Muscovy It Was; Muscovy It Is; and Muscovy It Will Remain
At least according to “gray cardinal” Vladislav Surkov:
Vladislav Surkov, the Kremlin’s political strategist, defended the system of state control he developed, saying Russia can only modernize if it has a strong central government.“Consolidated power is the instrument of modernization,” Surkov said in an interview in Vedomosti today. “Some call it authoritarian modernization. I don’t care what they call it.”
“Consolidated power is the instrument of modernization.” Sounds kind of like “Communism is Soviet power plus electrification.”
And consolidated power is decidedly not the instrument of modernization, when “consolidated” means power that is not subject to constraint by the rule of law.
Surkov’s remarks provide a fascinating glimpse into the mind of many in power in Russia. Here’s what he says, with my comments in brackets:
“Spontaneous modernization” only worked in Anglo-Saxon countries because of particular cultural attributes, while France, Japan and South Korea relied on “dirigiste methods” to achieve economic development, Surkov said in the interview.
Medvedev wants Russia to establish its own Silicon Valley, Surkov said, possibly outside Moscow or in the Pacific port city of Vladivostok. The main problem facing Russian innovators is a lack of demand, he said. [No Silicon Valley in France, Japan, and SoKo. “Dirigiste” methods have proved decidedly ill-adapted to spurring such innovation; dirigism is the antithesis of creative destruction. The failures of industrial policies in encouraging true innovation, eg MITI, are well-known. Moreover, dirigiste or no, each of these countries has legal protections of contract and property, not to mention life and personal liberty, that have never existed in Muscovy, past or present. And why the lack of demand? Could it be that they haven’t produced anything anybody wants? It will certainly be the case that nobody will want anything produced by a state monstrosity.]
“Raw resources companies dominate, and the people who got rich and super-rich made their fortune not from new ideas and technology, like Gates and Edison, but from dividing up the property amassed by the Soviet people,” Surkov said. [This is true, but suggests a false choice between state-direction and banditry. The question is, how can Russia cultivate Gateses and Edisons, neither of whom were the product of state enterprises, but of law-ordered, competitive systems.]
The government must help stimulate demand via state-run corporations, Surkov said. The Russian Silicon Valley will be populated by local and foreign experts in “super-modern” settlements financed by public and private money. [State-run corporations are death to innovation. The whole idea of “super-modern” settlements populated by scientists/entrepreneurs who come there voluntarily–as opposed to the coerced movements of Soviet times–is utter fantasy in Russia if there is no security from the predation of the state. Just how is the state supposed to contract for this innovation with these individual innovators? How are the contracts to be enforced so as to prevent ex post opportunism by the state? ]
“The Russian economy is like an old armored train without a locomotive,” he said. “Liberal hopes for the invisible hand of the market were unjustified.” [Another false dichotomy. Liberal hopes were indeed dashed, but it is categorically false that Russia was ever an economy with the property and legal institutions necessary for the invisible hand to work. What Surkov and others believe to be a liberal economy in the 90s was in fact a predatory, lawless one. It wouldn’t be surprising if Surkov doesn’t know the difference.]
The Institute of Contemporary Development, headed by Medvedev, published a report this month saying economic modernization depends on political reforms that will turn Russia into a U.S.-style democracy.
While Surkov allowed that centralization has reached its limits, he said Russia is already a democracy.
“If they criticize democracy in Russia, that means it exists,” he said. “If there are protests, that’s democracy. In totalitarian states there aren’t any demonstrations.” [This is beyond parody. What a logician is Mr. Surkov! Orwell is smiling, somewhere.]
In a nutshell, Surkov is saying: “We’re Russian! We don’t know any better! Even though we’ve tried this same thing numerous times, and it’s failed every time, it’s what we do. And we’re going to do it again. Muscovites once, now, and forever.”
Surkov’s belief is that something innately Russian condemns its people to remain forever on the hamster wheel from hell (to reprise a metaphor). To justify this position, he has to present false choices and distorted pictures of the alternatives.
Not that the odds of making the institutional changes necessary to create a truly humane, innovative society are high. They definitely are not; it has proved devilishly hard to transplant even a simulacrum of the institutions that have contributed to western development. The obstacles are particularly daunting in Russia. There are so many in power–and with guns–in Russia who would lose out in in a law-ordered, competitive society that they will fight tooth and nail even halting steps towards its adoption.
Indeed, Surkov’s performance is a salvo fired in that very cause of obstructing progress. In this, it provides telling insights on the Putinite-Muscovite response to Medvedev’s tentative liberalization effort. To derail this effort, Surkov is appropriating the ostensible goal–modernization–but making it clear that the same old Muscovite means will prevail, Medvedev or no. Note well that Medvedev has explicitly singled out state corporations as an impediment to progress; by endorsing them Surkov is making it quite clear that the Putinists reject completely Medvedev’s plans.
Sure, what Surkov proposes will fail, if true modernization is the metric of success. But Surkov (and Putin) are just paying lip service to modernization. They really want to perpetuate the Muscovite rent seeking society by which they prosper, although Russia does not, has never, and never will.
