The Germans (since you mentioned them) like the rest of the European peoples, trace their lineage back to the constantly moving tribes and federations of tribes, large and small, in search of better land. The Germans have a word for this historical process that led to the formation only relatively recently of large stable unified nation states: the â??Volkerwanderungâ??, the â??Wandering of Peopleâ??.

In the 30 years war (1618-48), between a third and half of the German population died from pillage, famine and disease and Church endorsed murder of people said to be witches. During this time, the manly exploits of Spanish, Swedish, Italian, Croat, Flemish and French soldiers profoundly changed the racial composition of the German people. The trauma, destitution and humiliation suffered then sowed the seeds of great philosophies and political movements which first voiced some of the secular ideologies that still have enormous influence and resonance today.

As to what world economic strategy I think viable? In a nutshell, one based on ecological rationality, democratic control and planning, social equality, the dominance of use value over exchange value, an interdependent, co-operative global division of labour and production based on the most best use of resources and people.

Whatâ??s the alternative? A 1000-Year Reich of neo-liberalism?

I certainly don’t agree with the main message of this post. The analogy with Lenin is so grossly unfair, it hardly worth commenting on, and the author knows this. Are there any similarities between Yeltsin and Levin? Of course there are, like there are probably similarities between any two persons who ever lived. However in their essential qualities these leaders were radically different, one being a violent dictator who physically crushed all and every dissent, while the other was the first democratically elected leader in Russian history, who championed freedom of speech and has never jailed a single journalist.

As a widely respected Russian economist and commentator Evgeny Yasin said recently, history will remember Yeltsin as a leader who accomplished three tasks:

1) Presided over the largely peaceful dissolution of the Soviet empire. He counts war in Chechnya as Yeltsin’t biggest mistake (I would say crime). However even this horrible war pales in comparison with what would have happenned if disentgration followed Yugoslavia style, with Russia trying to keep it together by force. Note that Gorbachev wanted to preserve the failing empire (he would, wouldn’t he) and still considers Yeltsin responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. What a great empire that can be dissolved by a gang of three persons?

2) Oversaw transition to market economy. Many words have been said how distorted that process was, and I am not here to defend it or to argue with those who think it was too radical or too fast or too slow. I will simply say that those who think that it could have been an orderly and painless process do not know the true state of the economy at the time when Yeltsin took power. Food supplies were so low the threat of hunger loomed big. It required radical measures and a bold leader. Russia was fortunate to have Yeltsin at the time. Note that Gorbachev was very afraid of any serious market reform and rejected even very modest proposals in that direction.

3) Presided over the transformation from the totalitarian state into a democracy. As Yasin pointed out , in this department his achievements were not conclusive, and the failure to establish democratic institutions is haunting us now at the time when Putin is shamelessly rolling back democratic reforms. Of course, it is true that this is partly the result of Yeltsin’s failure to build strong institutions. But does anyone thinks it is really possible to build such institutions from scratch overnight? BTW it is only in this deparment that Yeltsin followed in the footsteps of Gorbachev. However even here suggestions that Yeltsin somehow was authoritarian in contrast to deomcratic Gorbachev are comepletely off the mark. Gorbachev was a theoretical democrat. He never subjected himself to a popular vote, preferring to be elected by the Supreme Soviet.

So does all this mean that Paul Norton does not have a point? No it doesn’t. Yes, Yeltsin had some totalitarian tendencies. Most notably in 1993 when the parliament had been elected when Russia was a state within the Soviet Union, voted to impeach the democratically elected president, and some members of Parliament attempted to organise an armed rebellion. Yeltsin responded with force. It is really unfortunately that he was unable to find a peaceful resolution of the crisis. He tried, going for a referendum and getting a popular mandate. But he was unable to resolve it peacefully. This was tragic. But I don’t think we can call a person who regularly submits himself to a popular vote an authoritarian.

