I wanted to squeeze in one-post two
topics, but both topics turned to be too big, so I separated them;
Matter
fact it is also the end of the year…
2013 did not bring much of positive
changes…
On the surface it looks like the end of
long lasting economic crisis, but in general nothing significant happened to
address the issue…
Still far too many people are suffering,
far too many children dying of hunger and the world is also far form general economical
or political stability and peace… And our goodfella Barack is still playing spy games in the oval office.
I
would call the year of 2013 as the year of manipulations…
So let us go back to our original topics:
In our previous post about Bismarck and
Angela we have mentioned the Marshall plan;
In addition, a head of a big and powerful state recently
compared Stalin to Cromwell... I
would somehow disagree... So let's see why?
In addition, a head of a big and powerful state recently
compared Stalin to Cromwell... I
would somehow disagree... So let's see why?
It is obvious, that after the Second World War the western part of Europe started to develop with amazing speed; but it is not so obvious, that it was the influence of the Marshall plan alone… Or might be something else;
For comparison we can take Spain. Due to Franco regime, Spain was excluded from this. But what have happened, that after a slow start, Spain managed to produce in period of 1959-1974 the second highest economic growth rate in the world. Second after Japan.
And we also want to see what happened to
the “other bloc”.
Yes, the COMECON was formed and it was
meant as an economic tool. I have tried to find some more or less realistic
analysis of those times – I mean about the Eastern par of Europe…
It looks like we shall have to struggle
with the western clichés for a longer period. Most of the works I have found
are still demonising that era and looks more, like a cold war propaganda tool,
than some scientific work.
It happened to me to live or to visit
several countries of the Eastern Block, and it is might possible to prove to
the generations born after 1985 (those, who could not really have any live
memories about those times), that everything was wrong, people were starving
and stupid, but this would be far from the reality. I also had some base for comparison with the "West" during the 80's.
In fact the so called “Eastern Block”
lived its particular life, there were better and worst performers… Some places
people lived in moderate welfare and for sure at some places people had to
suffer a lot.
There was no one single “economic” or
even not one “political” model for those countries, even the western propaganda
tried to present them as one place to be hated.
It is also very much true, that the 90’s
have found those countries partly in bad economic shape, however the big
changes in the eastern block were mainly motivated by politics and less by bad
economic situation;
In general the “Eastern Block” philosophy
was, that the state provides its people with growing living standards and the
people do not mind to live in separation and with limited rights for freedom.
This scheme was the one fall apart in the 90’s…
Why we talk about all this?
As it is a general view, that the so
called “socialist” economic model is not working… That the western economies
have outperformed the “Eastern Block”…
So it would be logical, that after the
90’s all those economies in transition would show much better results, then
before, you know, during those very bad socialist times…
But
this did not really happened…
Most of the “Eastern Block” economies show some progress on paper, but even those, believed to be successful, are not really and not convincingly improved. In several former USSR states the situation till now is worst, than it was before the 1990’s, but we can also take as an example the former Yugoslavia, where the majority of the member states are still far behind the level of the period before the “transition”…
The Elbe River
“The
Elbe is one of the major rivers of Central Europe. It rises in the Krkonoše
Mountains of the northern Czech Republic before traversing much of Bohemia,
then Germany and flowing into the North Sea at Cuxhaven, 110 km northwest of
Hamburg.” (Wikipedia)
The
Elbe River has in many ways not only a geographical, but also a very much
significant geopolitical and economical influence;
The
last “division by the Elbe River was drawn by this famous handshake… Marking the end of the Second World War in Europe.But Elbe was for thousands of years a natural border… From the times of the Roman Empire, through the European invasion of Mongols and later during the division of the German states and through Napoleon wars…
Economically
and geopolitically Western Europe is what is west of that river…
The
rest we can call Central, or Central East or East, I mean Europe… Depending on
what we are talking about… But the fact remains fact… The economical
development went different way on the two sides of that river…
So
take a look on this map and we shall stop here for sometimes;
At
this moment we need to take a look on some further definitions;
Feudalism
– this term is used as historical, political also as an economical term… More
we look into different definitions more we get confused…
All
in all there is one significant point – in a feudal society, the highest power
(the king or the emperor) delegates certain powers to the members of the
society in exchange for loyalty and support;
Adam
Smith in the Wealth of Nations (1776) used the term 'feudal system' (a
phrase he coined) to describe a form of production governed not by market
forces but by coercion and force. For Smith the 'feudal system' was the
economic exploitation of peasants by their lords, which led to an economy and
society marked by poverty, brutality, exploitation, and wide gaps between rich
and poor. This economic definition of 'feudalism' found its way into the writings
of Karl Marx. Across the channel Enlightenment philosophes,
notably Montesquieu, also saw the 'feudal law' as a system of exploitation. For
them 'feudalism' meant the aggregate of seigneurial
privileges and prerogatives, which could be justified neither by reason or
justice. When the National Constituent Assembly abolished the 'feudal regime'
in August 1789 this is what they meant.