1. I think you have to make greater efforts to differentiate between “modernization”, “liberalization”, and “democratization”. It can be argued that there has been substantial progress under Putin on the first and third of those.
And you kind of answer you own questions. 😉 Though I would say that the bigger obstacle is that under a liberalized economic / political regime, any “modernization” will naturally gravitate almost exclusively into Russia’s comparative advantage, hydrocarbons extraction, while manufacturing (to say nothing of hi-tech enterprises) will stagnate into irrelevance. IMO, this is essentially a recipe for social polarization between rich, Westernized elites and impoverishment of the majority.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — February 16, 2010 @ 6:37 pm
“IMO, this is essentially a recipe for social polarization between rich, Westernized elites and impoverishment of the majority.”
Indeed, in that case the Masters of Mankind would once again be unimpeded in the exercise of their vile maxim “All for ourselves and nothing for other people.” Of course, as an economist, SWP’s role is to dream up ways to justify/facilitate this.
Comment by rkka — February 16, 2010 @ 6:43 pm
Maybe this is the reason the Western market is betting againstthe Russian like there’s no tomorrow:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-16/russia-options-signal-17-stock-retreat-by-may-on-oil-concern.html
Comment by La Russophobe — February 16, 2010 @ 10:40 pm
I cringe whenever I hear “let’s build a Silicon Valley over here”, considering that so far it’s one of a kind – http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html .
(IMHO: The valley companies may all have been private, but the DoD’s demand for electronics surely must have provided fertile ground back in the 50s for what was to follow. Much like gummint demand bootstrapped the aviation industry.)
Comment by So? — February 16, 2010 @ 11:49 pm
Phoy, Phoby, Phoby…
Yes, the Western “masters of mankind” are greatly put out when they are impeded in the exercise of their vile maxim “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people.” They had it good under drunken incompetent comprador buffoon Yeltsin, and deeply want those days back.
Comment by rkka — February 17, 2010 @ 5:40 am
?? ?????…
At least according to “gray cardinal” Vladislav Surkov: Vladislav Surkov, the Kremlin’s political[…]…
Trackback by ???????? ??????? ???????????? ?????? — February 17, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
Surkov staring into his shadow…
Comment by So? — February 18, 2010 @ 2:22 am
MOSCOW — Hollywood actor and Web-savvy activist Ashton Kutcher says he will “crowd source” questions about the Kremlin’s push to develop a Russian Silicon Valley to his 4.5 million Twitter fans…
Comment by peter — February 18, 2010 @ 11:30 am
Speaking of the “hamster wheel from hell” check this out:
http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/another-original-lr-translation-lethal-onions-more-accidental-fatalities-in-ingushetia/
Hell being the operative word.
Comment by La Russophobe — February 18, 2010 @ 6:50 pm
American offensive against the Taliban in Helmand province killed about 15 civilians. Of course that was pure, unintended mistake. Your link is pure ohdearism LaRussophobe.
Comment by Leos Tomicek — February 18, 2010 @ 7:04 pm
LEOS:
Oh really? Were Americans accused of stabbing civilians, mutilating and shooting them at close range? Your link doesn’t say so. Have several famous American journalists who tried to report on the killings been murdered without justice? Your link doesn’t say so. Oops, my bad. You don’t have ANY link at all to substantiate your claims, do you?
Even if Americans HAD done the same things my link accuses Russians of doing, Is it a rule you follow that America is the standard for Russia? OK, great! In that case, the Russian government is illegitimate because it has never transferred power via election to an opposition party as America has done many times and doesn’t have televised presidential debates. I’ve often heard Russophiles say that Russia is a “different country” and therefore can’t be compared to America, but I’m glad you are not part of that crowd. I agree with you that Russia must match America in every respect and congratulate you on your insight!
Comment by La Russophobe — February 19, 2010 @ 1:14 am
It’s war girl, get over it! I didn’t post any links and I do not view America to be a standard for Russia.
Comment by Leos Tomicek — February 19, 2010 @ 10:52 am
Thanks, LEO, for admitting that Americans were not accused of shooting civilians at close range much less of stabbing them. Can we expect an apology now for your unsourced smear against the USA?
Thanks as well for admitting that Russia is at war with innocent civilians gathering wild garlic in the forest. You undoubtedly agree that this shows Russia for the failed, barbarous state we at LR have long know it to be. Not surprising, of course, that a government at war with its civilian population does not rank in the top 130 world nations for life expectency. Hard to understand, though, how the Kremlin sees any future better than Stalin had, who practiced the same war.
Comment by La Russophobe — February 19, 2010 @ 1:38 pm
Oh yeah you mean like this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/world/asia/29afghan.html
Comment by Leos Tomicek — February 19, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
LEOS:
Umm, no. If you took the time to read either our translation or the article you yourself linked to, you’d see that the Russians were not inside a vehicle when they were shot, and the Imam was not stabbed.
You really have no clue whatsoever, do you? A perfect example of a Putin voter!
But thanks for admitting once again that Russia must be held to the standard of America. So, becuase it lacks competive elections and indepdenent national TV reporting, Russia is an illegimate and failed state. Putin must go! We’re delighted you agree with us, LEOS!
Comment by La Russophobe — February 22, 2010 @ 12:54 pm