Russia / Charles
mark.jones at tiscali.co.uk
Fri Dec 14 11:48:46 MST 2001
At 14/12/2001 17:54, you wrote:
> From Jim Drysdale,
>Charles, in Critique 32 - 33 Hillel Ticktin offers ' Why the Transition
>Failed: Towards a Political Economy of the Post - Soviet period in Russia.'
>(IMO a thorough analysis)
>Ticktin ends by saying ' The marriage of the state with finance capital and
>criminality has a limited life and is only a prelude either to further
>disintegration or to another revolution. There is no third way.'
I don't read Critique any more so I haven't seen this. I'd be interested to
understand Ticktin's logic, tho. It's not clear to me why Russia should
disintegrate or why it shouldn't even experience a partial revival, both
economically and militarily. There certainly is a third way in Ticktin's
sense. That would be the consolidation and legitimisation of the present
regime. That process is very clearly underway. But there is no viable
revolutionary movement or party, and there has been little organised
discontent, strikes, protest etc. There is no intellectual ferment and no
underground mocement, there is no latent hegemony of socialist ideas, in
short none of the subjective or objective preconditions for a revolution
appear to be present. Why should there be a revolution, other than as a
secondary aftershock of some much more violent upheaval elsewhere?
The importance of Russia as a geopolitical entity seems to me to reside in
its strategic position at the heart of the Eurasian landmass and as source
of energy and raw materials. It is a subaltern social formation,
politically dominated by the US and economically subject to European,
primarily German, capital.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism