[Marxism] Kargalitsky on Putin

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

(from the 2005 Socialist Register, which can be ordered from 
www.monthlyreview.org)

The Russian State In The Age Of American Empire
By Boris Kagarlitsky

There is a debate going on in Russia. One school of thought sees presi­dent 
Vladimir Putin as a great Russian patriot defending the country from the 
imperialist ambitions of America. Another school of thought sees him merely 
as an American puppet. Naturally, Putin's patriotism is no more (and no 
less) honest than his proclaimed desire to keep Russia democratic. His 
claims to defend national interests can be taken seriously only by those 
who accept any government propaganda at face value. Despite its patriotic 
rhetoric, the Putin adminis­tration has made a whole series of valuable 
gifts to the leadership of the US. Russian military bases in Vietnam and 
Cuba were closed, the latter move looking like a direct invitation to the 
US to invade the island, while with Moscow's agreement US military bases 
were established in Central Asia. The Republican administration of George 
W. Bush is viewed in the Kremlin as an optimal partner, unlike the 
Democrats with their tedious queries about human rights.

What is more important, the Russian government is helping G.W. Bush's 
administration economically. As an oil-producing economy in a period of 
high oil prices, Russia enjoys a massive inflow of petrodollars. In May 
2003, currency reserves at the nation's Central Bank hit record levels, 
exceeding 60 billion US dollars, and have kept on rising rapidly. But this 
huge sum of money isn't invested in the domestic economy or used to solve 
the country's dramatic social problems. On the contrary, in 2004 the Moscow 
government was cutting social spending and launching a new attack on the 
remaining elements of the welfare state, claiming that there weren't enough 
resources. All the extra money is withdrawn from the economy and goes into 
a Stabilization Fund, theoretically designed to be used when oil prices 
decline. In fact, much of this money is invested in US government bonds. 
Instead of solving Russia's own problems, the Moscow government is busy 
supporting the dollar and pulling the US economy out of recession.

If attempts to present Putin as a great national leader resisting US 
domi­nation can hardly withstand any encounter with the facts, this doesn't 
mean that the opposite view is right. Those who see Putin merely as an 
American puppet are not very convincing either. Putin's tough declarations 
concerning the US invasion of Iraq brought an outburst of nostalgic joy 
among the patriotic community; for several minutes, in fact, it seemed as 
if Russia was opposing the US. But strangely enough, the threatening 
speeches that resounded in Moscow made no impact whatever on Washington, 
and were not even reflected in US-Russian relations. The members of the 
Bush administration understood not only how weak Putin's Russia really was, 
but also how dependent it was. The source of the USA's problems was quite 
justifiably seen as lying in France and Germany, which might have been 
suspected of advancing their own ambitious project as an alternative to US 
hegemony. What at first glance might have seemed like a struggle between 
Russia and the US was in fact a struggle over Russia, waged between the US 
and Western Europe. For precisely this reason Washington, which reacted 
with extreme irritation to the position taken in Paris, displayed only 
conde­scension with regard to Moscow.

The contradictory images of Putin's administration, which can thus be 
labelled 'nationalist' and 'comprador' at the same time, reflect the 
objective contradictions of today's Russian political economy, and ­ partly 
as a result of this ­ a total lack of coherence in Moscow's foreign policy. 
Not only are Russian elites divided into pro-European and pro-American 
currents, but also, to make things even more confusing, neither current has 
a clear view or a consistent political line. Both sides base their 
perspectives on wishful thinking, believing either in American 
invincibility or in the unstoppable nse of a United Europe. Both sides are 
wavering.

Ideology is also confused. Political liberals are protesting against the 
growing repressiveness of Russia's political system and they worry about 
the xenophobia that is becoming fashionable among larger and larger 
sections o society. But they also are in love with Israel, support G.W. 
Bush in his w on terrorism, and see America as the ideal democracy. Many of 
them hate Western Europe for its 'liberal irresponsibility', its 
'multicultural permissive ness' and its 'support for Palestinian 
terrorists'. Some pin their hopes on US Democrats, expecting them to fix 
what G.W. Bush has damaged m moment of craziness'. But never do they see 
any problem with American imperialism as such. To make things worse, 
economic liberals see no problem in either repression or xenophobia, and 
remind everyone that the Russian economy never did so well in twenty years 
as it is doing under Putin. They are also happy with US policies because 
these policies, for good or bad reasons, help to keep oil expensive. And 
the nationalists, of course, hate America, but share President Bush's 
concern with terrorism and the 'Islamic threat'. Funnily enough, the most 
anti-Semitic politicians in Russia are also the greatest admirers of the 
'Israeli security model'.

This confusion isn't a cultural or political phenomenon. In fact, the 
weak­ness of Russia's elite in international affairs is just a function of 
its economic and social weakness, which can't be compensated for even by 
the highest oil prices on the world market. Russia isn't a global player, 
nor even a self-defined minor actor (like, say, Finland or Japan). It is 
simply a battlefield for the global conflicts which are emerging - not a 
subject but an object of inter­national relations. This object is alive and 
has senses. It is even aware of some (though not all) of its interests. But 
it is unable to act consistently.

Putin proclaimed a new national idea: competitiveness. Patriotism was 
finally placed at the service of capitalism. This totally bourgeois view of 
life contrasted with the orgiastic embezzlement of the -naive Yeltsin 
epoch, which perceived capitalism exclusively as a consumer society. The 
people who made up the Putin draft were denied the scope of their 
predecessors; pragmatic through and through, they were thus completely 
anonymous. The triumph of greyness and pettiness that is evident at all 
levels of the Russian state and business is also clear proof that the 
country's elite has finally learnt the rules of bourgeois behaviour. Taking 
the place of the oligarchs was the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, collaborating 
closely with Western capital. This collaboration, moreover, has become much 
more fundamental and long-term, just as Russian capitalism has also become 
more mature. The problem, however, is that ruling elites in Russia remain 
deeply dependent on oil exports, and on Western financial markets. At the 
same time they feel much less dependent on the population of their own 
country, which seems to be obedient, passive and demoralized. As long as 
local markets and the local population are of very little interest to the 
rulers, the country is doomed to remain dependent, no matter what is 
proclaimed in official declarations.


Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org 


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism