--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Either this Nation Shall Kill Racism, or Racism shall Kill this Nation." (S. Jonas, Aug., 2018)
Castillo de Alcala de Xivert. Indeed. Right out of the Middle Ages (just like .Industrial Feudalism.).
(Image by santiagolopezpastor) Details DMCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Putin is a very complicated character (no new revelation there, eh?) And I'm not the only one who thinks so. But for myself, this column will be the fourth in recent a series on him and Russia/Ukraine since Feb. 21, 2022 (Click Here ; Click Here ; Click Here ).
How complicated is he? Well, for one thing in the second of the columns above I said he was a fascist while in the 3rd I said he was what one might call a "modern" feudalist. As it happens, I did not catch that glaring contradiction myself, but a good, long-time, political analyst/historian friend of mine, Jacob Rosen, did. In his lengthy letter to me on the subjects he made some additional trenchant observations. He has given me permission to use excerpts from them in this column which I shall do (of course noting them along the way). I shall also be interspersing excerpts from my earlier columns (with references of course). At any rate, some new territory will be covered along with the old, but that will (PHEW!) be it for the time-being.
In this column I am primarily concerned with re-visiting the subject of the governmental form in today's Russia. In my column of March 14 (the second one cited above) I noted that:
"Putin presides over a remarkable political structure in the context of those nations that comprise the developed, industry-based), world. (To be sure, some are much more developed than others). Almost all of such nations can be described as "capitalist" and are governed by some form of what is usually termed 'liberal democracy.' " (For further discussion of that concept, see the original column.)
"And, of course, modern bourgeois democracy takes the bourgeois/capitalist form not only in its governing structure(s) but also in how the ownership of the means of production are owned and controlled. That usually takes one form or another of corporatism. Shares may be widely or closely held, but there are shares and there are corporate structures. This is not to say that most capitalist societies do not have some very wealthy controllers (usually men). Of course, they do. But in most instances, they exert their control through corporate structures based on share-holding, under some kind of greater (under liberal governments) or lesser (under reactionary governments) regulation-by-the-state. Of course, regardless of how 'liberal' a society is (or is not) there are always a relatively few wealthy folks at the top of the ownership/control pyramid and then everyone else.
"And then there is Russia. Let's start with the ownership and control of the means of production. No corporate structures (with any meaning or power), no shareholders (who have any at least potential power), little to no independent government regulation, virtually no influence of legislation over corporate functioning. There is a stock market and individuals can own shares in various companies. But as arranged by Boris Yeltsin and his cronies (as well as certain foreign operators), a system of directly private ownership of the means of production, by individuals, was set up."
I then went on to describe the mode of ownership and control which, as is well-known, is in the hands of an "Oligarchy," as I said "really no different from the individual members of the ruling class in the early days of U.S. capital formation who owned an inordinate number of shares in their corporations and exerted a very high level of individual ownership and control: Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, 'The Copper Bosses,' Vanderbilt, (Jay) Gould, and so on and so forth." At the time they were collectively known as "The Robber Barons," (sort of like "The Oligarchs," donchaknow). But in terms of Russia, I then described the economic/-governmental structure as capitalist, noting however that "that the economic control of the Russian capitalist system is very primitive, as is the political control of the government, in the hands of one man." But because of the way that the economy is structured, primarily under the control of individuals, through his control over them, Putin appears to exert absolute control not only of the State apparatus but of the economy as well. I went on to describe this as a form of capitalism, with the state structure being a capitalist form of dictatorship, that is fascism.
BUT, in the next column, having done some more thinking on the Russian poltico-economic system, I came to a different conclusion, that is that in terms of its political-economy Putin's Russia is an entirely different animal, what might be called "Feudal capitalism" or "Capitalist feudalism." To support that argument in some detail, I said the following:
"With the end of socialism, [the Soviet Union] should have been converted to some form of capitalism with the kind of government that accompanies most capitalist economies . . . . Publicly-traded share- companies with management for the most part not owners (or at least controlling-owners). And they have a bourgeois parliamentary system of government, with some degree of separation of powers (Western Europe). This is what could have happened in Russia and indeed what one might have expected it to happen in Russia. But it did not.
"With foreign protection and support, the declared 'President' Boris Yeltsin established what was essentially a dictatorship during what became an extended transition period (1991/2-99). Then he and his cronies handed over the keys to the economic kingdom, not to stock corporations, but to favored individuals, who became The Oligarchs. A re-formed Duma (parliament) continued to exist but it essentially had no power. And Russia became, not a modern corporate state, but one stuck in the very earliest stage of capitalism: industry-ownership by individuals. By a somewhat murky process, the former KGB agent Vladimir Putin became President of Russia in late 1999. He quickly made it clear to certain leaders of the early Oligarchy (e.g., Mikhail Khordovsky) who was in charge. And in one way or another he has remained in charge ever since.
