Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
February 02, 2021

This Is Why They Attack Him - Putin Explains Why We Need New Economic Policies

The President of Russia Vladimir Putin has given a great speech to the Davos 2021 online forum organized by the World Economic Forum. As usual it created little echo in the 'western' media.

Putin sees a new danger of large international conflicts. Economic imbalances have caused socio-political problems in many countries which, when externalized, can lead to international conflicts.

To solve this one has to reject the laissez faire doctrines that caused the economic imbalances. The nation states must intervene more in their economies. The people must be seen as the ends, not the means of such economic policy. There must be more international cooperation through global organizations to enable this everywhere.

There is more in the speech than that. But the above is the core idea. U.S. neo-liberalism will of course reject such a program.

Following are excerpts that reflect on the above points.

The big picture view points to great danger:

The pandemic has exacerbated the problems and imbalances that built up in the world before. There is every reason to believe that differences are likely to grow stronger. These trends may appear practically in all areas.

Needless to say, there are no direct parallels in history. However, some experts – and I respect their opinion – compare the current situation to the 1930s. One can agree or disagree, but certain analogies are still suggested by many parameters, including the comprehensive, systemic nature of the challenges and potential threats.

We are seeing a crisis of the previous models and instruments of economic development. Social stratification is growing stronger both globally and in individual countries. We have spoken about this before as well. But this, in turn, is causing today a sharp polarisation of public views, provoking the growth of populism, right- and left-wing radicalism and other extremes, and the exacerbation of domestic political processes including in the leading countries.

All this is inevitably affecting the nature of international relations and is not making them more stable or predictable. International institutions are becoming weaker, regional conflicts are emerging one after another, and the system of global security is deteriorating.

Klaus [Schwab] has mentioned the conversation I had yesterday with the US President on extending the New START. This is, without a doubt, a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, the differences are leading to a downward spiral. As you are aware, the inability and unwillingness to find substantive solutions to problems like this in the 20th century led to the WWII catastrophe.

Putin then goes into the details of the above theses.

What caused the current economic imbalances?

These imbalances in global socioeconomic development are a direct result of the policy pursued in the 1980s, which was often vulgar or dogmatic. This policy rested on the so-called Washington Consensus with its unwritten rules, when the priority was given to the economic growth based on a private debt in conditions of deregulation and low taxes on the wealthy and the corporations.

As I have already mentioned, the coronavirus pandemic has only exacerbated these problems. In the last year, the global economy sustained its biggest decline since WWII. By July, the labour market had lost almost 500 million jobs. Yes, half of them were restored by the end of the year but still almost 250 million jobs were lost. This is a big and very alarming figure. In the first nine months of the past year alone, the losses of earnings amounted to $3.5 trillion. This figure is going up and, hence, social tension is on the rise.

At the same time, post-crisis recovery is not simple at all. If some 20 or 30 years ago, we would have solved the problem through stimulating macroeconomic policies (incidentally, this is still being done), today such mechanisms have reached their limits and are no longer effective. This resource has outlived its usefulness. This is not an unsubstantiated personal conclusion.

According to the IMF, the aggregate sovereign and private debt level has approached 200 percent of global GDP, and has even exceeded 300 percent of national GDP in some countries. At the same time, interest rates in developed market economies are kept at almost zero and are at a historic low in emerging market economies.

Taken together, this makes economic stimulation with traditional methods, through an increase in private loans virtually impossible. The so-called quantitative easing is only increasing the bubble of the value of financial assets and deepening the social divide. The widening gap between the real and virtual economies (incidentally, representatives of the real economy sector from many countries have told me about this on numerous occasions, and I believe that the business representatives attending this meeting will agree with me) presents a very real threat and is fraught with serious and unpredictable shocks.

The economic imbalances create deep socio-political problems:

In this context, I would like to mention the second fundamental challenge of the forthcoming decade – the socio-political one. The rise of economic problems and inequality is splitting society, triggering social, racial and ethnic intolerance. Indicatively, these tensions are bursting out even in the countries with seemingly civil and democratic institutions that are designed to alleviate and stop such phenomena and excesses.

The systemic socioeconomic problems are evoking such social discontent that they require special attention and real solutions. The dangerous illusion that they may be ignored or pushed into the corner is fraught with serious consequences.

In this case, society will still be divided politically and socially. This is bound to happen because people are dissatisfied not by some abstract issues but by real problems that concern everyone regardless of the political views that people have or think they have. Meanwhile, real problems evoke discontent.

The danger rises when the socio-political problems get externalized:

And finally, the third challenge, or rather, a clear threat that we may well run into in the coming decade is the further exacerbation of many international problems. After all, unresolved and mounting internal socioeconomic problems may push people to look for someone to blame for all their troubles and to redirect their irritation and discontent. We can already see this. We feel that the degree of foreign policy propaganda rhetoric is growing.

We can expect the nature of practical actions to also become more aggressive, including pressure on the countries that do not agree with a role of obedient controlled satellites, use of trade barriers, illegitimate sanctions and restrictions in the financial, technological and cyber spheres.

Such a game with no rules critically increases the risk of unilateral use of military force. The use of force under a far-fetched pretext is what this danger is all about. This multiplies the likelihood of new hot spots flaring up on our planet. This concerns us.

What can be done to prevent the danger which arises from socio-political problems caused by imbalanced economies?

Clearly, with the above restrictions and macroeconomic policy in mind, economic growth will largely rely on fiscal incentives with state budgets and central banks playing the key role.

Actually, we can see these kinds of trends in the developed countries and also in some developing economies as well. An increasing role of the state in the socioeconomic sphere at the national level obviously implies greater responsibility and close interstate interaction when it comes to issues on the global agenda.
It is clear that the world cannot continue creating an economy that will only benefit a million people, or even the golden billion. This is a destructive precept. This model is unbalanced by default. The recent developments, including migration crises, have reaffirmed this once again.

We must now proceed from stating facts to action, investing our efforts and resources into reducing social inequality in individual countries and into gradually balancing the economic development standards of different countries and regions in the world. This would put an end to migration crises.

The essence and focus of this policy aimed at ensuring sustainable and harmonious development are clear. They imply the creation of new opportunities for everyone, conditions under which everyone will be able to develop and realise their potential regardless of where they were born and are living.

Here Putin sets the goals for national strategies:

I would like to point out four key priorities, as I see them. This might be old news, but since Klaus has allowed me to present Russia’s position, my position, I will certainly do so.

First, everyone must have comfortable living conditions, including housing and affordable transport, energy and public utility infrastructure. Plus environmental welfare, something that must not be overlooked.

Second, everyone must be sure that they will have a job that can ensure sustainable growth of income and, hence, decent standards of living. Everyone must have access to an effective system of lifelong education, which is absolutely indispensable now and which will allow people to develop, make a career and receive a decent pension and social benefits upon retirement.

Third, people must be confident that they will receive high-quality and effective medical care whenever necessary, and that the national healthcare system will guarantee access to modern medical services.

Fourth, regardless of the family income, children must be able to receive a decent education and realise their potential. Every child has potential.

This is the only way to guarantee the cost-effective development of the modern economy, in which people are perceived as the end, rather than the means. Only those countries capable of attaining progress in at least these four areas will facilitate their own sustainable and all-inclusive development. These areas are not exhaustive, and I have just mentioned the main aspects.

A strategy, also being implemented by my country, hinges on precisely these approaches.

What should be done globally:

We are open to the broadest international cooperation, while achieving our national goals, and we are confident that cooperation on matters of the global socioeconomic agenda would have a positive influence on the overall atmosphere in global affairs, and that interdependence in addressing acute current problems would also increase mutual trust which is particularly important and particularly topical today.

Obviously, the era linked with attempts to build a centralised and unipolar world order has ended. To be honest, this era did not even begin. A mere attempt was made in this direction, but this, too, is now history. The essence of this monopoly ran counter to our civilisation’s cultural and historical diversity.

The reality is such that really different development centres with their distinctive models, political systems and public institutions have taken shape in the world. Today, it is very important to create mechanisms for harmonising their interests to prevent the diversity and natural competition of the development poles from triggering anarchy and a series of protracted conflicts.

To achieve this we must, in part, consolidate and develop universal institutions that bear special responsibility for ensuring stability and security in the world and for formulating and defining the rules of conduct both in the global economy and trade.

It is no wonder that the neo-liberal 'west' constantly attacks Putin and at the same time takes care that his speech gets as little attention as possible. It is dangerous because it could give the deplorables some ideas.

It is also sad that no 'western' politician I am aware of would ever give such a speech.

Posted by b on February 2, 2021 at 19:16 UTC | Permalink

next page »

Thanks for the coverage of Putin's speech which many of us barflies have been commenting about for a couple of days.

No Western politician would give such a speech because they are all puppets of the barbarous alternative currently operative in the West.

I disagree with the hopeism that this speech might give the deplorables some ideas. The deplorables are as brainwashed as the rest about both Russia and China.

We are talking about multi-level hypocrisy here being demonstrated by Americans....the delusions run deep. I just lost another American friend over sending him the link to the recent Larry Romanoff piece at the Saker. My "friends" response
It's an interesting perspective and I recognize that all geopolitical actors engage in propaganda including our country. This article, with its sweeping generalizations, could be considered a piece of propaganda too.

The last I looked the US stock market is up almost 600 points which is suppose to mean that the economy is great. How does this comport with the unemployment rate, loss of businesses, daily loss of more live than 9/11, etc.?

America is now a fantasy world that is disconnected from reality. I don't know how the music stops to this nightmare but expect it will soon.

And humans are supposed to represent an advanced species.....sheesh

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 2 2021 19:52 utc | 1

Obviously a very important speech, thanks for the "hand holding" b. Compared to the ideas in this speech, the western governments have already collapsed. No wonder they want to bury it in noise.

Posted by: Norwegian | Feb 2 2021 19:55 utc | 2

Having read that it is easy to see why Putin is THE major statesman of our epoch.

At the end of his speech, 80 of the very "influentiel" guests queued up and "without noise immediately after his open speech signed up for a closed conference with him" (Pepe Escobar,at Saker) Some people ARE listening.

Interesting that he picks up on debt, "only increasing the bubble of the value of financial assets and deepening the social divide". The present untenable situation where a minimum of people possess the maximum of assets, means that there is no longer any capital left for the use of the majority of the population. He didn't touch on the elimination of the middle classes that we see in the west (Lockdowns are made for this), but there is no doubt in his mind that the four goals are the way to combat these breakdowns in society.

It is not just that Russia reducing it's debt load is to avoid financial pressure on the country. But I think he personally doesn't like debt in any form, even if he may see the necessity of it sometimes.

Posted by: Stonebird | Feb 2 2021 20:04 utc | 3

Thanks for the summary. It's amazing how much more intelligently Putin communicates than USA politicians. And I'm sure there are many equally as bright, articulate politician/leaders around the world, but it shows the great divide of how a human population can be reduced to near-toddlers by comparison. The level of dialog is truly infantile in the USA.

As regards the end of the Neo-Con/Neo-Liberal wet dream of a Uni-polar world run by the usual suspects, Putin is of course right; American Hegemony is over. But, alas, no one has really told the Americans and possible catastrophe awaits as American Exceptionalism makes one last stand.

Posted by: gottlieb | Feb 2 2021 20:08 utc | 4

Like it or not Mr Putin is the only adult in the room.
And the room looks increasingly like an asylum ward.

Posted by: DG | Feb 2 2021 20:26 utc | 5

For b, slightly OT. Here a Link to an article about Onischenko former right hand of Poroschenko in German.

Posted by: Fran | Feb 2 2021 20:28 utc | 6

good stuff though nothing regular readers of this and other useful sites haven't thought already. i'd also add that no successful and blobbed western politician would give that speech but i could see it being delivered by corbyn before the repulsive "anti-'semite'" witch hunt torpedoed his career and by extension any chance england had of getting its shit together.

sadly the west has long ago reached the "spiritual death" MLK warned of and is fully immersed in materialism and by extension individualism. it has no ideas and nothing to offer but pure greed and avarice and is therefore incapable of negotiation or reason (in the philosophical sense as opposed to the purely material, scientistic sense.) it's basically a reptile disguised as a culture with the simple "lizard brain" behavior that suggests.

tl; dr - you can't bargain with a rabid dog. put it down and bury it in the graveyard of empires.

Posted by: the pair | Feb 2 2021 20:31 utc | 7

The speech is absurd. A man who will not tolerate socialism for his subjects will never achieve international socialism, where the exploiters join in a fraternity to share the spoils "fairly," not least because fairly for capitalists means, to the strongest. The lion's share is the just share, according to Putin's own morality. Whining for special treatment is both futile and foolish. There is no harmonizing interests in a capitalist system, which is exactly what the world economy is. There is no rational resolution to conflicts, because the system is crazy. Putin long ago turned from an honest understanding of reality. Putin was one of the people who destroyed socialism in the USSR. Yeltsin's social catastrophe was a necessary step in restoring capitalism in Russia, and Putin was totally committed to it. After Yeltsin did the creative destruction (to re-purpose Joseph Schumpeter's phrase, to make it usefully descriptive,) Putin could pose as the moderate. And a temporary (as always in capitalism,) allowed him to seem like a successful moderate, for a time. MMT for the stock market, fiscal restraint for the official government, all the policies supposedly decried by Putin, are being carried out by the states and central banks that Putin calls upon to...well, actually, this is such vacuous BS it's not really clear what he wants, except somehow his superiors in the West should share the loot more fairly. There is nothing, nothing, nothing here, but vain rhetoric, directed to, not against, the people who are actually carrying out the policies Putin pretends to critique.

Or to put it another way, there is no left-wing radicalism threatening anyone anywhere in the world, not least because of people like Putin. I suppose one could pretend Putin would say something to untruthful as a diplomatic lie, designed to appeal to a Davos audience (who still have the example of the USSR and Mao's China to frighten them---threats to money are well-remembered by those who have a lot of money to be threatened!) But then, why would anyone think the Davos crowd is amenable to moral appeals? It's a question whether Putin is truly so foolish, that he simply is posing as concerned for health and education.

If Putin really wanted these things, he would advocate such things as, comprehensive state direction of investment, expropriation and rededication of misused capital to vital social needs, long term planning and investment in the infrastructure of a fairer world. The thing is, these are aspects of a socialist world. What Putin really wants is a multipolar world where the buccaneers, amongst whom Putin's vanity sees himself, a capitalism somehow without empires and wars for empires and with enough crumbs for the masses to head off social collapse or the imaginary left-wing radicalism. Worse than a pipedream, it is a backward and reactionary pipedream!

Posted by: steven t johnson | Feb 2 2021 20:32 utc | 8

Lots of good points by Putin.

Except the imbalances of which he spoke need a different explanation.

The neoliberal counter-revolution from the 1980s on didn't arise out-of-the-blue. They were an attempt to restore profitability and the class power of the bourgeoisie after the multifaceted crisis of the 60s and 70s.

By the mid 1960s the US had begun to run trade deficits with Japan and West Germany. The US was losing shares of world markets, and experienced declining competitiveness and profits.

US dollars accumulated abroad but the US gold supply didn't match the supply of all those paper dollars.

So Nixon ended the Breton Woods currency system of fixed exchange rates tied to gold, creating a de facto dollar standard and new modes of financialization.

All of this is rooted in the declining profitability and competitiveness of US capital vis a vis its rivals.

The neoliberal counter-revolution against the welfare state and organized labor was the result of, and response to, this crisis.

The US state tried to raise profits and the rate of exploitation through globalization of production, industrial restructuring, labor market reforms, wage repression, and new modes of financial expropriation.

A partial recovery in the rate of profit occurred in the 90s but it ended in 1999, and the neoliberal phase of accumulation was only kept going by massive debt and low interest rates, until the explosion of 2008.

So, the imbalances are a long-term dynamic, rooted in differential efficiency and profit rates between nations.

These are *inherent* aspects of global capitalism, the manifestation of what Marx called the law of value in the world market.

It is entirely unclear how a post Keynesian strategy of domestic redistribution and financial repression can overcome these inherent aspects of global capitalism.

After all, the imbalances emerged in the first place under the so called Keynesian era. And confronting inequality domestically would require a class struggle from below against the power of capital.

The question, then, is why stop with partial reforms and why not face "with sober senses" the root problems of capitalism?

Posted by: Prof K | Feb 2 2021 20:33 utc | 9

This is fine, and he’s right. But it becomes curious when you examine Russian history under Putin. He did get the IMF/World Bank yoke off the nation. However, he has failed to create the world he desires in this speech. Income inequality in Russia hasn’t improved dramatically in the last 20 years. I was there 20 years ago. It was eye watering. He made his bet on oil prices but did not sufficiently diversify the Russian economy on the proceeds, though well connected people became billionaires. His voice in the speech (in which he is correct) would be far more powerful if he could speak from a positive example.

Posted by: Lex | Feb 2 2021 20:36 utc | 10

Sounds like JFK reflecting on the path forward, which earned him the attacks of the secret agencies of the rich. Any western politician suggesting civilization beyond the marketing budget is deplatformed.

Posted by: Sam F | Feb 2 2021 20:36 utc | 11

It is also sad that no 'western' politician I am aware of would ever give such a speech.

That is the sad part! We follow the neoliberal mantra!

Posted by: michael lacey | Feb 2 2021 20:37 utc | 12

I am sorry but WHAT?

Putin's single biggest domestic problem is because of his neoliberal policies. He is a great statesman, the most skilled statesmen on the world stage, with equal foreign policy talent. And a most skilled talker too.

But just ask the huge majority of Russians except the neoliberals, and they will tell you that is his economic and social security policy which is what they see him failing at. Of being unable and not empowered to truly stand against the oligarchic, neoliberal interests.
Not that they would see a western puppet neolib as different or solution. Hell no.
But painting Putin as some kind of warrior against the Neo-Liberal world order? They would laugh you out of the door.
They still prefer Neoliberal semi/pseudo controlled oligarchy of Putin 100 times over the Yelstin years, or the Nawalny years if that would indeed be a possibility.
But the fear of civil war and instability does not prevent them from becoming more and more disillusioned with the ever-growing social divide, rising prices, and stagnating wages on top of crumbling social security.
And yes it is not Nawalny most Russians see as solution. It is the Stavka. Them, the military/security complex. Those are the only ones that could defeat the oligarchy in the eyes of most Russians today.

"Managed democracy" as Putins advisor call it has proven it will, and it can not, even if it truly wanted.
The power of the oligarchs is too entrenched.

Putin may have brought some structure into the chaos, and since the Ukraine coup Oligarchs had to at least somewhat to contribute to the defense aims.

But this has not changed the power balance on the whole. And someday, Russia will choose what it sees as the only real solution to oligarchic rule: To empower the Stavka to clean house of the still dominating currents of the 90s. Even if it would mean a jump into the unknown, and into a year long brutal struggle with an unknown outcome.

Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPr. | Feb 2 2021 20:43 utc | 13

Putin has consistently argued for a multipolar world in a framework of global cooperation. Under Trump this was called "globalization" and was the purest evil. Now, he is arguing for socialism without mentioning the word as he echoes FDR's economic bill of rights Bernie often referenced in his campaign. It's a beautiful thing. Who possessing a lick of sense could disagree with him? There is no mention of democracy, either. The benevolent dreams of a patriarch are uplifting, and who is to say that an authoritarian political solution would not be uncomfortable for the masses? Democratic socialism would not be so orderly nor so lawful enforced. Such dissidents as Alexi Navalny would be permitted to muddy the political waters. The philosopher kings of Plato's fantasy were kindly oligarchs, no doubt. Perhaps we should dispense with democratic aspirations altogether and let ourselves become putty in the hands of a benevolent state, such as the Chinese seem content to do? Is this the message the pandemic brings?

Posted by: jadan | Feb 2 2021 20:44 utc | 14

jadan @14: "Such dissidents as Navalny ..."

Navalny is a CIA/MI6 stooge.

At his pre-trial arraingement, the number of cars of foreign diplomats in front of the courthouse was so great that the question arose: which country's citizen is being tried today?


Posted by: Heironymous Dosh | Feb 2 2021 20:55 utc | 15

The problem is that the West is a plutocracy - masquerading under a thin veneer of 'democracy' - where the 1% establishment serve their own selfish interests. Because of their constant need to plunder and loot, and because they cannot allow their 99% to perceive working examples of non-plutocratic systems, they continue to seek to discredit and destroy any countries or leaders that reject the West's plutocratic system and try to serve their own people.

While the West's 1% establishment, of which the mainstream media is a key part, promotes virtue-signalling superficial diversity, they actually try to stamp out all diversity of perspectives, ideas, thought, and forms of sovereign governance. Western mainstream news media only allow a very narrow set of narratives or, as Paul Craig Roberts puts it, controlled explanations, and approved thought.

It's becoming more and more like Orwell's Ministry of Truth, with our establishment news regularly dishing out Two Minutes Hate pieces to us to demonize countries that reject the West's rigged 'democracy'. Not so long ago Aung San Suu Kyi was the hero of the West, Nobel Peace Prize winner, honorary citizen of Canada. Then she was the villain, and actually stripped of her honorary citizenship. Will the West's Ministry of Truth hold her up as a hero again?

Posted by: Canadian Cents | Feb 2 2021 20:58 utc | 16

Better half of Germany completely than complete Germany half, said the first chancellor Adenauer after the war, to describe the reason for the decision to push for separation. We will see now the same motivation for the ongoing big divide. It is the only hope for the ruling establishment to keep control. To be honest, I don't see any hope to prevent this trajectory. The grip of control of minds is omnipotent. I can't imagine anymore any way else than complete disaster to find back to a path of common good. Until then I will hide in inner emigration. Only ray of sun will be daily visit at this bar.

Posted by: rico rose | Feb 2 2021 20:59 utc | 17

Many thanks, b, for your additional parsing and making Putin's Davos Speech into a freestanding article which my lone commentary was incapable of becoming. I still feel it's imperative to read Putin in tandem with Xi's speech, and we can add Ehret's commendable essay plus Hudson's overview of the entire situation.

With luck, your article will generate a discourse that my parsing commentary failed to spark. I've been commenting on the need for societies to grasp the requirement they become Collectivist in the sense of Putin's words--that "people are perceived as the end, rather than the means" of ALL policy decisions. And that's where the Neverending Class War emerges as the Neoliberal Parasites see people as their food, not as something to support and nourish. (An aside. In doing today's crossword I came across a very crafty bit of Neoliberal propaganda that shows just how embedded its language has become--interest is "earned", that is it's NOT a Free Lunch.) But as Max Keiser and his guests have discussed over that past two weeks, there will be a Reset, but not what the Davos Neoliberals planned. Capitalism within the Outlaw US Empire is a rotten fraudulent corpse awaiting burial inside a refrigerated truck somewhere in New Jersey. The only unanswered question is when the actual burial will occur and what will emerge from the Wake.

Essentially, Both Putin and Xi have stated the Class War must end for Humanity and its Civilization to continue breathing and developing from its late adolescence into an adult.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 2 2021 21:02 utc | 18

The discourse would be greatly enhanced if some genuine Russians would participate instead of those who have no clue as to what Putin's polices actually consist of--Read the speech again, like the part where Putin concludes by saying:

"A strategy, also being implemented by my country, hinges on precisely these approaches."

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 2 2021 21:12 utc | 19

"First, everyone must have comfortable living conditions, including housing and affordable transport, energy and public utility infrastructure. Plus environmental welfare, something that must not be overlooked.

"Second, everyone must be sure that they will have a job that can ensure sustainable growth of income and, hence, decent standards of living. Everyone must have access to an effective system of lifelong education, which is absolutely indispensable now and which will allow people to develop, make a career and receive a decent pension and social benefits upon retirement.

"Third, people must be confident that they will receive high-quality and effective medical care whenever necessary, and that the national healthcare system will guarantee access to modern medical services.

"Fourth, regardless of the family income, children must be able to receive a decent education and realise their potential. Every child has potential...

"This is the only way to guarantee the cost-effective development of the modern economy, in which people are perceived as the end, rather than the means..."

It is hard to see why there are any objections to this basic and urgently needed social democratic reform platform.
That it seems to be contradicted by Russian practice is a matter of interest. But not really surprising-Putin is not a dictator but a balancer of interests. And in Russia today the oligarchs still constitute one of the most powerful interests, rivaled only by the military. Between them they constitute major demands on public resources and state revenues.
It looks as if Putin is campaigning for reform not only internally but externally too- one of the major obstacles to reform in Russia is the state of permanent siege in which it is kept by its enemies. So long as Russia is under massive sanctions it will be hobbled in its struggle to regain control of the economy from City and Wall St based pillagers.

b cannot think of any powerful western politician who would subscribe to the programme Putin sketches. He is right but the programme itself is very much like the Labour Party manifesto of 2017, which brought Corbyn close not to power- his enemies would never have allowed that- but to a popular mandate.

Posted by: bevin | Feb 2 2021 21:19 utc | 20

Thanks for posting. I've generally been supportive of Putin and how he's stood up to the plutocrats of the West.

But isn't Putin's proposal here the exact same line that all world leaders have been parroting from the World Economic Forum...that we need a "great reset" to "build back better"?

I agree with all the problems that Putin laid out. But if the solution is to move to a coordinated world socialist government in the name of "equality", that is a greater evil that we have now.

Do I misunderstand what Putin proposes?

Posted by: Magnum | Feb 2 2021 21:45 utc | 21

Just recently I translated a good article by a remarkable Russian political scientist on the meaning of Putin's speech at the Davos Forum (after 12 years of "abstinence"). In fact, a claim has been made for global leadership among the world's conservative/traditionalist forces. The question is whether these forces will accept this offer and agree with it. However, their choice is not great - either to accept the offer and thus get a chance to survive in the confrontation with the ultra-liberal globalist sect, or to gradually dissolve in time and space.

It is interesting to compare the speeches of Putin and Xi Jinping. In my opinion, the Russian president was much more concrete/practical/frank, and in this sense he was much more “hostile” to ultra-liberal globalists (in the person of Schwab, obviously listening to the Russian president with clenched fists).

Xi's speech abounded in common/streamlined/universal wording, the word 'global' was repeatedly used (I counted it 34(!) times in Xi's speech, plus 5 times he used the word 'globalization'). There is no doubt that in a sense, the Chinese leader's speech is aimed at defending globalization, which has become not least the reason for China's economic success. At the same time, the Chinese leader, like Putin, made it clear that he rejects the ideology of "exceptional nations" dictating their will to other nations.

One passage in Xi's speech struck me as curious. Quote:

...we should stay committed to international law and international rules instead of seeking one’s own supremacy. Ancient Chinese believed that the law is the very foundation of governance. International governance should be based on the rules and consensus reached among us, not on the order given by one or the few. The Charter of the United Nations is a basic and universally recognized norms governing state-to-state relations. Without international law and international rules that are formed and recognized by the global community, the world may fall back to the law of the jungle and the consequence would be devastating for humanity.

What are these "international rules"? I heard only about the so called 'rules-based world order' - the main postulate of recent years for the world ultra-liberal elite. Isn't this what Xi is talking about? I may be wrong, but one gets the impression that, roughly speaking, China is not at all opposed to the current kind of globalization, but is demanding "an equal seat on the board of directors". The last third of Xi's speech is almost entirely devoted to "advertising" exclusively for China.

Overall, the Chinese leader's speech seemed to me rather idealistic. Putin's speech strikingly contrasts with this.

A couple of differences to mention:

Regarding the climate problem, Xi made China a priority to work towards the notorious "green technologies" and decarbonization - the favorite climate agenda of globalists. Here's what the Chinese leader said about this:

[China] will do more on the ecological front by transforming and improving its industrial structure and energy mix at a faster pace and promoting a green, low-carbon way of life and production

Putin was concerned about things like the decline in forest resources, loss of biodiversity, increased waste, ocean plastic pollution etc. Not a word about "green energy".

Also interesting is the difference in leaders' opinions on values. Putin has clearly defined traditional (this word was pronounced) values and, in particular, the family. While Xi outlined general, abstract concepts (they could well have been pronounced by Macron or Merkel, or the US president himself). Xi said:

We should uphold the common values of humanity, namely peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom.

In his speech, Putin identified the immediate causes of the current crisis, cited specific statistical data, openly designated the beneficiaries of the global economic crisis, repeatedly mentioned the threat of a military clash, clearly fixed the problem of "getting out of control" of global digital corporations, etc.

Very interesting, refined, extremely specific speech of the President of Russia.

Posted by: alaff | Feb 2 2021 22:15 utc | 22

@8 steven johnson

As usual, I know your posts by your first sentence.

The forever enemy of the perfect is always the good.

Putin has done well by Russia, but this is of course not good enough for internationalists such as yourself.

I would invite everyone at the bar to consider the philsophical concept of the statesman and how the great ones usually limit themselves to national ends but, as b rightfully says, emit a beacon of hope to deplorables the world over.

Limits are a funny thing to a Trotskyist. Yet they are everything to a nationalist.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Feb 2 2021 22:18 utc | 23

alaff @21--

There's no difference between what Putin and Xi mean as "international law and international rules"--They are all found within the UN Charter and the numerous treaties and other international agreements arrived at through consensus. An excellent example of that mixture and one of the most recent is The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), or the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty, which came into force on 22 January 2021, but neither Russia nor China are parties to it, which means it doesn't apply to them. The same issue goes for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which almost all nations are party to except the Outlaw US Empire, so it gets to ignore it. HOWEVER, the Empire did sign and ratify the UN Charter thus it must conform to its rules and procedures, most of which it violates on a daily basis and has done so since 1945.

The key word in all this is consensus; and the greater the consensus is supposed to result in greater adherence to what was agreed to and greater condemnation when a nation violates that consensus whether it's a party to it or not. Reality shows the problem is with enforcement given the #1 International Outlaw also holds a veto on the Security Council, which results in no disciplinary action for its numerous transgressions--Unilateralism.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 2 2021 22:52 utc | 24

People complaining here about how President Putin appears not to have done anything or done enough to reform Russian society or to create a better, fairer society in Russia should be reminded that domestic politics is not the Russian President's remit. Policies to improve socio-economic conditions for the Russian public are the responsibility of the Russian Prime Minister (that's currently Mikhail Mishustin), the Deputy Prime Ministers and the Cabinet of Federal Ministers.

Fiscal policy is carried out by the Central Bank of Russia whose President Elvira Nabiullina has presided over an agenda emphasising state control and economic stability using interest rates to the extent that for a number of years her interest rate policy has stifled small business development. She is considered an arch-Liberal in economic policy by The Duran's editor Alexander Mercouris.

Putin's main concern has been to keep energy resources and essential industries in public ownership. Other industries can remain privatised but he has not actively pursued a privatisation policy or program. His long-term program of keeping major or essential industries under state control but allow privatisation of other industries and to allow billionaire business magnates like Roman Abramovich and Arkady Rotenberg to keep their wealth and invest where they want (as long as they do not meddle in politics and remember to pay all their taxes) seems to be his way of walking a tightrope between the type of unfettered free-4-all privatisation of the Yeltsin era and the previous Soviet experience in which all industry, whatever it was, wherever it was, was controlled and regulated by Moscow bureaucrats who made all significant investment decisions based on reports they got back from managers, without having to go out and actually see the reality for themselves.

Posted by: Jen | Feb 2 2021 22:55 utc | 25

Thanks, b.
I don't read many of Putin's speeches and don't recall him using the term Neoliberal before this Davos address. To me, the following quote sums up the profound societal insult, and threat, to the notion of a functioning society which Neoliberalism represents.

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
Grover Norquist, 2001.

Source: Wikiquotes.

In a real democracy, the role of a government of the people is to regulate the activities of greedy and irresponsible individuals and businesses. Neoliberalism's successful smearing of a REGULATING government as the Enemy Of The People is a huge con job. A regulating government is only the enemy of greedy assholes of the 0.1% variety.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 2 2021 23:08 utc | 26

alaff @ 21 Cont'd--

I refer you to Xi's 2017 Davos Speech where he spells out how he sees globalization's plusses and minuses. I see Xi's use of the term "green" as an attempt to use current jargon rather than falling for what many see as a green tech trap. As he notes in the 2017 speech and elsewhere, green stands for "per unit GDP energy consumption" which continues to dramatically drop as per China's plan. On this subject, I suggest reading what Ehret has to say.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 2 2021 23:10 utc | 27

I think stonebord and jaden hit the nail on the head. Also, Putin is just sending a bird in the coal mine. Bevin is on to something.

Anywho, random just read this;

NM Democrat’s anti-gun bill would make it a crime to teach your child how to shoot

The bill text reads, “If a firearm owner or authorized user knows or reasonably should have known that a minor, an at-risk person or a prohibited person could gain access to a firearm belonging to or under the control of that owner or authorized person, and if a minor, an at-risk person or a prohibited person obtained access to that firearm, it is an offense if the firearm owner or authorized user failed to secure the firearm in a locked container or by a lock or other means so as to render such firearm inaccessible or unusable to any person other than the firearm owner or other authorized user.”

NMSSA also notes that, “The law is completely unenforceable unless they plan on going door-to-door inspecting firearm storage in your home. But this bill again goes beyond what they have attempted in the past. If a prohibited possessor gains access to your firearm you are liable as well.”

The bill will be heard in the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee, where it will be considered in the coming days. Below are the names of members of the Committee to contact them regarding this legislation:

Sen. Gerald Ortiz y Pino – (D) (505) 397-8839 [email protected]

Sen. Bill Tallman – (D) (505) 397-8854 [email protected]

Sen. Gregg Schmedes – (R) (505) [email protected]

Sen. David M. Gallegos – (R) (505) 986-4278 [email protected]

Sen. Stuart Ingle – (R) (505) 986-4702 [email protected]

Sen. Brenda G. McKenna – (D) (505) 397-8834 [email protected]

Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez – (D) (505) 397-8847 [email protected]

Sen. Elizabeth “Liz” Stefanics – (D) (505) 397-8851 [email protected]

Posted by: Dogon Priest | Feb 2 2021 23:16 utc | 28

@NemesisCalling #22
johnson is always consistent in being wrong.
It is a skill, of sorts.
It doesn't matter that Putin has never pretended to be a socialist, or that Russia still maintains a significant amount of Soviet socio-economic safety net.
Nor that Putin - whatever his faults and virtues - has always been very consistent and transparent.
stj is just a complainer, ultimately, who offers neither substance nor even entertainment.

Posted by: c1ue | Feb 2 2021 23:20 utc | 29

Jen @24--

Thanks for that reminder, which is why I link to so many of Putin's meetings where he keeps tabs on the government and state-sector's performance, like the banking meeting of earlier today, which always provide excellent bits of info as to Russia. The four-point program he detailed in his speech he initiated when the first sanctions appeared after the Ukraine Coup. But Putin's emphasis on ordinary people and their well being is very longstanding because that's what/who he is--a fact many forget, except for the people of Russia.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 2 2021 23:22 utc | 30

With anthropomorphic climate change bordering on out of control, whoever leads in the "green technology" field will lead in economic development. This is another area where short-sighted Americans are shooting themselves in the foot and ceding an industry that will drive future growth to a competitor.

The zillion dollar fossil fuel industry has done a great job of propagandizing a really straight-forward scientific concept when the word "green" cannot be referenced in relation to economy without people getting their panties in a wad and spitting out their deranged flat-earth opinions.

Posted by: ArtherDent | Feb 2 2021 23:23 utc | 31

End the “Green” Delusions: Industrial-scale Renewable Energy is Fossil Fuel+

    Industrial-scale renewable energy does nothing to remake exploitative relationships with the earth, and instead represents the renewal and expansion of the present capitalist order.

Posted by: Triden | Feb 2 2021 23:35 utc | 32

Putin was Prime Minister for four years, which means he was directly responsible for improving Russia's society and economy.

The cryptofascist (as in high-falutin' jargon in lieu of crude and embarrassing cliches from old movies about Nazis,) NemesisCalling is deluded even in the hopes for Putin the Hero of Christian/white Russia to defeat the multinational perversions of secular humanist globalist "America." The whole shtick about consensus is Putin's plea to his masters for a fair deal. He's begging for enough crumbs from the table. And, yes, he would sell out China if he got one, because I strongly suspect Putin is such a blind believer in capitalism he thinks China is still too socialist. He is not going to rescue NemesisCalling's "nation" from racial impurity, not even by restoring a world of bellum omnium contra omnes. If there is a purifying conflagration, it will be Putin who gets purified, probably by the oligarchs he has protected from the people of Russia, who are getting tired I think of his petty tyrannies over their exercise of their rights. (Which most people would think of as curbing some of their worst excesses, to be sure. It's like a brave sheriff who insists the robbers leave enough money for their victim to buy a meal.)

c1ue of course is an inept reader at best. Reminding everyone Putin is Yeltsinism sober, after the bulk of the dirty work in capitalist restoration has been done, is saying Putin is not a socialist of any sort. The thing is, it is the bulk of the commenters who do think Putin is doing fraternity in Russia who are wrong. But when Putin talks about capitalist governments providing growth and social welfare by state guidance, he is talking socialism...but from his mouth that is total BS, absurd, as I wrote in the first sentence of my comment, precisely because Putin is not a socialist.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Feb 2 2021 23:57 utc | 33

Putin's speech, in a truly free society, should be available for all those who want to hear it. Very sad our MSM won't even mention it. The sad greedy people that own the U$A can't risk peace, it isn't profitable enough.

To condense and paraphrase; The class war underway globally must end to ensure a better chance at world peace.....

Posted by: vetinLA | Feb 3 2021 0:27 utc | 34

@ ArtherDent 30:

‘With anthropomorphic climate change bordering on out of control” (eyes roll)

Posted by: Bluesguy | Feb 3 2021 0:31 utc | 35

Putin has been talking about this since 2010. It's time he actually implements it in Russia when he still has time.

Posted by: Smith | Feb 3 2021 0:37 utc | 36

@32 said "because Putin is not a socialist."

Maybe he believes in a Mixed economy, you know, like all the ones that work.

Posted by: vetinLA | Feb 3 2021 0:39 utc | 37

[a system] in which people are perceived as the end, rather than the means.

I don't know if Putin is aware of that (he may, as he was educated in the Soviet education system), but this excerpt definitely an anti-capitalist declaration and, if he's not a hallucinated traditionalist who wants to go back to the Stone Age, a socialist stance.

One of the most unique features of capitalism is the transformation of human labor into value. Value is concrete labor turned into abstract labor, whose only difference is the quantity, defined by time. This value then generates surplus value, which is the substance of profit.

That means that, in capitalism, humans ("people") are literally a means to an end. The capitalist infuses value in his capital in order to create more value as its output. The output is always more capital and, with luck, amplified. Capital (profit) is the end, humans being the means - literally.

Putin's choice of words is also clearly plagiarized from Xi Jinping, who has been using this "people first" discourse since the beginning of the pandemic. Xi Jinping is a declared and graduated Marxist.

Another part that attracted my attention was when Putin compared today's situation to the 1930s - and not the "roaring 1920s", as the bourgeois economists have been calling. He's dead on: today's situation is identical, from a macroeconomic point of view, to the crisis of 1929-1937. In 1929-1937, there was a major structural crisis - USA, 1929 - followed by a long depression during the 1930s which collapsed further to a second recession in 1937. The situation was only saved by WWII.

Posted by: vk | Feb 3 2021 0:46 utc | 38

@ alaff

There are key differences because China is strong, thus it can afford to be globalist. It has access to the world market and it makes stuff to the world and now the world wants to sell their goods to it, thus China wants globalization.

Russia is weaker, it is sanctioned heavily, thus it needs nationalism to survive or at least placate the populace.

Posted by: Smith | Feb 3 2021 0:49 utc | 39

Putin is overly resrved too diplomatic.
Sometime might be better to speak more frankly.
Why keep trying for "brownie" points while the west keeps trying to provoke.
He will be remembered as a really nice and intelligent guy.
He dropped the ballin Syria and now its drip torture.

Posted by: jared | Feb 3 2021 1:52 utc | 40

"Neoliberalism" is a euphamism for serfdom.
Youll take what you get and like it. Learn your place.
If you worked harder and smarter you would be so poor.
Its what happens when a few own and control everything.
If your intent is to mask reality then fine youre doing it right.
Otherwise, dont be a dck.

Posted by: jared | Feb 3 2021 2:02 utc | 41

People seem to forget that both Putin and Xi were speaking of the future, which hasn't happened yet. But the future invites, and we can be sure that many nations heard what was said at Davos. They will not be showing the small mindedness to niggle over whether either country has fulfilled some kind of ideal, they will be contemplating the new world that China's trade and Russia's weaponry stand as guarantor for.

It's appropriate that Putin in Davos 2021 is being compared with Munich 2007. Davos 2021 was a line drawn for the world to proceed forward from, and for the USA to stay behind and dream of past vainglory.

Rostoslav Ishchenko's article on this aspect is the best take I've seen so far - I haven't read Escobar's latest yet, but the title speaks of a similar view. In fact I think for me it was Escobar on Facebook who first pointed to Ishchenko at Stalker Zone - hard to keep it all straight - but the link I made is to alaff's publication of the article as cited up-thread.


@21 alaff - are you associated with Stalker Zone by any chance? I know you posted other pieces by Ishchenko before, and usually I've looked to StalkerZone to translate and re-publish his articles. On this one, you both published. Do keep them coming, and thanks for your work.

Posted by: Grieved | Feb 3 2021 2:14 utc | 42

The Post-American World; Crooke, Escobar, Blumenthal and Marandi lay it all out

Watch this in-depth discussion with distinguished guests:

Alastair Crooke - Former British Diplomat, the Founder, and Director of the Conflicts Form
Pepe Escobar - Brazilian Political Analyst and Author
Max Blumenthal - American Journalist and Author from Grayzone
Chaired by Dr. Mohammad Marandi - Professor at University of Tehran

Posted by: Mao | Feb 3 2021 2:20 utc | 43

The Post-American World; Crooke, Escobar, Blumenthal and Marandi lay it all out

Posted by: Mao | Feb 3 2021 2:22 utc | 44

Steven J Johnson said: I, of course am an inept reader at best.

I couldn't agree more....

A CIA/MI6 troll if ever there was one.....


Posted by: Dr. George W Oprisko | Feb 3 2021 2:41 utc | 45

Sorry for the O/T ..
Why did iran not choose to hit al tanif for the solemenani hit? Hit al tanif once, twice, until the us decides its not worth the cost. This gains the border to now control access to the soft belly of central syria .

Posted by: James joseph | Feb 3 2021 2:52 utc | 46

karlof1 @ 26 thanks for linking to Ehret's piece and referring again to it here. I have to say that I think he rather misses the thrust of both Xi's speech and Putin's in making this very serious state of world affairs into a confrontation between the 'green' proposals (which he links to the bad Davos uberbigbrotherisms) and the streamlined nuclear/fosssil fuel advances that multipolar good guys would promote (which latter will be poor people's salvation.)

I think those comparisons make no sense at all. Solar power and wind are actually good energy providers for poor people. It isn't helpful to demonize practical attempts to stabilize an out of whack environment when all good measures ought to be considered and discussed. The latter is the thrust I see in both speeches.

Nuclear power is harmful and costly to produce, and hasn't produced a way of disposing of its waste that is good for the planet. And fossil fuels DO contaminate the environment - so there are plenty of good reasons to advocate wind power, wave power, sun power -- I realize the transition to other forms of power is hard, but this is not an oligarchical question -- the US with all its big moneymakers is not promoting true green energy --it has dragged its feet on this issue!

Now, I'm not a scientist, and whatever is the best way ought to be discussed and compromises have to be made as the world faces these questions -- but that's what should happen, not Ehret's confrontational suggestion. I really found it weird, and I do go to your links and then talk about them, karlof1, so I'm not sure why you are saying we don't or didn't.

Anyway, that's my comment for what it's worth. I would say, when it comes to the really serious problems the world faces, there should be a way to take action without bringing national problems into the mix. It was done when it was realized that refrigeration chemicals were depleting the ozone layer. The problems we face now are similarly important. Let's just do what needs to be done.

Posted by: juliania | Feb 3 2021 3:08 utc | 47

I was told today by my Chinese friend to not buy silver. He owns a money store, rather disturbed I asked him to please explain. He referred me to Bosnia, I watched a PBS video about the collapse. This place called United States of America can only sustain its crumbling via nuclear war and that's all folks. Get no less than a year in preparedness, preppers are our leaders. Thanks for your blog MOA, you & Saker are truly enlightened!

Posted by: RKelly | Feb 3 2021 3:12 utc | 48

Solar power and wind are actually good energy providers for poor people

Posted by: juliania | Feb 3 2021 3:08 utc | 46


Anyone that has studied the issue would be very quick to disagree

In addition to unreliability issues Solar and wind both require relatively large capital outlay, one which is beyond the ability of most poor in developed countries, let alone for undeveloped counties.

This really is fantasy you are peddling here

Posted by: Triden | Feb 3 2021 3:17 utc | 49

The choice between old energy vs. nuclear energy vs. green energy is a false dichotomy, China has shown that it can use both, the first step would be using the old energy while gradually switching to nuclear and green.

The first world nations that ask for more tax and plainly phase out old energy are not solving anything but make lives harder in the 2nd and 3rd world.

The solution for climate change or not climate change has always been in better, more efficient technology which results in more efficient and cleaner energy.

Posted by: Smith | Feb 3 2021 3:32 utc | 50

The Constitution of the USSR is said to have been one of the best, ever.

Posted by: Charles Peterson | Feb 3 2021 3:39 utc | 51

Posted by: Smith | Feb 3 2021 3:32 utc | 49

1) you meant trichotomy

2) there's no such thing as "green" energy. It's a lie told to you by charlatans on all sides of the debate. All energy is fueled initially by hydrocarbons. There are literally NO EXCEPTIONS.

No "green" or, if you prefer, renewable energy source can produce enough energy to reproduce itself from scratch, so in truth even the label "renewable" is a misnomer. Anyone saying different is simply lying.

Posted by: Triden | Feb 3 2021 3:46 utc | 52

@ Triden

I believe there is green energy, but so far the tech can only support it in conjunction with old and nuclear, it cannot be the primary provider.

Must more research must be made and in a bigger scale, and that means more brainstorming and more investment. Nowadays people would rather debate the concept at all instead of actually trying it out.

I don't like China but they are one of the rare states that do advances technology in a meaningful way.

Posted by: Smith | Feb 3 2021 3:53 utc | 53

No "green" or, if you prefer, renewable energy source can produce enough energy to reproduce itself from scratch

***Maybe perhaps Hydro, if metals were both mined and smelted nearby, using only hydroelectic energy. A scenario which would be at best completely impractical

Posted by: Triden | Feb 3 2021 3:54 utc | 54

I believe there is green energy, but so far the tech can only support it in conjunction with old and nuclear, it cannot be the primary provider.

Posted by: Smith | Feb 3 2021 3:53 utc | 52


And wrong to boot.

Posted by: Triden | Feb 3 2021 3:57 utc | 55

@32 Steven T Johnson

I take it I am over target if a Trotskyist refers to my person as a cryptofascist. You are correct in your connecting-of-the-dots vis-a-vis Putin, conservative-Americans, the DJT-phenomenon, and nationalism.

But forgive me, I do not see Putin at the edge of the table snapping at falling crumbs from the globalists. I believe for that to be the case, you would have to be a subscriber to the "All-is-Theater camp" surrounding Syria, which of course the globalists will never forgive Putin for interjecting Ru into. Seems a little far-fetched, but I suppose if you are an internationalist, you had best leave out the fact that Putin reversed course of the MENA-project or, when all else fails, just smear the guy as a grovelling toad and a failure to his people. What a disgusting obfuscation at a man as great as Putin!

You are correct that Putin will not directly aid any kind of Deplorable-coalition. That would give credence to these domestic internationalists when they say that conservatives are just Putin's puppets. LOL! As if once the Deplorables had risen to the top of government, we would simply hand over all our assets to Putin and submit ourselves for vassal-status.

Putin is a hero because he encourages people to love their nation and work for its good. He is not some damn ideologist.

@ 47 RKelly

I would be curious to hear Psycho's and C1ue's take on how conservatives might be able to challenge Big-Finance by unrelenting physical silver purchasing.

I read a comment somewhere that silver is the lynchpin of High Finance. I have a general idea swirling in my brain about how to stick it to the globalists through the pm market. It would take a coordinated-buying effort, which is why if you go to jmbullion currently, there is a buying threshold you must cross to place an order. $299 minimum. I have never seen this before. They are trying to scare small buyers (millions of people) away from pms.

I wonder why. /s

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Feb 3 2021 4:07 utc | 56

Thanks for posting that b. It's something every shitkicker in the world should understand

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Feb 3 2021 4:14 utc | 57

vetinLa@36 wrote "Maybe (Putin) believes in a Mixed economy, you know, like all the ones that work." This is not one of the names I recall as making fraudulent comments, but this sometimes sincerity can induce a greater despair. The mythical mixed economy is one where capitalism is supposed to be moderated by political correctives added onto the system. If you look at the world as a whole, capitalism has predominated with a few of the richer countries moderating society with a middle class (the US perhaps the best example) or by socialist states once (the USSR the best example I think.) The belief that world economy is working is an astounding misreading. The tasks imposed by climate change cannot be met by a global mixed economy, which is more or less nonsense even in one country. The stresses on global population carrying capacity are likely enough going to result in mutual annihilation. The capitalists will ruin the Earth itself rather than submit to losing their untrammeled rule.

vk@37 is correct in saying that Putin's jabber at Davos was socialist and c1ue is correct that Putin is no socialist. I call that an absurdity. As to the further declaration that Xi is a "declared and graduated Marxist," I can only note that the the Belt and Road Initiative is not "electrification plus Soviets, is not the First Five Year Plan, is not an act of solidarity with the workers of the world. Xi's foreign policy in Korea is to join in the blockade of a socialist country, in alliance with imperialism, moderated so far as I can tell solely by the desire that the siege of the people does not lead to a messy power vacuum. Xi prefers pointless games over reefs in the South China Sea to comradely relations with the workers and oppressed of Nepal. Xi would rather whine about the Comintern in 1927 ( but *not* Chiang Kai-shek!) rather than honestly and objectively analyze Deng's invasion of Vietnam.

Dr. George W. Oprisko@44 is far too incompetent to point to an error. An imaginary quotation is not insight. It's merely making stuff up. Good satire wounds with some truth, it gives the blade an edge. In short? Chiropractic is not a qualification for anything. (If Oprisko can make stuff up, so can I.)

To sum up: Putin is not a socialist, as proven by his entire political career. His is spouting socialism as cheap demagogy to cover up the contemptible plea to his masters to share the booty. Those who take the pretty words at face value are either gullible, or indifferent to mundane issues like truth when they are not useful to their agenda. Putin's socialist postures are an absurdity. Putin's dreams of a peaceful creation of an ultra-imperialism are folly, reactionary wishful thinking.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Feb 3 2021 4:39 utc | 58

Solar power and wind are actually good energy providers for poor people

Posted by: juliania | Feb 3 2021 3:08 utc | 46


Anyone that has studied the issue would be very quick to disagree

In addition to unreliability issues Solar and wind both require relatively large capital outlay, one which is beyond the ability of most poor in developed countries, let alone for undeveloped counties.

This really is fantasy you are peddling here

Posted by: Triden | Feb 3 2021 3:17 utc | 48

Solar energy seems perfectly adequate for the poor, allowing them to support "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" lives. For urban middle class I would recommend nuclear.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Feb 3 2021 4:44 utc | 59

b - thank you for highlighting this... and kudos to karlof1 for constantly doing so.. thank you both...

@21 alaff - ditto grieved comments to you... i appreciate your commentary and karlof1's responses to you..

@ 24 jen... i think you hit the nail on the head myself in this line " seems to be his way of walking a tightrope ..." that is how i see putin as well.. thus we see people complaining about him regularly whether it be mr. stevie johnson, or whoever.. they have never tried walking a tightrope themselves and have no idea what's involved.. as the saying goes - it's easy to complain from the benches... but people who want to move forward in the world don't listen to the complainers.. they follow the doers with vision - putin, being the prime example on the world stage as an actual leader with actual leadership ability, unlike pretty much all else we see on display..

but i do think the reason for the constant sanctions on russia is the financial mafia want what russia has..this is the only way they think they can take russia down.. they definitely can't take them down militarily, so they have to continue with there ace finance magic act... much like a game of - gamestock -wall st style.. speaking of which gme is back down at 90... much like the magic of wall st - the same place the usa is headed - back down...

@ 20 bevin... unlike putin, corbyn never had a chance at power, in spite of the labour party manifesto of 2017... the uk is much like the usa, spinning its wheels while it continues to sink into irrelevancy... maybe after they have hit the skids completely they will have a chance to rise... as it stands anyone with a vision is squashed given their present slavish disposition to follow in the heels of the usa... until that changes - nothing will change in the uk, in spite of 2017 labour party manifestos...

of course the issue of what is controlled and retained by the public verses what is sold to private corporations is an important topic.. putin does address this some... china seems to address it as well.. meanwhile all the western countries are prime targets for targeting what is publicly owned and trying to privatize it... you can tell which countries have got some vision for the future verses those willing to sell there own soul to the devil....

Posted by: james | Feb 3 2021 4:53 utc | 60

Triden @ 48, it is not fantasy to wish for the earth to have sustainable energy resources. It may be an impossible task to provide this large scale with current resources, but there are poor people in the US with enough know how to use both wind power and solar on their own homes and lands.Whole civilizations developed in the past around the world, relying on such abilities and surviving without causing harm to the planet. I am confident that this is the only sustainable way forward, while other more damaging efforts may need to supplement our way. I don't really see any alternative. And I don't see how believing and hoping this is in any way incompatible with admiring the progress both Putin and Xi have made, and the concerns both have for people and for this earth.

The more diverse and carefully used energy sources can become, the better our air, water, lives in general will be. (For instance, one of the perks of the covid has been a diminishment of air travel.) But my point was, this in no way is a neoliberal issue. It ought to be discussed separately from the manner in which national priorities are discussed because finding the right balance is something that affects the entire world. If those kinds of discussions can proceed I will be content to let the scientists, without fear or favor, find the best way forward.

We only have one planet.

Posted by: juliania | Feb 3 2021 5:00 utc | 61

Thank you Grieved! I will leave sustainable energy to the scientists - that was a lovely essay. (A coyote is yipping outside my window -- I'll let him have the final word.

Posted by: juliania | Feb 3 2021 5:16 utc | 62

@ NemesisCalling | Feb 3 2021 4:07 utc | 55 who asked about how to stick it to the big boys in the PM world.

I am not sure what the impact is going to be of the recent blip in purchase of physical PMs but the physical ones versus paper PMs are the only fragile ones. What is showing now is a big price difference between physical and paper because of mining/minting/supply chain constraints that drive them higher in short term. If the price difference persists for long there may be an impact but not sure.

If there is huge physical demand for PM then the US dollar should show decline as well but the markets are all so manipulated that the fundamentals don't necessarily show like they should.....and then at some point the house of cards comes down....according to hopeism

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 3 2021 5:17 utc | 63

@62 psycho

Thank you for responding.

Yes, how some here can claim that what we are seeing is a free-market at work is absolutely beyond me. Free-markets can not coexist without absolutely stringent regulation. I would entertain the idea of banning deruvative trading. Though it is something I would need to research further.

I admit to being an ignoramous on market trading, but suffice to say it doesn't take a genius to see infiltration into regulatory agencies. The same can be said for the FBI. The Federal Gov't is absolutely rotten.

It will be a tough sell to tell conservatives that to save our country we must destroy the dollar.

As luck would have it, the more the clamp comes down on Americans and the more they thumb their nose at American Labor, it strengthens our case.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Feb 3 2021 5:54 utc | 64

@ NemesisCalling | Feb 3 2021 5:54 utc | 63 who wrote about derivatives

Derivatives represent massive casino gambling without any skin in the game that should be remanded to simple insurance policies for some financial agreements. If/when those bets are called the world will be dumbstruck by the purported lawful claim (Senior position in debt claims) they have on "everything"......if there will be a time for the pitchforks and lampposts, this will be it.

The dollar has been destroyed since it became fiat in 1971. That process went into overdrive in 2008 and the $trillions added to the US public debt is criminal behavior on top of the depreciation.

People just don't get that a moment is coming when their US dollars will not be worth the paper they are printed on and when they try and collect something for them they will learn that the derivative folk came before them and took anything of value.....

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 3 2021 6:19 utc | 65

@ArtherDent | Feb 2 2021 23:23 utc | 30

With anthropomorphic climate change bordering on out of control, whoever leads in the "green technology" field will lead in economic development.

I believe "anthropomorphic" means "something that resembles man", and that's pretty apt. This "anthropomorphic" idea of "climate change" entirely reflects upon mans image of himself, wishing to be some kind of god. It doesn't reflect physical reality.

If course, the politically correct term is not anthropomorphic, but anthropogenic, i.e. "man made", which is just another way to project imaginary 'sin' on ordinary people so that it can be used by 'elites' to control them and make them pay. By no coincidence this happens to be similar to catholic priests in the middle ages projecting sin on ordinary people, making them buy indulgence letters, enriching the priests.

The idea of "climate change" follows the pattern of pathological science, as defined by Irving Langmuir Irving Langmuir in the 1950's

Symptoms of Pathological Science:
1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
3. Claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.

The idea that man made CO2 causes "climate change" is preposterous. The atmospheric CO2 is just a trace gas (400 parts per million), and almost all of that is natural, ref Langmuir's points 1 and 2. "Climate science" simply cannot be falsified, and is thus not science at all. Compare with CO2 contents in the atmospheres of Mars and Venus if you think otherwise.

Thinking people will have noticed that the present day "virus" scare has the same characteristics. No virus has been isolated, the effect is not detectable but only propped up in media scares using manipulated numbers. There are no significant excess deaths. It is pathological science used as a mechanism of control by a failing system.

Obviously, Putin's speech reflects his understanding of such failings, and he is pointing to the dangers of of wars and total collapse that follows if this delusional world view is not corrected.

Posted by: Norwegian | Feb 3 2021 6:39 utc | 66

@vk | Feb 3 2021 0:46 utc | 37

The situation was only saved by WWII.

Somehow, this appears to me to summarize your ideas.

WWII didn't save anything, quite the contrary.

Posted by: Norwegian | Feb 3 2021 6:59 utc | 67

@ vetinLA (36)

Re: "Maybe he believes in a Mixed economy, you know, like all the ones that work."

Absolutely, a mixed economy is about the only way to avoid the concentration of power in too few hands. Economic fundamentalists are a scourge on humanity.

Posted by: MarkU | Feb 3 2021 7:13 utc | 68

Putin certainly has a number of good points. But Putin and Putin's Russia is hardly an example we should follow. Putin's speech also could be seen as a confirmation of how Russia (& China) could exploit the exisitng weaknesses in the West.

Posted by: Willy2 | Feb 3 2021 7:23 utc | 69

It's funny that American politicians and media are praising Navalny when he is basically a neo-nazi.

Posted by: Bahr | Feb 3 2021 7:47 utc | 70

Here Come(s) the Gates: “The year global health went local”

@BillGates: When it comes to preventing pandemics, scientific tools alone aren’t enough. We also need new capabilities, including a global alert system and infectious disease first responders (or what I like to call a pandemic fire squad):

The US – or UK’s, for that matter – response to the pandemic is far from incompetent. It’s as brilliant as it is evil.

That people died in Cuomos New York and Contes Bergamo was vital to the plans that are unraveling. In both places suffering and infectious people were moved from hospitals into care houses. Italy was the first country in the world to lock down the whole society. Death and fear are calculated and counted on, they are broadcasted far and wide.

Everything that has been done, everything that is and has been happening, has been done for reason – personally, I really cannot see it otherwise as a final push for One World Government. There are some uncanny resemblances with what happened last century.

It’s from the graveyard the empires arise.

Some jubilant clues from Bill Gates himself: The year global health went local. Victorious language conveys the meaning:

In the past, “global health” was rarely used to mean the health of everyone, everywhere. In practice, people in rich countries used this term to refer to the health of people in non-rich countries. A more accurate term probably would have been “developing country health.”

This past year, though, that changed. In 2020, global health went local. The artificial distinctions between rich countries and poor countries collapsed in the face of a virus that had no regard for borders or geography.

We all saw firsthand how quickly a disease you’ve never heard of in a place you may have never been can become a public health emergency right in your own backyard. Viruses like COVID-19 remind us that, for all our differences, everyone in this world is connected biologically by a microscopic network of germs and particles—and that, like it or not, we’re all in this together.

We hope the experience we’ve all lived through over the last year will lead to a long-term change in the way people think about global health—and help people in rich countries see that investments in global health benefit not only low-income countries but everyone. We were thrilled to see the United States include $4 billion for Gavi in its latest COVID-19 relief package. Investments like these will put all of us in a better position to defeat the next set of global challenges.

Just as World War II was the defining event for our parents’ generation, the coronavirus pandemic we are living through right now will define ours. And just as World War II led to greater cooperation between countries to protect the peace and prioritize the common good, we think that the world has an important opportunity to turn the hard-won lessons of this pandemic into a healthier, more equal future for all.

In the rest of this letter, we write about two areas we see as essential to building that better future: prioritizing equity and getting ready for the next pandemic.

Posted by: js | Feb 3 2021 8:06 utc | 71

Compare Putins:
"Obviously, the era linked with attempts to build a centralised and unipolar world order has ended. To be honest, this era did not even begin. A mere attempt was made in this direction, but this, too, is now history. The essence of this monopoly ran counter to our civilisation’s cultural and historical diversity.",

with Blinkens from just a few days ago:
"American leadership still matters. (...) When we are not engaged, when we are not leading, then one of two things is likely to happen. Either some other country tries to take our place but not in a way that is likely to advance our interests and values, or maybe, just as bad, no one does and then you have chaos."

Washington will receive this speach as a decleration of war.

Posted by: m | Feb 3 2021 8:12 utc | 72

Here Come(s) the Gates II: The Great Dictator – complete globe scene vs @71: Gates moving the pieces

Posted by: js | Feb 3 2021 8:23 utc | 73

Good points indeed. But, Putin himself has been a strict follower of Washington consensus; as late as last year, he was busy cutting pensions. Let's see if he really means it.

Posted by: kemerd | Feb 3 2021 8:29 utc | 74

So a bit upthread there is a back and forth about green energy. I know nothing of policymakers determinations, all I know about is what we've experienced on the island, a place we bought in a fit of communalism back in the 1970's. Although allegedly part of Aotearoa's biggest city, the island we live on has thus far, successfully resisted all attempts bt by local government & central government to 'electrify' us.

The island has a population of about 1000 souls who live there permanently altho it should be noted that population trebles in the summer months.
When we first bought our property the reason there was no electricity was that it was 'too expensive' by the time the arseholes realised there were many, many dollars associated with building hotels, casinos, club meds and whatnot on our refuge it was too late. The citizens had organised their own renewable energy sources.

The first one for us was hydroelectric power which was generated by turning old washing machine electric motors into power generators. A generator would be hooked up to our gravity feed water supply. The island has a ridge running thru the centre of it from north to south and the best way of collecting water was via long established syphons into creeks at the top of the ridge.
The energy was stabilised via batteries into the domestic (at that time 12v) network.
Obviously just one source created issues from time to time. Nature rarely runs from on/off switches, so then we integrated wind energy by recycling other allegedly 'now useless' components, we increased the battery bank which wasn't that inexpensive in the 1990's but even so it was affordable when we spread the initial capital cost over the years of increased power we would be able to utilise.

About ten years ago we threw a bunch of solar hot water heaters plus some solar electricity panels onto the roof of the main house.
Since then none of us have suffered an outage.

It's funny (ha ha) in many ways because the farm had learned to get along without electricity by the time the hydro scheme was kicked off. We have never needed a refrigerator - protein comes from the sea and is eaten as it is caught, we have always cooked using windfall timber for fuel -that is a major attraction eating food from a camp oven beats anything any poincy restaurant offers and I don't mind a cold shower anytime but some did - specially pesky kids which is why solar water heating - plus heat exchanger to a small domestic network powered water heater was installed.
But really the only thing lectricity is used for is phone & laptop charging plus the sound system.

A coupla years back one of my Oz based nephews decided the farm would be just the spot for his band to get their act together.
They managed to power the band gear by connecting high power batteries and step up transformers which they had rented to our domestic system no worries. I couldn't see how it could work and thought it would be smarter to modify amps & keyboards to work off 12v DC, but I was wrong. It was the middle of summer plus the island is sub-tropical - meaning it rains quite a bit as well as sunny days.

My point is that it is possible to harvest sufficient energy to keep a household going without blowing an arm and a leg on tech shit, if yer prepared to work at it.

Of course some places on this planet will be more difficult but I have no doubt that most humans can carve out a spot for them & theirs if they work at it. We won't be able to be as wasteful & negligent as we once were, sure, but we need to clean that up anyways.

Some of our neighbours further north on the island are looking at wave power, but my concern is the damage done to sea life and the foreshore which could result from draining too much wave energy.
We'll see, I reckon they'll be hard pressed to do nearly as much damage as the aqua farms are doing on those places where energy (lectricity for pumps n shit) is freely available.

Internal combustion is on the outer, the demand for hydro carbons (oil & gas) as a stable source of organic substances for manufacturing is pricing fossil hydrocarbons as an energy source out of affordability.

We all have to make the choice of which best suits ourselves but I cannot see how any energy system which is self sustaining requiring no huge input from some monopoly corporation can be worse than those households which are going to be dependant on cash inputs forever.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Feb 3 2021 8:35 utc | 75

Magnum @Feb2 21:45 #21

But isn't Putin's proposal here the exact same line that all world leaders have been parroting from the World Economic Forum...that we need a "great reset" to "build back better"?

Many people believe that WEF's "Great Reset" is a smokescreen for corporatist/fascist melding of corporates+state. The tell is that fake/phony "leaders" like Macron and Prince Charles are leading the charge for the "Great Reset". Despite the lofty rhetoric, these "leaders" have no interest in democracy or socialist initiatives that empower lower classes.

I think you're right that Putin is responding to the WEF "Great Reset" proposal, calling for Western governments to reign in corporate/private interests that seek to use "Great Reset"-like distractions to further a fascist/neo-feudalist agenda.

<> <> <> <>

FYI I wrote about WEF's "Great Reset" in the Week in Review / Open Thread.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 3 2021 9:43 utc | 76

Putin has always been one of the more frank, insightful and straight talking politicians we have.

Lecturing the rest of the world on wealth equality does seem a bit rich, excuse the pun.

Russia has one of the worst wealth gaps in the world, coupled with low life expectancy (for men particularly), non existent social mobility, it is de facto a class society, with many socioeconomic problems. Perhaps he can start at home and show us all how it is done first.

Posted by: Et Tu | Feb 3 2021 10:05 utc | 77

Putin is certainly an impressive politician. It is hard to to think of any politicians in the west that come close to having his level of gravitas. Although AMLO seems to be a figure of integrity and principle, judging by what little I have heard from him. He has already been dubbed a 'strongman' by the neo-liberal media.

Posted by: WastedTalent | Feb 3 2021 10:15 utc | 78

This is the only way to guarantee the cost-effective development of the modern economy, in which people are perceived as the end, rather than the means. Only those countries capable of attaining progress in at least these four areas will facilitate their own sustainable and all-inclusive development.

I am not sure that many have understood that Putin is thinking as a "manager" not a ruler. In a Democracy, theoretically, the people we elect are to "govern" in our stead. Not Rule. We give them their mandate. The four + points that Putin mentions are keys to a sane society. ie. "communal" (not "communist") availability of resources. "Public infrastructure, sustainable growth of income and, hence, decent standards of living. Medical care if necessary, Everyone must have access to an effective system of LIFELONG education, and REGARDLESS of the family income, children must be able to receive a decent education and realise their potential." (sustainable childhood no less!). This is going to resonate with a large proportion of the world's undernourished, over-exploited, deracined and deprived population.

Compare this to the "reset" where "the mass" are to be given(?) debts as an afterthought about how to placate them, while the "Demi-dieux" get on with the running of and spoilation of the world. (I first wrote "ruining of... " which is equally correct). People are supposed to "eat free cake" and like it, and then they and their children and childrens' children will be indebted, in financial slavery until Marie Antoinette is reincarnated and shorted again - or eternity (Whichever is quicker). In other words, they do not figure in any manner in the "solution" proposed by the reset, except as a nuisance factor.