Now 1996. I do not quite know what was so undemocratic in that process, except for some fairly strong media manipulation. Yes, the media ran a scare campaign telling the voters that Zyuganov will take them back to the years of Gulag. What’s wrong with that? I do know that cronies Yelstin’s popularity was very low and cronies (eg the head of presidential guard Korzhakov) were begging him to abandon the electon. Yeltsin resisted and eventually sacked Korzhakov and his allies. Grigori Yavlinsky, a seasoned opponent of Yeltsin (and his market policies) told an interesting story. Before 1996 elections Yeltsin called Yavlinsky to his office in attempt to pursuade him to withdraw his candidacy in exchange for a high post in the government. It was a reasonable offer for Yavlinsky stood no chances in the election, but Yavlinsky refused, saying politely that is voters will not understand this. They argued for an hour and then Yavlinsky said good bye and began leaving. When he reached the door, Yeltsin called him back. You are not withdrawing, he asked again. Yavlinsky said ‘No”. “Right”, said Yeltsin. “I would not withdraw either”.

Was Yeltsin a democratic leader by the standards of western democracy? No. But he was more democratic than any other leader in the history of Russia and far more democratic than Russia could have dreamed for, so soon after liberating from totalitarian oppression. Get real!

For these reasons I consider a comparison with Lenin to be fundamentally inappropriate and insulting.

No matter what the future holds, history will remember Yeltsin as a collossal figure who alongside Gorbachev dismantled what remained of the communist system, presided over peaceful dissolution of the empire, implemented radical market reforms and gave Russian people freedom and (incomplete) democracy, if only for a short while.

Jason I donâ??t think the tag â??once a communist always a communistâ?? is fair

It’s certainly not fair, and it doesn’t vaguely resemble an argument either.

Nigeria and DR Congo are impoverished mostly due to internal factors like tribalism, poor governance and corruption.

But let’s not forget that multinationals can share some of the blame:

The case of Shell in Nigeria is the best known. In Africa’s biggest oil producing country, whose people are still among the poorest in the continent, the manna extracted by the western oil giants has for decades helped tyrannical elites and their corrupt clients to get rich and hold on to power. Benefiting from a system in which Shell held the lion’s share, some amassed considerable fortunes (1). In the early 1990s the oil-rich Niger delta became the scene of violent confrontations between the local ethnic minorities, who accused Shell of damaging their environment and their culture, and the Nigerian security forces who had orders to protect the oil installations.

And in Congo.

Brice Makouso of Justice & Peace, an organisation from Congo Brazzaville talked about the mystery which they have been investigating for several years ” how come his country is the third largest producer of oil in the Gulf of Guinea region, but it remains one of the poorest countries in the world whilst pumping hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil”. He described how the Congolese government took advances from Total to fund arms purchases and now finds itself in debt to Total and to various international financial institutions. Despite being in dialogue with Total and with the French government, it seems that ‘confidentiality clauses’ in the contract between Total and the Congolese government block access to any hard information about revenues, production, payments, etc

Naughty, naughty.

Let’s a have a warm round of applause for Japanese imperialism, the Mapuche millionaires, and small city states.

On the other hand, revolutionary Left schemes like forced collectivisation of farmers and the elimination of free enterprise and private poroperty rights have killed and emaciated countless millions.

It is also worth pointing out that “we” in the West are not the sole cause of third world poverty. Many countries that have been colonised have become wealthy- South Korea, chile, Taiwan and Singapore for example. This shows that it can be done.

In regards to the African slave trade, this existed both before and after European colonisation. Africans can thank the British for destroying the mostly Arab Muslim slave trade that had immiserated so many black Africans for centuries.

Resource rich countries like Nigeria and DR Congo are impoverished mostly due to internal factors like tribalism, poor governance and corruption.

The West has contributed to third world poverty through the use of trade barriers and because of the shocking behaviour of the IMF (read Joseph Stiglitz for details).

In summary, the reality of third world poverty is far more complex than Bridie’s cartoonish Marxist meanderings would suggest.

I think it not accidental that your country and mine which were both founded on forms of genocide and extermination of the native population, land theft (e.g. Mexico) and the use of slave or indentured labour, has meant that we both have ongoing legacies of racial â??difficultiesâ?? and all that entails for a civil society.

Mmmmph.

Is there a single country in the world that wasn’t founded on genocide at some point? It doesn’t make it right (and I’m definitely NOT doing a ‘those children weren’t stolen’ thing) but attributing this sort of unpleasantness solely to Western Europeans is naive. And incorrect.