Putin: Great Visionary or Just Lost

[Lauren Johnson]

Maggie, I was going to post this from The Saker. My reaction was SSDD (Same Shit Different Day). ::

The Good Guy (Putin) vs. the Bad Guy (Medvedev) thingy has run its course with me. Something else is going on. It reminds of the time when I actually thought Colin Powell needed to step up to appose the war because surely he would know how dumb it was. ::facepalm::

The Saker's article is actually pretty good, as far as it goes. But it gives a false choice. Yes, Putin is something of a nationalist as long as his class of his preferred oligarchs maintain their (and his) wealth. Therefore, he won't nationalize the RCB. I would guess that Russian assets outside Russia would be frozen. I don't know he could pull off breaking away from the world economic order. There are a lot of weapons like lowering the price of oil. AND China would have to agree. Good luck with that.

So my sense is that Putin can't do much at all if he were so inclined which he isn't.

[Magda Hassan]

It is a risky step. But necessary I think, for Russia to regain control over their bank. As indeed it is for any country. For sure there will be hell to pay. But the western economy is about the go belly up again. Maybe that is what he is waiting for?

Interesting that he has come out unambiguously in support of communism and socialism in recent days. "I liked very much, and I still like, communist and socialist ideas," Putin said in a statement on Monday. And he added that he still kept his Communist party identification document, despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But too bad he blames Lenin and not the Altlanticist 5th column for the collapse of the USSR and doesn't identify it as the counter revolution it was. Is he that uneducated in dialectics? I doubt it.

[Lauren Johnson]

Interesting that he has come out unambiguously in support of communism and socialism in recent days. "I liked very much, and I still like, communist and socialist ideas," Putinsaid in a statement on Monday. And he added that he still kept his Communist party identification document, despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But too bad he blames Lenin and not the Altlanticist 5th column for the collapse of the USSR and doesn't identify it as the counter revolution it was. Is he that uneducated in dialectics? I doubt it.

Another interpretation of Putin's leftist rhetoric -- apparently ( and all things are up for question with this opaque man) apparently, another response to the economic crisis brought on by cheep oil and the West's economic warfare besides raising interest rates is to sell off more state assets -- privatization. We know how well that has worked.

From Vladimir Suchan from FB:

On the same day when Putin declared that he holds patriotism to be the highest or principal value, he called German Chancellor in order to send to the DPR and LPR directives on how they need to vote--and submit to Ukraine's sovereignty as represented by his dear "partner," Pyotro Poroshenko, and its Banderite junta. The next day, he meets his "old friend" (Putin's expression), Henry Kissinger, one of his declared old advisers (and undeclared) handlers. In September, he hosted his other old friend Berlusconi in Crimea where the two laid together a wreath to the "eternal memory" of the Italian soldiers who died--when invading and attacking Russia.

In this regard, if one wants to admire and adore Putin, one should also--at least for the sake of integrity and honesty--also emulate Putin's preferences such as:
1. utterly liberal governments of his (all of them)
2. Berlusconi
3. the Minsk deal
4. Kissinger
5. thieving and corrupt oligarchs
6. Poroshenko ...

And don't forget--when it comes to decide issues concerning the Russians under the Nazis in Ukraine, Putin is not asking them--he already showed that he ignores or rejects the Donbass referendum. Instead of asking the Russians there, he goes for advice to Merkel ... or Kissinger.

[Magda Hassan]

Yeah, Well, fuck them all.

It is confusing trying to read his signals. If indeed he is trying to ingratiate himself with the Atlanticists he shouldn't bother. Apart from them having nothing to offer Russia he will never be accepted.

I like Vladimir Suchan's analysis in most things.

[Lauren Johnson]

It is confusing trying to read his signals. If indeed he is trying to ingratiate himself with the Atlanticists he shouldn't bother. Apart from them having nothing to offer Russia he will never be accepted.

Putin's a funny one, all right.

Who knows, maybe he is helping to construct a 1984 political geography of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia leading to the permanent state of war.

[Lauren Johnson]

Here is another view of Kissinger's visit to Putin from a comment at Pat Lang's blog worth noting:

Valissa said in reply to plantman...

