of the pre-revolutionary system in Russia in which the elite (boyars) vied with the Tsar for power. The boyars were the feudal aristocracy that owned the means of production in the Agricultural Age. They were replaced by the plutocratic oligarchs that owned the means of production (financial capital and industrial capital) in the Industrial Age. Their goal was to expand their wealth, influence and power. The role of the Tsar was to bridle that in the interests of the country as a whole. A good Tsar represented the national interest from the viewpoint of all the people.
Of course, the elite resists this.
Some insiders are making the mistake of viewing their property and privilege as inalienable rights, but everything they have hinges on Putin’s shifting views of what’s good for Russia, according to Yakunin.Duh.
He offered two examples from the president’s first term to illustrate the dangers of overreach.
“Remember what happened to Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky,” he said, referring to two post-Soviet oligarchs who lost their fortunes trying to influence Putin’s Kremlin the way they did Boris Yeltsin’s.Remember than Yeltsin had allowed the oligarchs to loot Russia under the guise of neoliberal restructuring advocated by the Harvard boyz. There would be no Russian oligarchs without Yeltsin and the US advisors that recommended privatizing everything as quickly as possible based on the assumption of spontaneous natural order. The result was the rule of the Russian mafia that almost destroyed the country, which was arguably the intention of the US deep state. Whether there was a connection is unknown but the facts are suspicious.
Andrei Schleifer, Harvard professor of economics, who IDEAS/RePEc has ranked him as the top economist in the world,[2] and … is also listed as #1 on the list of "Most-Cited Scientists in Economics & Business" (Wikipedia), was "embroiled in a fraud scandal that cost Harvard $26.5 million to settle"(Harvard Crimson) without admitting guilt over his personal dealings in the course of advising Russian privatization.
The key difference between Russia and the US seems to be that in Russia the oligarchs are determined by the political process while in the US the political process is determined by the oligarchs.
The Russian economy and Russian society was on the point of disintegrating when Yeltsin's successor Putin stepped in and reversed the trend downward spiral.
Then the Bloomberg author expectedly inserts the USSR and communist memes.
Yakunin’s departure from the rail monopoly in August was the biggest shakeup in years within “the new politburo,” the highest authority under communism, and presages more to come, according to Olga Kryshtanovskaya, a sociologist who’s tracked the rise of the security services under retired KGB Colonel Putin.Of course, it just might be that the guy was sacked (asked to resign) for poor performance.
The reasons Yakunin was kicked out of this exclusive club are disputed.…
Kryshtanovskaya, the sociologist, said it may have just been a matter of mismanagement at Russian Railways. The company had become bloated, inefficient and plagued by accusations of corruption, so new leadership was needed, especially with the economy mired in a recession, she said.
The man picked to replace Yakunin, Oleg Belozerov, is a 46-year-old logistics specialist and deputy transport minister from St. Petersburg who has longstanding ties to the Rotenbergs.
Evgeny Minchenko, who runs the International Institute for Political Expertise in Moscow, said Yakunin was simply outmaneuvered by more aggressive insiders whose business interests were being hampered by the rail monopoly.Then the kicker
Whatever the cause, Minchenko said one thing is indisputable: People close to Putin, who could extend his rule to a quarter century if he wins re-election in 2018, are increasingly focused on safeguarding their wealth and status to pass them on to their offspring.Like the Western oligarchs from whom they have learned the rules of ownership and class
Still, nobody’s position but Putin’s will be secure until a governing elite like the one that existed before the Bolsheviks swept to power a century ago is fully formed, a process that may take decades, according to Yakunin.
“Trying to measure influence by proximity to political resources is a relic of the Soviet system,” he said.That Putin as president is the one who stands for election and not the oligarchs is irrelevant in this way of thinking. The unelected oligarchs seem to think that they are entitled by privilege, just as did the aristocracy. This is a feature of capitalism, where ownership of capital as primary means of production replaced title based on land as primary means of production.
