In 1989, Sachs advised Poland’s anticommunist Solidarity movement and the government of Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki. He wrote a comprehensive plan for the transition from central planning to a market economy which became incorporated into Poland’s reform program led by Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Sachs was the main architect of Poland’s debt reduction operation. Sachs and IMF economist David Lipton advised on the rapid conversion of all property and assets from public to private ownership. Closure of many uncompetitive factories ensued.[33] In Poland, Sachs was firmly on the side of rapid transition to capitalism. At first, he proposed American-style corporate structures, with professional managers answering to many shareholders and a large economic role for stock markets. That did not bode well with the Polish authorities, but he then proposed that large blocks of the shares of privatized companies be placed in the hands of private banks.[34] As a result, there were some economic shortages and inflation, but prices in Poland eventually stabilized.[35][independent source needed] The government of Poland awarded Sachs one of its highest honors in 1999, the Commander’s Cross of the Order of Merit.[36] He also received an honorary doctorate from the Kraków University of Economics.[21] Based on Poland’s success, his advice was sought first by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and by his successor, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, on the transition of the USSR/Russia to a market economy.[37]
Sachs’ methods for stabilizing economies became known as shock therapy and were similar to successful approaches used in Germany after the two world wars.[31] He faced criticism for his role after the Russian economy faced significant struggles after adopting the market-based shock therapy in the early 1990s.[38][39][40]
Well yeah hes not a commie. He did not invent shock therapy, he considers this naming actually an insult. The soviet privatization is not representative because his advice was largely ignored both by soviets and amies. From your paste is also Ukraine missing.
But I partially agree that he talks diplomatically, so he wont always say exactly what he thinks.
Neither the US, Ukraine, nor Russia is even approaching socialism, so I don’t see how campism is relevant. What is relevant is imperialism vs. anti-imperialism.
Honest question from a non-communist, based on your reply here. Does one need to support Putin to be a Marxist?
In a word, no. In a few more words, support for Russia (not Putin, as historical materialists don’t subscribe to great man theory) is only a partial, temporary, tactical one, in the context of imperialist liberation. Russia is still a capitalist state, though, so it’s a two stage strategy: first liberate colonized bourgeois states from colonizer states, and second revolution within those liberated bourgeois states.
Russia is an interesting case: it has already liberated itself from the post-Soviet “shock therapy” neocolonizers. This occurred during Putin’s administration, which is why he is especially hated by the US. So now the support for Russia is in the context of keeping the colonizers from recolonizing it, and supporting Russia to the extent that it helps other states liberate themselves. But Russia isn’t trying to “liberate” Ukraine, at least not all of Ukraine. It’s trying to resolve the genocidal attacks on the people of the Donbas, and it’s trying to resolve the imperialist military expansion at its border.
Neither the US, Ukraine, nor Russia is even approaching socialism, so I don’t see how campism is relevant. What is relevant is imperialism vs. anti-imperialism.
I would say a socialist defending a violent imperialist nation invading a nation simply because they are at times geopolitically opposed to another violent imperialist nation is a form of campism.
in the context of imperialist liberation. Russia is still a capitalist state, though, so it’s a two stage strategy: first liberate colonized bourgeois states from colonizer states, and second revolution within those liberated bourgeois states.
And what evidence supports the idea that it will be easier to liberate one colonizer state from a second colonizer state located right next door? Seems you are perpetuating a lot of violence based on nothing.
Russia is an interesting case: it has already liberated itself from the post-Soviet “shock therapy” neocolonizers. This occurred during Putin’s administration, which is why he is especially hated by the US.
In what way have they liberated themselves from shock therapy? Their government is the result of shock therapy, where the vast majority of wealth is tied to an oligarchic control that’s even more hierarchal than just about any other nation in the world.
It’s trying to resolve the genocidal attacks on the people of the Donbas, and it’s trying to resolve the imperialist military expansion at its border.
Therea no actual evidence to support thwre was a “genocide” happening in donbos. They were just doing the same form of imperialism they didn’t in 08’ in Georgia, where they participated in ethnic cleansing.
The idea that Russia was provoked into invading their neighbors is ridiculous if you actually look at the history Russias relations with their neighbors in the late 00’s. It’s just imperialism…
The idea that Russia was provoked into invading their neighbors is ridiculous if you actually look at the history Russias relations with their neighbors in the late 00’s. It’s just imperialism…
And a lot of that expansion is done while Russia wanted to join NATO , or while they were on a permanent joint council with NATO. Up until recently NATO was just an organization used to give hand outs to the American military industrial complex.
It wasn’t until their invasion of Georgia and the resulting capital pull out from Moscow that Russia even complained about NATO.
It’s true, Putin tried to join NATO once, to join the imperialism club, but the US rejected Russia, because the US wanted (and still wants) Russia Balkanized and re-plundered instead. Russia has figured out that it’s better off allying with Global South countries than attempting imperialist adventures upon them. And this war has accelerated that allyship.