Manorialism,
or seigneurialism, describes the aristocracy's
political, judicial, and economic power over the peasantry. It is both a mode
of production and a system of political control.
Serfdom
is the status of peasants under feudalism, specifically relating to
manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery, which developed
primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe and lasted in some countries
until the mid-19th century.
Serfs
who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the Lord of the Manor who
owned that land, and in return were entitled to protection, justice and the
right to exploit certain fields within the manor to maintain their own
subsistence. Serfs were often required not only to work on the lord's fields,
but also his mines, forests and roads. The manor formed the basic unit of
feudal society and the Lord of the Manor and his serfs were bound legally,
economically, and socially. Serfs formed the lowest social class of feudal
society. (Wikipedia)
But
how this worked in simple words?
The
owner of every land is the King or the Emperor. Out of his will he grants land
to the people loyal to him. Those people share further the land and the income
from the land. The land is ruled by those empowered by the emperor and the
serfs (peasants) cultivate it. Even the aristocratic classes were freed all
over Europe, but East of Elbe the aristocrats considered themselves (with rare
exempts) the slaves of the King (or the Emperor) and they also considered the
serfs as their slaves.
And
now let me remind you of Elbe River!
Manorialism
and Serfdom had declined since the 13th century West from the Elbe
and the same Serfdom intensified and spread till 18th century East
of Elbe…
We
can say it even remained in its original form in several places till the 19th
century…
Dates of emancipation from serfdom in various countries
• Scotland: neyfs (serfs) disappeared
by late 14th century, but heritable jurisdictions survived until 1747
• England & Wales: obsolete by
15th-16th century,
• Wallachia: officially ended in 1746
(land reforms in 1864)
• Moldavia: officially ended in 1749
(land reforms in 1864)
• Savoy: 19 December 1771
• Austria: 1 November 1781 (first step;
second step: 1848)
• Bohemia: 1 November 1781 (first step;
second step: 1848)
• Baden: 23 July 1783
• Denmark: 20 June 1788
• Helvetic Republic: 4 May 1798
• Batavian Republic (Netherlands):
constitution of 12 June 1798 (in theory; in practice with the introduction of
the French Code Napoléon in 1811)
• Serbia: 1804 (de facto, de jure in
1830)
• Schleswig-Holstein: 19 December 1804
• Swedish Pomerania: 4 July 1806
• Duchy of Warsaw (Poland): 22 July
1807
• Prussia: 9 October 1807 (effectively
1811-1823)
• Mecklenburg: October 1807
(effectively 1820)
• Bavaria: 31 August 1808
• Nassau: 1 September 1812
• Governorate of Estonia: 23 March 1816
• Württemberg: 18 November 1817
• Governorate of Livonia: 26 March 1819
• Hanover: 1831
• Saxony: 17 March 1832
• Hungary: 11 April 1848
• Croatia: 8 May 1848
• Austrian Empire: 7 September 1848
• Bulgaria: 1858 (de jure by Ottoman
Empire; de facto in 1880)
• Russian Empire: 19 February 1861 (see
Emancipation reform of 1861 and the state owned at 1866)
• Iceland: 1894 (completely)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina: 1918
• Afghanistan: 1923
However
there is a big difference on the East and the West side of River Elbe… On the
West, the serfdom practically died out due to the industrial revolution… While
on the East the emancipation was granted as a political response to
revolutions, fights for independence or major unrests, natural disasters or
combination of those;
The dates of abolishing the serfdom east of Elbe meant little in general… Technically the system of serfdom remained till the 1st World War. As there was no viable alternative to it… Especially not in the feudal or feudalistic societies in the region;
In
general East from Elbe freeing the serfs was met with a confusion and absolute non-understanding.
(You
can further read on Russian http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/634373
)
And
we shall stop here again for a moment;
We
need to go back to Marx… Yes, Karl Marx…
Together
with Engels they have developed a theory, where the capitalist society will
lead itself to the stage, where it comes to a conflict, which can be solved by
a revolution;
‘What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its
own gravediggers. Its fall, and the victory of the proletariat, are equally
inevitable.’
The key to becoming the builder of a new society from being
the subordinate class under capitalism is the proletariat’s revolutionary
prowess. The changes in social human relations necessary for this
transformation are dialectically united by revolutionary practice. As Marx put
it in the Theses on Feuerbach:
The materialistic doctrine that men are products of
circumstances and upbringing, and that therefore changed men are the product of
other circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change
circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated ... The
coincidence of the changing of circumstances and human activity can be
conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionising practice.
The difficulties of a proletarian government will be not so
much in the domain of property, but rather in that of production, and of
overcoming human nature as shaped by the old society. The field in which the
difficulties will be most acute will be that of work discipline. The workers
work because of the discipline of hunger and the threat of the sack. Of course
in an advanced stage of socialist society, where working hours will be reduced
to a reasonable limit and the unpleasant aspects of the process of labour
eliminated, where the workplace will be hygienic and attractive, where the
monotony of labour will largely be done away with, where the material
inducement will be lavish, workers will work from force of habit and from the
desire to serve the needs of fellow human beings. But it will take a whole
historical period to change labour from a burden to a joy. How will labour
discipline, so necessary for the continuation of production, be established
immediately after the social revolution, with the proletariat still affected by
the customs of capitalism?”
They
also predict a long way to the socialism as a long and more like a process of evolution of changing the
society and the human nature;
Lenin
in the meantime regarded imperialism as the chance for the developed nations to
“corrupt” their workforce and meet some of their demand on the cost of
exploiting the colonised territories.
So
he came to a conclusion that the revolution will strike at the weakest
countries. Such a country was Russia. However he estimated to use the
capitalist (bourgeois-democratic) revolution as the star up for a proletarian
revolution.
This
sounds complicate, but it is in fact very simple – Lenin wanted to skip the
“bourgeois” transitional period and the transformation of the feudalism and
serfdom into capitalism, by directly capturing the power by the workers class.
He
also expected the revolution to happen in not one, but several countries as a
result of the crisis not only in Russia, but also in the majority of that time
developed World.
However
the first negative sign came from the western battlefields, where it tuned to
be clear, that Germany instead of falling into revolution, still attacking the
Russians.
Lenin
signed a humiliating peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk to gain some time. He got not
much, as right after the peace treaty was signed, the civil war started in
Russia.
The
civil war lasted till October 1922. However from 1920 it was clear, that the Bolsheviks
are going to win.
From
October 1917 till May 1918 Lenin started the economic part of the Revolution.
Many say, that these measures, like the nationalisation of banks, industries
and trade, lead to the civil war…
From
our point of view we can only say, that it is not possible to speak about any
kind of economic policy during a war, especially not during a civil war… So
what triggered what is still not very much clear…
What
we know, that Lenin pronounced the New Economic Policy (NEP) at March 21st
1921. We can regard this policy as the first non-wartime economic program.
It
is in fact in line with the original Marxist theory and Lenin’s view on the
transitional period leading to the Socialism.
The
main point is, that Lenin himself repeated a number of times, that he cannot
predict how the “socialism” will look like exactly and how long time it shall
take to reach it… He expected at least one or two generations to work on this…
Do
you still remember the date of abolishing the serfdom in Russia? So the wartime
economy was an absolute copy of the serfdom, even it was harsher, than in the
“old times”… Among other regulations the NEP intended to emancipate (again) the
rural Russia.
Lenin
died 3 years later, January 21st 1924.
Stalin
(Iosip Vassarionovich Dzhugashvili) – took over the power – by eliminating all
of his opponents – the most famous were Leon
Trockij and Nikolai Bukharin.
1928
marked the end of NEP and beginning of a new era of Neo-Serfdom or Neo
Feudalism – called the collectivization; And the mechanism of 5 year plan
economies.
Why
we are talking about this?