The key difference between Russia and the US seems to be that in Russia the oligarchs are determined by the political process while in the US the political process is determined by the oligarchs.
16 comments:
Well, if there's anything to all these suspicions (and one would have to be incredulously naive to NOT think so) ... then this scenario ALSO means that:
Economic fame is significantly foisted ... er .. promoted by service to the US Deep State (aka, Institutional Momentum; aka, Prominent Lobbyist owners)
The capitalists indignant cry of injustice:
"You can't use that. It's MINE! I stole it fair & square."
The virulent fight against the upraise of the new feudal lords continues in the northern hemisphere...
Very interesting info about Andrei Schleifer. Will check out. Was he advising Jeffrey Sachs?
Our current political system is (as Minsky calls it) money-manager capitalism with limited democratic participation, in which the Paretian circulation of policy-making elites is among factions that are or represent the interests of money-manager capitalists, with middle class voters given at election time a right of veto as to which money-manager capital faction they object most.
The money-manager capitalist factions nominate, and the middle class factions elect (which is mostly about vetoing than a positive choice).
PS The supposed benefits of "capitalism" and "democracy" in first-world countries are instead the benefits given, in most important first, by:
* bankruptcy (or more precisely a culture in which bankruptcy is a thing),
* the industrial mode of production,
* the adoption of cheap, energy dense mineral fuels (coal first, oil later).
Perhaps *competitive* markets help too, but most economic activity happens wholly outside markets, and competitive ones are quite rare.
Consider countries without bankruptcy: even with an industrial mode of production and the adoption of cheap dense mineral fuels they tend to be quite poor.
Consider countries with bankruptcy and an industrial mode of production: without the adoption of cheap dense mineral fuels their "labour" productivity is bound to be very low.
etc.
I don't yet know much about the specific behavior of the Harvard boyz in the transition that occurred at the time of the demise of the USSR. One thing Schleifer was tasked with was setting up a Russian stock market.
Here is a place to start.
The basic issue as I understand it was that "they" (the US government and the advisors sent to Russia) believed that the window to effect change in Russia would not be open too long. So time was of the essence in privatizing everything and taking apart the Russian command system and the state owned firms, while defunding the military. The rationale is that there would be "issues" but that the free market would sort things out over time once the institutions were set up.
Whether this plan was naïve or designed to weaken Russia and destroy it as a great power that could ever challenge the US is a matter that is still being debated. Some people were probably naïve, but the US deep state also held this intention consciously.
It would have succeeded if Putin had not stepped. This is why the US elite is so intent on removing Putin and returning the Yeltsin era under a "liberal"leader (read US puppet) and "liberal" oligarchs, that is, the people that Putin removed.
There may never be another Yeltsin. The US blew a golden opportunity.
Thanks, Tom.
If they had played their hand well, they could have gotten the Russia they wanted and everyone would be happy now. But that's not in the neoliberal neoconservative mindset.
As Putin said, everything they touch turns to shit.
They seem to have a knack for this.
That's one hell of a site, Tom.
Well, it's about hell on earth.
You say "based on the assumption of natural order" by these people ....
This is a bias.
It's textbook Darwinism 101... If they think Darwinism is true then why would they not think the system would naturally form and optimize?
And you are applying purpose to a figure of speech again ....
Yeah, what an opportunity they missed. Russia could been on our side, but our elite want to loot it instead.
He was pissed most of the time.
Darwin wasn't right about everything. He knew nothing about neuroplasticity and epigenetics to start with (our genes are programmable). But it was really the social Darwinians who made all the blunders, the ones responsible for fascist eugenics programmes.
Man is a social creature first and foremost. Our strength does comes from our intelligence, for sure, but even more so from the way we cooperate together in groups. Together, our future possibilities are near unlimited.
Only on a Putin BFF website would the New Tsar's consolidation of power be applauded and used to bash the US.
I hear Stalin was a really swell guy too.
Post a Comment