FYI, Kissinger and Putin have a long history. I think they are friends of a sort. IIRC Putin has used Kissinger as an advisor/consultant (which is Kissinger's current business) over the years.
Found this in my archives, from June 2014... http://rt.com/op-edge/165932-lincoln-con...s-ukraine/

One anecdotal example Cohen cited is Obama's refusal to talk to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. "I have heard whether it's true or not I don't know that President Obama has declined to meet privately with Henry Kissinger, who sees Putin twice a year. Kissinger probably knows Putin better than any American statesmen alive today and who has been consulted by so many presidents. Think what we might about Kissinger's past, but he has already declared his criticism of American policy towards Russia. And Obama wouldn't want to spend an hour with him, asking Are we doing something wrong? Are we misperceiving the situation?'"
--------------
It's possible that this Kissinger visit brings messages from the Borg, despite the Borg not having been pleased with Kissinger's advice on Russia in the past... we'll see.

The reference to the "Borg" is a reflects the low esteem Pat Lang, et. al., hold for the Obama administration.

[Magda Hassan]

Putin's a funny one, all right.

Who knows, maybe he is helping to construct a 1984 political geography of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia leading to the permanent state of war.

One thing I am pretty certain of is that Putin does not want a war. He may get one though as that is the way of an Empire on its way to death.

[Lauren Johnson]

One thing I am pretty certain of is that Putin does not want a war. He may get one though as that is the way of an Empire on its way to death.

Right-tee-ho on that -- at least, no apocalyptic war. But carefully choreographed proxy wars? Then sometimes somebody starts up an embarrassing war which has to be diplomatically diffused, i.e. Strelkov and Novorussiya.

[Magda Hassan]

Yes. I disagree with the way things are being handled re Novorussia. Putin should do all it can to support the locals even do the same as Crimea. Way to wishy washy. Ukraine is not in EU and is not in NATO. Backlash from US and UK will be the same as it is anyway.

[Magda Hassan]

Not the best translation.