Very
simple… Since the Russian revolution there is an ongoing debate about the
Socialism – is it good or bad. A lot of debate and a lot of criticism…
However
we can only imagine about what Marx, Engels and Lenin were talking and thinking
about. As what was happening after 1928 has little to do with the kind of
socialism they were dreaming about.
Iosif
was a good pupil in the church school. He must have learned a lot about the
best traditions of the Russian Feudal society.
What
was the result?
One-person
rule (himself), centralized government, feudalistic, paternal society. Classic
pyramidal vassal based power scheme. Just they did not call them as Emperor and
nobles, but they could be found as the new proletarian aristocracy… With
practically the same levels of power sharing as in a classic feudal society;
Iosif
listened Lenin, but not carefully enough, so he did not catch the point;
Lenin
was the fierce enemy of feudalism in any form. He was against the whole concept
and its participants. Lenin did not afraid of bourgeois system – he was
confident, that it should lead to the socialism;
Iosip
did not have that confidence – he believed in totalitarian scheme;
And
we need to stop here for a moment…
Lenin
was born in Astrakhan. The place itself is very much symbolic. Astrakhan is a
port and trading city, practically the end point of the Silk Road. Vibrant,
cosmopolitan, multinational, open and often rebel;
Lenin’s
father was a second-generation freed serf. Educated in Kazan University and
later teaching in Penza. Lenin’s mother was from German-Swiss, Jewish
multinational, wealthy background. She learned German, English, French and
Russian literature. Father after 10 years of marriage becomes noble after
rewarded as a master of primary schools of the district;
The
young Vladimir got classic education. He lost his father at age 16. He lost his
fait in God at the same time and in general he become a confrontational character;
His
brother at that time graduated with gold medal in St. Petersburg and got in
touch with anti-monarchist liberal movements. First he was involved in public protests
and soon he joined a socialist group organizing to assassin the Tsar. The plot
was uncovered and his brother Alexander was sentenced to death and hanged in
May 1887.
Lenin
despite the loss of both, his father and older brother decided to study law in
Kazan University; this is the start point of the young revolutionary… And it
would need to have 3 more posts to go through Lenin’s life… You can read here
about this:
Stalin
was born in Gori (near todays Tbilisi, Georgia); His mother was a housekeeper,
the father repaired shoes… Father was an alcoholic beating both him and his
mother. The young Stalin was born with berth defect, later got smallpox leaving
his face with scars and at age of 12 got an accident injuring his left arm;
Stalin
got religious education up to university level; http://www.history.com/topics/joseph-stalin
The
two persons have got absolutely different characters and motivations;
This
in many ways influenced later the course of history;
Lenin’s
main goal was to destroy the feudalism, including the monarchy with all its
tributes. He has seen the church as the servant of the same system, so he also
had its main target on them;
Stalin
listened Lenin, but after his death he had no other alternative and no other
knowledge, than to run into what he knew; A totalitarian dictatorship and
creation of a new “religion” he called communist ideology;
Stalin
was a classic dictator, with the worst personal characteristics; He did not
trust or believe anyone, including his own family members; In the meantime he
recognized the necessity of developing his country. So he went the ‘good old
way”. He thrown back the countryside into the neo- or socialist type of serfdom and
by any means started up a forced industrialisation.
In
fact Stalin strongly believed, that the science and technology can be superior
to the nature and by this it is possible to change anything in the World;
Stalin
has also raised a cast of strong technocrats, loyal ideologists, scientists,
banker and for sure, loyal artists;
You
may ask – how this neo-serfdom could happen? After Lenin’s death Stalin ordered
the program of “collectivisation” – all the agriculture had to be performed in
“collectives”. This meant the total
destruction of the first market-oriented structure of wealthy farmers, the
kulaks in the agrarian sector;
The
financial system, the trade and the industry was already nationalised;
All
the land, all he means of production – in general everything belongs to the
state – the people have to give their workforce and loyalty. In return the
state will take care of them. As in the classic serfdom the serfs (in our case
the industrial and other workers and the peasantry) had no properties at all,
they lived on the rented land or houses, they were not allowed to move freely
and they had limited rights in case a dispute with the higher power.
A
question emerges – if this is an outdated system – how come Russia still
managed to grow and to produce, to win a war and after that to become a
super-power!
Stalin
from his early childhood learned one very strong motivation.
The fear.