"The political economy of contemporary Russia looks remarkably like that of a feudal state. (By definition, by the way, it is not fascist [as I had termed it in the earlier column], because a fascist sate serves the interests of a capitalist ruling class.) For examples see: Imperial Russia (until it was overthrown by the Russian Revolution); the Prussian Empire (until its collapse at the end of World War I); or the Austro-Hungarian Empire (same. In them the ultimate authority resided with the monarch, even when there was a parliament. Indeed, in modern Russia, since Yeltsin famously aimed a tank-cannon at the Duma's building, there is no independent legislature, no independent judiciary, and very little political opposition (even before the current almost total crack-down on dissent). Indeed, in my view, I think that it can be safely said the Russia has a modern form of feudal government: historically having a King/Emperor, and the nobility surrounding him (and occasionally her --- see Russia's Catherine the Great, England's Elizabeth the First) who are totally dependent upon the monarch for both their position and their economic power. And who can be removed just like that."
BUT (again), I didn't note the change-of-analysis. But Jake Rosen did: "A difficulty which you present to your readers is an unexplained contradiction between your March 14 article and your March 22 article. On March 14 you argued that 'Putin presided over a classically fascist nation.' But a week later, in your March 22 article, you disavowed your March 14 idea . . . and argued instead [that] 'the political economy of contemporary Russia looks remarkably like that of a feudal state. (By definition, by the way, it is not fascist, because a fascist state serves the interests of a capitalist ruling class.) The system, although thoroughly authoritarian, is not fascist, even [if] it bears many features of fascism (e.g., no independent judiciary or parliament).' Your reason for assigning Putin's Russia to feudalism is that Yeltsin. . . . and his cronies handed over the keys to the economic kingdom, not to stock corporations, but to favored individuals, who became The Oligarchs. . . . And Russia became, not a modern corporate state, but one stuck in the very earliest stage of capitalism: industry-ownership by individuals. . . . So, [Jake said], which is it, March 14 or March 22?" Well, indeed on reconsideration I have come to the conclusion that it is "March 22."
But then it is important to pay attention to an additional comment that my friend Jake made:
"I [that is Jake] say that in its later decades the USSR was a state-capitalist society. CP members believed it was a form of socialism. Either way, how did Russia regress to feudalism, if it did? Feudalism (in its European form) is understood to be an agrarian society; based on subsistence agriculture, not commodity production; with its labor force bound to the soil and owned, together with the soil, by the ruling landlord class; where markets exist but are not dominant or characteristic of the economy; where trade exists, but is not significant; where money is largely irrelevant; where relations of clientelism and obligation are dominant; where civic rights, such as they are, belong only to the feudal landowners and are the subject of endless intra-class struggles among them. This does not describe today's Russia.
"The Oligarchs own and control, in their own interests, the whole of the economy. It is an economy organized on the principle of production for profit. Within that economy the working class is composed of free laborers, contracting for the sale of their labor power. They are not serfs bound to the soil or to the factory. We don't have subsistence production for use, but rather commodity production for sale. And production and distribution are carried out and, and profits created and owned, by corporations. Individuals, a relatively small group of them, own these corporations. So, didn't Yeltsin create a capitalist class? Isn't Putin's state, despite its weak rule of law, ipso facto, the defender, and promoter, of this capitalist class and this capitalism?"
This is all true. Yet I do differ with my friend Jake in an important aspect of political/-economic analysis. "Feudalism" in the classic sense --- based on the soil, for both Lord and peasant/serf --- certainly does not describe modern Russia. However, what I am proposing is a new form for the description/analysis of a structure of what is a highly individualized State apparatus and economy, that latter with a broad industrial base, which however, happens to be individually owned. We see this, uniquely, in modern Russia, under Putin. I have given it the name of: "Industrial Feudalism." VERY briefly for now, at the top is an all-powerful feudal-like "Monarch," we might say, who is surrounded by a set of "Dukes." But with no independent state apparatus, while each of the "Dukes" personally controls one or more corporations, each of them is subject to the rules, roles, and whims only of the "monarch." "Off with 'is 'ead'?" Well, not yet. But hey, you never know.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postscript: As for what I postulated in my column "Making the World Safe for Plutocracy," see the positions on the conflict being taken by China and by Hungary and Serbia post-election, and see also how Hungary's Orban is manipulating the situation from his position as an autocrat-just-voted-in-again.
(Article changed on Apr 07, 2022 at 5:27 PM EDT)