Up until recently NATO was just an organization used to give hand outs to the American military industrial complex.
“a small but growing lobby in Europe and the United States making the case for the break-up of the Russian Federation. Their main argument is that Putin’s denial of Ukraine’s right to exist proves that the Russian state is irredeemable imperialist”
Kinda an underwhelming theory considering your article is talking about a small group reacting to very modern imperialism, not a scheme from the early 00s to deny Russia NATO membership, especially when they were made a permanent joint council.
Russia has figured out that it’s better off allying with Global South countries than attempting imperialist adventures upon them
And notice how none of those “sources” are before 2014, and especially not before 2008. It’s almost like there’s a modern push to reinterpret the dangers of NATO.
NATO is imperialist and I’m not a fan of it, however post Soviet dissolution it wasn’t ever enough of an actual threat to validate invading Ukraine, Georgia, or sponsoring the other break away factions in their neighbors back yard.
I’ll leave it at that, because I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith, and you’ve already said you aren’t a socialist, so I’m guessing by our just a Russian nationalist and I’m wasting my time.
Therea no actual evidence to support thwre was a “genocide” happening in donbos.
Just the small problem of thousands of murdered eastern Ukrainians, and the Ukrainian state’s efforts to systematically suppress their political representation and their language.
The idea that Russia was provoked into invading their neighbors is ridiculous
George Washington Univ., 2017: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev HeardDeclassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Just the small problem of thousands of murdered eastern Ukrainians, and the Ukrainian state’s efforts to systematically suppress their political representation and their language.
George Washington Univ., 2017: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev HeardDeclassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Because discussions between an administration and a head of state is now considered binding geopolitical contracts?
" the 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give time to Ukraine. It…used this time to become stronger as can be seen today. The Ukraine of 2014-2015 is not the modern Ukraine.”
Not a very intellectually honest interpretation from this “journalistic website”
"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn’t sign that.The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”
Demanding the impossible…that NATO retract to levels back in the 90s and to prevent an invasion that had already happened is a bit far from
“NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine”
The NATO chief was just repeating putina claims, not making claims.
This is ridiculous and just a historical and dishonest.
Calling something by the wrong “name” is not exactly criticism.
The fact that his ideas were mostly not implemented is a matter of observation.
Quite a stretch of the word quote, is this wikipedia?
Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist, we can reject dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis.
Calling something by the wrong “name” is not exactly criticism.
So he’s just upset at the name, not the implied criticism behind it?
is a matter of observation.
Ahh, so because you said so. Got it
Quite a stretch of the word quote
Literally is a quote from Wikipedia, yes.
Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist we can reject only dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis
And what is that rational bias of defending his views other than Russia supposedly standing up to western imperialism by doing western styled imperialism?
No see if one was to compare his advice take the one to the us planners that they should provide for example loans to the soviets it was completely rejected, as the us chauvinistically did not want to help.
Quote of whom?
First where does security concern equal “standing up to something”. Secondly what exactly do you mean by the concept of rational bias?
edit: do you know that some bolsheviks pragmatically supported capitalist policies as means to help the national economy and as transitional to communism. Your argument crumbles even in this respect.
In 1989, Sachs advised Poland’s anticommunist Solidarity movement and the government of Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki. He wrote a comprehensive plan for the transition from central planning to a market economy which became incorporated into Poland’s reform program led by Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Sachs was the main architect of Poland’s debt reduction operation. Sachs and IMF economist David Lipton advised on the rapid conversion of all property and assets from public to private ownership. Closure of many uncompetitive factories ensued.[33] In Poland, Sachs was firmly on the side of rapid transition to capitalism. At first, he proposed American-style corporate structures, with professional managers answering to many shareholders and a large economic role for stock markets. That did not bode well with the Polish authorities, but he then proposed that large blocks of the shares of privatized companies be placed in the hands of private banks.[34] As a result, there were some economic shortages and inflation, but prices in Poland eventually stabilized.[35][independent source needed] The government of Poland awarded Sachs one of its highest honors in 1999, the Commander’s Cross of the Order of Merit.[36] He also received an honorary doctorate from the Kraków University of Economics.[21] Based on Poland’s success, his advice was sought first by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and by his successor, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, on the transition of the USSR/Russia to a market economy.[37]
Sachs’ methods for stabilizing economies became known as shock therapy and were similar to successful approaches used in Germany after the two world wars.[31] He faced criticism for his role after the Russian economy faced significant struggles after adopting the market-based shock therapy in the early 1990s.[38][39][40]
Well yeah hes not a commie. He did not invent shock therapy, he considers this naming actually an insult. The soviet privatization is not representative because his advice was largely ignored both by soviets and amies. From your paste is also Ukraine missing.
But I partially agree that he talks diplomatically, so he wont always say exactly what he thinks.
Many people respond to criticism with negativity…
Says who?
The whole thing about quoting something is you don’t control what is left in or out, but yes Ukraine is a former Soviet state.
Why exactly is this supposed socialist sub defending the honor of a capitalist economist who participated in the parting out of the Soviet economy?
Is campism so strong that we are now cheerleading capitalists economists just because they support Russian nationalist?
Neither the US, Ukraine, nor Russia is even approaching socialism, so I don’t see how campism is relevant. What is relevant is imperialism vs. anti-imperialism.
https://lemmy.ml/comment/9498456
I would say a socialist defending a violent imperialist nation invading a nation simply because they are at times geopolitically opposed to another violent imperialist nation is a form of campism.
And what evidence supports the idea that it will be easier to liberate one colonizer state from a second colonizer state located right next door? Seems you are perpetuating a lot of violence based on nothing.
In what way have they liberated themselves from shock therapy? Their government is the result of shock therapy, where the vast majority of wealth is tied to an oligarchic control that’s even more hierarchal than just about any other nation in the world.
Therea no actual evidence to support thwre was a “genocide” happening in donbos. They were just doing the same form of imperialism they didn’t in 08’ in Georgia, where they participated in ethnic cleansing.
The idea that Russia was provoked into invading their neighbors is ridiculous if you actually look at the history Russias relations with their neighbors in the late 00’s. It’s just imperialism…
And a lot of that expansion is done while Russia wanted to join NATO , or while they were on a permanent joint council with NATO. Up until recently NATO was just an organization used to give hand outs to the American military industrial complex.
It wasn’t until their invasion of Georgia and the resulting capital pull out from Moscow that Russia even complained about NATO.
It’s true, Putin tried to join NATO once, to join the imperialism club, but the US rejected Russia, because the US wanted (and still wants) Russia Balkanized and re-plundered instead. Russia has figured out that it’s better off allying with Global South countries than attempting imperialist adventures upon them. And this war has accelerated that allyship.
They never made an official application, Putin wanted to be invited.
“a small but growing lobby in Europe and the United States making the case for the break-up of the Russian Federation. Their main argument is that Putin’s denial of Ukraine’s right to exist proves that the Russian state is irredeemable imperialist”
Kinda an underwhelming theory considering your article is talking about a small group reacting to very modern imperialism, not a scheme from the early 00s to deny Russia NATO membership, especially when they were made a permanent joint council.
Ahh yes, famous liberators like…bashar al-assad.
And notice how none of those “sources” are before 2014, and especially not before 2008. It’s almost like there’s a modern push to reinterpret the dangers of NATO.
NATO is imperialist and I’m not a fan of it, however post Soviet dissolution it wasn’t ever enough of an actual threat to validate invading Ukraine, Georgia, or sponsoring the other break away factions in their neighbors back yard.
I’ll leave it at that, because I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith, and you’ve already said you aren’t a socialist, so I’m guessing by our just a Russian nationalist and I’m wasting my time.
Just the small problem of thousands of murdered eastern Ukrainians, and the Ukrainian state’s efforts to systematically suppress their political representation and their language.
.
I think this can be covered with one source.
Because discussions between an administration and a head of state is now considered binding geopolitical contracts?
" the 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give time to Ukraine. It…used this time to become stronger as can be seen today. The Ukraine of 2014-2015 is not the modern Ukraine.”
Not a very intellectually honest interpretation from this “journalistic website”
I don’t see how not following through on the minsk agreement is really provoking a war when Russia has already broken The Budapest Memorandum.
"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn’t sign that.The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”
Demanding the impossible…that NATO retract to levels back in the 90s and to prevent an invasion that had already happened is a bit far from “NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine”
The NATO chief was just repeating putina claims, not making claims.
This is ridiculous and just a historical and dishonest.
Calling something by the wrong “name” is not exactly criticism.
The fact that his ideas were mostly not implemented is a matter of observation.
Quite a stretch of the word quote, is this wikipedia?
Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist, we can reject dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis.
So he’s just upset at the name, not the implied criticism behind it?
Ahh, so because you said so. Got it
Literally is a quote from Wikipedia, yes.
And what is that rational bias of defending his views other than Russia supposedly standing up to western imperialism by doing western styled imperialism?
I dont think that he is particularly upset.
No see if one was to compare his advice take the one to the us planners that they should provide for example loans to the soviets it was completely rejected, as the us chauvinistically did not want to help.
Quote of whom?
First where does security concern equal “standing up to something”. Secondly what exactly do you mean by the concept of rational bias?
edit: do you know that some bolsheviks pragmatically supported capitalist policies as means to help the national economy and as transitional to communism. Your argument crumbles even in this respect.