Economics

Ресейдегі неофедалдық капитализм

Apr 27, 2017 Anders Åslund

ВАШИНГТОН – Владимир Путин басқарған Ресей күннен күнге Брежнев тұсындағы склероздық тоқырау жайлаған Совет одағына ұқсап барады. Тек бір ғана жемқорлық саласында Путин режимі инновацияшылдық танытып отыр. Путин билігінің 18-ші жылында кландық капитализмнің жаңа формасы орнығып келеді.

Соңғы он жыл ішінде Путин Ресей экономикасын мемлекетке қайтарды. Мемлекеттік сектор 2005 жылғы 35 пайыздан 2015 жылы 70 пайызға дейін ұлғайды. Лениннің сөзімен айтсақ, мемлекет экономикалық «бақылау нүктелерін» қолына алды.

Бір жағынан, «Газпром», «Роснефть» сияқты энергетика алпауыттары заманауи бизнес мекемелері сияқты жұмыс істейтіндей көрінеді. Олардың корпоративтік басқару заңдары, бақылау және басқару кеңестері бар, тіпті акционерлердің жыл сайынғы мәжілісі де өтіп тұрады. Олар шетелдік тәуелсіз аудиттен өтіп, жыл сайынғы есебін жариялап отырады, тәуелсіз директорлар кеңесі де бар.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 5 Comments on this article

Stefan Siewert May 8, 2017

Neo-feudalism is an issue for the developed world as well, maybe even more. See, for example Financial Time, Izabella Kaminska. In the US, the wealth of the top 0.1% exceeds the wealth of the bottom 90% for the first time since 1941. The world is more interconnected that ever before. Without London(grad), the amount of Russian oligarchs would be much lower. France is stagnant and corrupt, Greece has lost 25 % of GDP, Italy is stagnating. It seems that there are powerful undercurrents and economic forces that cannot be described by coordinates of deviating from pure market logic. Thus, the analysis is a textbook example of Orwellian doublespeak. But let us count the good intention: closing your ranks by creating an external enemy worked well during the Cold war and still may have a meaningful potential.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mauricio Duran-Loriga May 4, 2017

European officials R U I N I N G the continent and stealing Europeans' liberties from their Brussels headquarters have never been elected.

Not even through tampered elections.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dina Khapaeva Apr 29, 2017

Back in 2007, Andreas Åslund claimed that “Russia has established a normal market economy based on predominantly private enterprise,” assured that “Russia is swiftly becoming a middle class society”, and anticipated the instability of Putin’s authoritarianism (A. Åslund, Russia's Capitalist Revolution: Why Market Reform Succeeded and Democracy Failed, 2007, p 301, 305). It is an important sign that now this economist speaks of “Russia’s neo-feudalism.” Differently from Åslund, those, like Vladimir Sorokin and myself, who had lived in this “normal market economy,” used medieval allusions as a way to raise public awareness of the increasing danger of Putinism in 2006 - 2007. Åslund’s current
adaptation of this theme is problematic for several reasons:
- “Crony capitalism” is not “a deliberate effort to emulate the success of Russia’s ancient feudal system.” Not to mention the much criticized thesis of Richard Pipes, one can hardly accept Aslund’s suggestion that Putin clique’s thievery was based on a historical analysis of Russia’s feudal past;
- Neo-medievalism -- a cultural and aesthetic system, which uses medieval references to deny basic values of democracy by dehumanizing citizens,
and not “neo-feudalism” -- the repetition of feudalism as an economic system in the XXI century -- conditions superficial resemblance between Putin’s Russia and the Middle Ages. The formation of social relations modeled on criminal organization with strong elements of a caste system, and the reconsideration of the concept of citizenship determines the novelty of Putin’s regime. (D. Khapaeva, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967067X15000665).
- The missing link in Åslund’s argument is the successful advocacy by Alexander Dugin and Mikhail Yuriev, the leaders of the Eurazia movement for the “New Middle Ages,” the “society of orders” and an autocratic monarchy, which has been gaining support in the post-Soviet society since the mid-2000s. Rooted directly in fascism (T. Snyder,
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/opinion/how-a-russian-fascist-is-meddling-in-americas-election.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1), and not in any remote historical past, it drives post-Soviet social change.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Apr 27, 2017

However bizarre this may seem it remains however self imposed by the Russian people because they voted for Putin
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Neil Gundel Apr 27, 2017

It's not hard to see a parallel developing in the Trump Administration.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/v0jc4QCkk

Ресейдегі неофедалдық капитализм

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

Trump Stumbles into Putin’s Syrian Backyard

Log in/Register

Ресейдегі неофедалдық капитализм

Subscribe to PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification