Re: Why did the USSR fall?

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

I am not an expert on Russia (not even close!), but it seems that in structural terms, that country is economically dominated by the IMF and the US. However, it has won temporary respite from this domination due to the high price of oil. This suggests that it is a dependent country, though the structural problems of the Russian economy do not arise from formal colonialism. Rather, they come from the failure of the Soviet "model" (which was partly a response to earlier external domination). 

If Russia is able to use its temporary oil bonanza to develop its economy in a balanced way, perhaps it can move away from dependency. Is it doing so? 

------------------------
Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine




> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Chris Doss" [mailto:nomorebounces@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 9:07 AM
> To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Why did the USSR fall?
> 
> 
> Thanks. I don't see how any of these definitions applies to 
> Russia. In fact, according to criteria #2 and #3, Russia is 
> the colonial power in the post-Soviet space.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>
> To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:03:28 -0700
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Why did the USSR fall?
> 
> > Chris writes: >it is hard to see who is colonizing Russia, 
> unless the word is being used in a technical sense, which I 
> suspect it is.<
> >
> > there are several degrees of the general phenomenon of 
> "colonialization" or external domination, forming a spectrum:
> >
> > 1. classic colonialism, i.e., the political and economic 
> domination of one country by another. What the US is doing to Iraq.
> >
> > 2. neo-colonialism, i.e., the formal poltical independence 
> of a country combined with informal political and economic 
> domination of that country by another. Informal colonization, 
> as when Francophone countries of Africa formally were 
> independent but were controlled via various "multilateral" 
> organizations.
> >
> > 3. (economic) dependency, i.e., the political independence 
> of a country, which means little because the economic 
> structure of that country (a leftover from colonialism) is so 
> poor that the government has few good choices and the country 
> ends up being dominated. Most Latin American countries fit 
> this mold, having thrown off the Spanish colonists a long 
> time ago and having gotten a lot of political independence 
> from the US.
> >
> > ------------------------
> > Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: "Chris Doss" [mailto:nomorebounces@xxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 7:50 AM
> > > To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Why did the USSR fall?
> > >
> > >
> > > Indeed, it is remarkable to what extent social relations in
> > > Russia are similar to what they were in the tsarist era (of
> > > course the continuities between the tsarist and societ eras
> > > are notable too).
> > >
> > > That said, it is hard to see who is colonizing Russia, unless
> > > the word is being used in a technical sense, which I 
> suspect it is.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Russia seems to be back where it was a century ago, a 
> nation that is
> > > > simultaneously colonizer and colonized.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
> > > >
> > >
> >
>