http://www.marx.be/fr/content/la-russie-...d%C3%A9mon


Putin's Russia - neither angel nor demon
Contents: No Marxist studies. 108Author: Willi Gerns
Suggestions for a Marxist analysis of Russian politics 112
With backdrop of current events in Ukraine, we know for now in the imperialist countries a hate campaign almost unprecedented anti-Russian. In Germany, she remembers how terrible years of the Nazi dictatorship and the Second World War, as well as those of the height of the Cold War (at the time in the form of anti-Soviet). The sound waves of the campaign even found some resonance among leftist elements. On the other hand, is also found here and there in response to this current, unqualified support to the Russian policy that ignores class relations. Neither one nor the other of these approaches can not be communists.
property and power relations in Russia
As Marxists, when we judge the policy of a state, we leave the question of what is social, what are the relations of property and power that exist in this country, what are the interests of class that determine the policy. We also work through a "concrete analysis of a concrete situation 113 " (Lenin), perceive the current role of this country in the global political context.When we apply these principles to the Russia of today, we have the following findings. Russia is a capitalist country where most of the means of production passed into the hands of private owners of capital as a result of the anti-socialist revolution against. What dominates in this sector is the property stolen by the clan of oligarchs. Meanwhile, despite extensive privatization, we still find quite a state property sector or mixed ownership means of production or financing. When it comes to strategic industries in these areas, the state in general has yet to majority control.Political power is exercised by a dominant elite, to which the power of the upper state bureaucracy allied growing economic power of some clans of oligarchs. By referring to the supreme power organ in the Soviet Union, the authors of a study published in 2012 on the web 114 on the mechanism of power in the Putin regime designate its upper floor as the "Politburo 2.0". This quasi-institution collective power, according to the authors - Russian political scientists Evgeni Mitchenko (President of the holding company Mitchenko Consulting) and Kirill Petrov (leader of the analysis section of the International Institute of Political Expertise) - would have formed during the 2000s following the redistribution of resources of small clans of oligarchs, destruction of media empires and liquidation of much regional chiefdoms.Putin appeared in the role of arbiter and moderator. The head of state also had direct control over long-term gas contracts, management of the energy sector and policy banks. It is the members of this upper level of power and their political and economic positions and their closest associates, that are designated as "candidate Politburo 2.0".The reference to the Political Bureau of the CPSU Central Committee is excessive. It was then the top of a system of power based on a different economic basis, even opposite. However, the description in the study of the union, as the core of the system, between the political power of the State and the economic power of some clans of oligarchs particularly close to the Kremlin is quite relevant. We can talk - despite all the peculiarities - a state monopoly capitalism variant in Russia.
Russia, an imperialist country?
Marxism-Leninism considers the state monopoly capitalism as a variant of development of the imperialist stage of capitalism. That is why we would like to briefly address the question of whether and to what extent the essential features of imperialism that Lenin described in his bookImperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism apply to Russian capitalism today .There is no doubt that it is the fundamental economic characteristics cited in Lenin's book. In particular, the existence and dominance of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;the merging of bank capital with industrial capital and the creation of a financial oligarchy on the basis of financial capital; as well as the increasingly important role played by export capital.However, one must also take into account Russian peculiarities. While the dominance of monopolies in the classical imperialist countries was the result of long historical processes of concentration and centralization of capital, it results in a relatively short Russia today criminal process where chunks the property of the people were looted during the anti-socialist revolution against. In addition, the oligarchic capital has then developed into more powerful structures - concentration and centralization. Also in Russia, the banking and industrial capital merged, as undoubtedly shows the existence of conglomerates, and a powerful financial oligarchy has emerged. Trends in the development of Russian direct investment abroad show that export capital also plays an increasingly important role. This is true on Russian soil and abroad, due to entanglement with international capital. In conclusion, Putin's Russia is a capitalist country in which the economic foundations of monopoly capitalism - imperialism with some particularities - clearly exist.Regarding the policy of Russia, it is necessary to distinguish between domestic and foreign policy, and between two levels in the foreign policy.Domestic policy is determined by profit and power interests of the ruling class described above. It is oriented on one side towards the creation of conditions conducive to the most efficient and profitable operation can the Russian working class, but also on the other side, towards the strengthening of the stability of the regime both by social grants and an aggressive policy.In addition, the occasional positive stance with regard to the legacy of the Soviet Union also used to obtain the commitment of large sections of the Russian people to the Putin regime, fractions that are proud of the Soviet superpower like apogee Russian history. This pride is expressed even also to some extent in some sections of the ruling class, particularly among those who, like Putin, are from the group silowiki the uniform wearers. However, this has nothing to do with sympathy for socialism.This now reflects Russian nationalist positions, a yearning for a strong capitalist Russia.
Two aspects in Russian foreign policy
In foreign policy, the first aspect is what is called in Russia's near abroad. We mean by that the relations with the successor states to the Soviet Union, excluding the Baltic States. Putin's regime is pursuing a long-term policy of reintegration under Russian direction. The pivot is the Customs Union between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, which must then be converted into a Eurasian Economic Community and in a Eurasian union. At this level, it is recognized in the relations of Russia with its weaker partners practices reminiscent of imperialistic methods. This among other repeated economic pressure on Belarus to force its leaders to abandon the Belarusian state property to the multinational Russian Gazprom and pave the way for the entry of Russian oligarchs in the Belarusian economy.The United States, NATO and the European Union are desperate to prevent reintegration of former Soviet republics. Russia should be limited to its own borders and simultaneously be economically and militarily encircled through association agreements between the EU and the successor states of the Soviet Union and the further enlargement of NATO to the East. This is the backdrop of the current crisis in Ukraine.The second aspect of Russian foreign policy regarding world politics. Unlike the United States and their NATO accomplices, one should not expect today nor in the near future on the part of Russia of world domination ambitions. necessary power relations do not exist elsewhere in for such domination. Putin's Russia rather seeks to oppose world domination ambitions of US imperialism a multipolar world order. For this purpose, there is a great correlation between the position of Russia and the interests of China and other BRICS as well as with those of other countries. This position is objectively in the interests of peace and social progress.The consideration of Lenin's statements about the existence of different variants of the capitalist and imperialist policy, as well as the concrete analysis of the concrete situation before and during the Second World War helped the Soviet Union, despite all the contradictions with the imperialist Western powers to recognize in imperialist Germany the main danger for the USSR and humanity.This became the basis for the struggle of the Soviet Union for its collective security and made possible, in fact and in spite of all the difficulties, the anti-Hitler coalition, significant factor in the victory over Nazi Germany.I am convinced that the concrete analysis of the current concrete historical situation in the world should lead us to recognize clearly in the field of international politics that Russia is a capitalist country, dominated by oligarchs and state bureaucracy is closely linked to it; to make a clear difference between Russia and the major imperialist powers and considered as main threat to peace and social progress the policy of world domination of US imperialism and its imperialist henchmen of NATO and EU .Willi Gerns is contributor to the magazine Marxistische Blätter .
This article and the next are translated from German. The magazine Marxist Studies seeks people willing to occasionally translate German articles into French. Contact Editor emms@marx.be .112 This article appeared first in Unsere Zeit , June 2014, p. 12.113 Lenin, "Communism", Works , vol. 31, p. 168.114 See www.mitchenko.ru/analitika . This study was discussed in detail in the number of Unsere Zeit on 14 September 2012.