Fear
from his father, from his principles in the school and university. Unfortunately he could not see the films of Hitschkock. So
He
built a system, with
Total control
and
the total fear. Fear from your boss, fear from your employee, fear from your
colleague and even fear from your children;
The
technocratic invent of planned and 100% regulated economy was the best tool of
the follow up and the instrument of the implementation was the fear.
Stalin
instead of leading his nation to the socialism, choose to reform the feudalism.
The economic system he created we can call the
“fearonomy”…
Besides
the fear motivation, in addition he developed at the start of Second World War
the Russian Nationalism, which he named Patriotism.
In
fact the idea came from the Napoleon invasion, when the Russian peasants
(serfs) choose to fight against Napoleon (who by the way promised to liberate
them) and to protect the serfdom, the Tsar, the Monarchy and even their own rulers.
As we know, the patriot idea worked again.And you may ask – what happened to those other states East of Elbe River?
But
this is not the end of the story – the famous handshake at the Elbe River we
mentioned at the beginning of this post shaped the fait of most of those nations;
After
the Second World War the neo-feudal “fearonomy”
system was applied in most of those countries.
How
successful it was?
Stalin
himself admitted in 1937 at the annual congress of factory directors, that the
existing system is not working properly and a reform is needed to increase the
motivation of the people, reduce the unnecessary waste, increase the efficiency
of using the national resources; But then there was no further steps, as Stalin
drowned himself in the Winter War with Finland (at winter 1939) and later the
War Communism known from 1918 Civil War was applied after Germany invaded
Russia at 1941.
At
East of Elbe, the introduction of the system caused mass revolts in Hungary,
Czechoslovakia and Poland. (1956, 1968, 1982)…
Economically
Tito’s Yugoslavia created the most successful system. However this system was
created to differentiate from Stalin and Russia. The rest was following the main "guidelines" set by the USSR, but each made their own specific approaches to the system.. All in all among the more successful were Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the DDR. Albania and Romania considered as a total failure.. Albania not only copied, but developed into a more radical system of neo-feudalism, than the stalinist model used to be, while Romania thought to be a "softer" version of the same. Poland, Bulgaria were in the middle group... (you can see for your reference the graph at the beginning of this post)
And
now we come back to our original question.
What
is going on with the economies East of Elbe River?
Why
no major improvements, where is the dynamism? The prosperity? The famous efficiency of the market economies?
I
was watching a EU official talking about the entry of the European “Eastern
Block” countries. He said, that the institutions are there; the mechanisms are
there, but still the people in there thinking different. The same systems and
institutions working in other parts of Europe, simply do not work the same way in that
region…
So
why?
I
am sure you could guess – because the roots of the feudal system are still
deeply in there…
So
we need to go back to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and Karl Marx… And we need to
finish the process-started West of Elbe River in 13th Century.
Destroy forever every trace of
serfdom and feudalism!
Not only as institution, but also as a form of
mentality, philosophy and everyday approach to the life situations. Including
the paternalism and the thousands of
forms of the corruption especially the one made of influence and power.
When
the last trace of the feudalism is destroyed, than we can expect some more
advance movement in those economies… And do not be too much optimistic – it
shall take 1-2 and may be even 3 generations to “clean up” that…
However
the roots of feudalism are very much strong and most of the time they sit very
nicely hidden in different kind of transformed forms of existence… And it is
still lot to do towards the East of Elbe.
It
might sounds funny, but the West already applied half of the statements of the
Communist Manifesto and if we read carefully the works of Lenin, than he for
example proposed to the Bolshevik state exactly what is applied for the 2008
financial crisis – the control of the Banks… And creating a Central Bank – what
is EU talking about now?
For
the Western philosophers and economists it was easy to make some propaganda
remarks, that all the idea of Engels, Marx and Lenin have died out… Fortunately
not… Just need to take a careful look around…
I
remember the Western Nations, when they celebrated the triumph over the
Communism during the fell of Berlin Wall and the socialist countries regimes…
Mistake
– there was no communism and there was no socialism – what collapsed was the
neo-feudalism…
The celebration is ok, as most of the people were celebrating, but we should be always aware of our real situation to be able to go further. From wrong findings we shall always make wrong conclusions…
So Mr. Cromwell can you choose which one?
- Stalin or Lenin?
Noted Mr. Cromwell - I would choose the same guy....
- Stalin or Lenin?
Noted Mr. Cromwell - I would choose the same guy....
And I let you think about this…