PS. (the last point; Robotics, and chip implanted humans and chimpanzees (Musk) will make all of us redundant. They calculate that the world population will have to be reduced by at least 2 billion)

Posted by: Stonebird | Feb 3 2021 11:09 utc | 79

Et Tu | Feb 3 2021 10:05 utc | 77

Since the Russian have had a drive to curb alcoholism, the life expectancy rate has been rising. In the US it has been falling (and still is).

Posted by: Stonebird | Feb 3 2021 11:13 utc | 80

Debsisdead | Feb 3 2021 8:35 utc | 75

I don't know how far you are from the Equator, but in PNG (4° down) we simply had a 40 gallon (ex-) oil drum on the roof, a hand pump to get the water up there and pipe downwards to a shower head. Works fine, even if it was nicer to take a shower at the end of the day.
Did you know that cold showers in the morning were standard policy at the School for UK Royalty (in Scotland). I don't quite know what that explains but.....

Posted by: Stonebird | Feb 3 2021 11:20 utc | 81

The effects of increased power given to finance is visible for everyone to see in two hot topics which even the MSM have to address: vaccins (Sanofi firing researchers but giving millions in dividends; Pfizer's agreement with German startup BioNTech) and football!,handing%20back%20the%20rights%20late

Posted by: Mina | Feb 3 2021 11:55 utc | 82

There is dangerously little attention in the media to the increasingly danger of large international conflict that Russia’s President Putin warns about. We are blind to the warnings of history, and to its prescient pattern.

Posted by: peter mcloughlin | Feb 3 2021 11:59 utc | 83

re Stonebird | # 81

We're a lot further south than that but long before we had solar hot water we just used water from a gravity feed pipe (coming from a creek up on the ridge) flowing into a 'bush shower - basically a water proofed canvas bucket hanging from a tree branch with a copper shower rose at the bottom of the bucket.
Ag polythene water pipe is inevitably black so that even in winter the sun shining on the hose would give us a few minutes of quite hot water - that is fine for most but there are some people who believe they need to be taking a shower when they decide, not when the universe makes it so. Hence the solar heaters for some and the bush shower for others.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Feb 3 2021 12:11 utc | 84

Debsisdead | Feb 3 2021 12:11 utc | 84

One of the best periods in my life is when we had very little, lived on an island (New Britain), had fun and were quite a lot younger.

I'm jealous of you! Civilisation as seen from sitting here on my backside in comfort, has become a mass of "junior dictators who think they know it all" wanting to give orders.

It would be nice to switch them all off for a bit.

Posted by: Stonebird | Feb 3 2021 12:53 utc | 85

@84 Debsisdead | Feb 3 2021 12:11 utc

"Civilisation as seen from sitting here on my backside in comfort, has become a mass of "junior dictators who think they know it all" wanting to give orders."

Same here in Oz. I call them the "daycare" generations -- institutionalized from the day maternity leave runs out. Little or no sense of freedom in the soul from running free. So it is projection time. Not end of species, but certainly of modern free western civilization as we knew it. But the kicker (and some satisfaction) is; they too will have kids who will smell the tyrant BS and make adjustments as many did in the '60s and '70s. I'll likely be gone by then.

Posted by: imo | Feb 3 2021 14:15 utc | 86

Richard Wolff Responds:

Why a Cold War Against China?

US and China at an Economic Crossroads

Posted by: Mao | Feb 3 2021 14:24 utc | 87

Thanks for covering the speech. Didn't even know about it. My problem is our government destroyed and is destroying businesses for Covid, environmental bs (sorry but a pipeline is safer the Warren Buffet's tanker trains), and now political wrong think. Let's not forget we're going to import millions of poor people at the expense of our working poor. For some countries Putin's ideas are great, especially the few that are relatively homogenous. However in the US we first need regime change. Nor am I suggesting the pathetic GOP. In many respects we are living Reagan economics dystopian hell, which Clinton thru accelerant on. The two parties suck. Finally many kids have no potential due to IQ and never ending war on normalcy. Both problems can be dealt with, but not in the current environment of neoliberalism social dictatorship.

Posted by: Old and Grumpy | Feb 3 2021 15:02 utc | 88

those commies are sneaky. see how much better your typical commie speaks English than your native English speaker?

in any case, more hot air from someone who wants to preserve the capitalist order whose got some bright ideas for how to do it. which do not include addressing the environmental rape his eco fairy tales depend upon.

but better than bojo or biden? sure.

Posted by: jason | Feb 3 2021 15:07 utc | 89

Globalization in and of itself is not a bad thing. Globally integrated production and distribution vastly improves productive efficiencies and wealth generation. The problem people perceive with globalization is with how it is implemented and controlled, which is to say people's problem with globalization is actually a problem with capitalism.

vk pointed out in another thread how feudalism unknowingly incubated the nascent capitalist world order. In the same way capitalism is incubating the nascent communist world society while being oblivious to that fact. Global communications, transportation networks, and supply chains are all necessary components of a global socialist order that can meet the needs of 8+ billion people and provide the opportunity for each of them living a fulfilling life. Since globalization is currently an expression of the American capitalist empire, and is organized to satisfy the interests of that empire, it imposes America's toxic culture wherever it gains power. When communist China wrests control of globalization from that dying empire then the entire character of globalization will change. National and regional participants in that global integration will be able to retain their local cultures and characters. That will give room for real diversity rather than the plastic Hollywood "diversity" offered by the WEF's planned globalization of Identity Politics.

The lifestyle of middle class hippies in communes living off trust funds the fat of the land can be quite idyllic, but it is extreme naivete to imagine that can scale beyond their clubhouses and little hobby gardens. Making generators out of old washing machine motors is not creative or progressive in the economic sense, it is just cannibalizing the prior generation's economic productivity. After all, to make a generator from an old washing machine motor one must first have an old washing machine to steal the motor from. There are still plenty of people on the planet who have never had a washing machine, neither new or old. There is no way these little dude communes (like dude ranches) could ever make their own generators or solar panels or polyethylene plumbing or batteries, or even make their own clothing or even fully provide for their own nutrition. Unless one plans to be wearing animal skins and using stone tools one needs mines and smelters and mills and all manner of different kinds of factories and production facilities. And one needs industrial scale electricity generation to power it all. The commodities that one needs for life do not just magically spawn at the nearby big box store like one is in some sort of video game.

Humanity cannot move forwards by going backwards. There is still room on Earth and in the global economy for some of the population to coast to the end of their days on past gains and play with hobbyist communes, but it is naive egocentrism to imagine that is an option for everyone else. Globalism and heavy industry are essential parts of civilization now. The task before humanity at this point is not to get rid of these things and go back to cave life but rather to find ways to make globalization and industry serve the interests of the broad masses of people rather than a handful of capitalist oligarchs. China is showing one way to do that, but there are other ways too.

Posted by: William Gruff | Feb 3 2021 15:17 utc | 90

@ William Gruff | Feb 3 2021 15:17 utc | 90

Making generators out of old washing machine motors is not creative or progressive in the economic sense, it is just cannibalizing the prior generation's economic productivity

That is true, even if those washing machine generators are fascinating!
Free Power for 16 years from a modified Washing Machine

However nice, you cannot base a society on such solutions, this is Mad Max level technology.

Posted by: Norwegian | Feb 3 2021 15:36 utc | 91

"only increasing the bubble of the value of financial assets and deepening the social divide". The present untenable situation where a minimum of people possess the maximum of assets, means that there is no longer any capital left for the use of the majority of the population. He didn't touch on the elimination of the middle classes that we see in the west (Lockdowns are made for this), but there is no doubt in his mind that the four goals are the way to combat these breakdowns in society.

It is not just that Russia reducing it's debt load is to avoid financial pressure on the country. But I think he personally doesn't like debt in any form, even if he may see the necessity of it sometimes.

Posted by: Stonebird | Feb 2 2021 20:04 utc | 3

steven t johnson @8 calls Putin's speech absurd
<=exploiters will continue to exploit
There is no harmonizing interests in a capitalist system,
which is exactly what the world economy is.

what is needed is the aspects of a socialist world:
1. Comprehensive state direction of investment,
2. expropriation and rededication of misused capital to vital social needs,
3. long term planning and investment in the infrastructure of a fairer world.

What Putin really wants is a multipolar world
1. where the buccaneers, amongst whom Putin's vanity sees himself,
2. a capitalism somehow without empires and
3. wars for empires and
4. with enough crumbs for the masses to head off social collapse or
5. the imaginary left-wing radicalism. Worse than a pipedream,
6. it is a backward and reactionary pipedream!

profession k at 9..
The neoliberal counter-revolution against the welfare state and organized labor
were attempts to restore profitability and the class power of the bourgeoisie
trade deficits by and between nation state divided nations
loss of market share between nation state divided nations..
lack of gold to cover outstanding paper debt obligation
failure to account for domestic redistribution and
imposing financial repression are inherent aspects of
organized crime called global capitalism.

What these imbalances have shown IMO is that the nation state system is the gun that fires
the bullets. It needs to be eliminated.. completely.. or there needs to be a second
deplorable powered government one capable to audit, monitor and prosecute those who
run the nation state government. With out this, leveling power, the only route the
deplorable have is complete revolution. and that is about to happen in my opinion.

Canadian Cents @ 16 Yes the very definition of a Republican form of government is that the Oligarch rule.

Magnum @ 21 If the solution is to move to a coordinated world socialist government
in the name of "equality", that is a greater evil that we have now.

I agree Magnum there is just no place in the world for extreme wealth. Monopoly
power accounts for the extreme wealth.. copyright and patents are not natural monopolies
they exist as a result of Oligarch exploitation of the nation state. Nearly all of
Putins wants can be fixed if the patent and copyright monopolies are removed from the
books. The wealth swells will disappear. The nation state is a framework for the
oligarch to win every decision. and to force every outcome.

Karlof1 the key word is consensus,<= but if we globally eliminate copyright and patent
monopoly powers, the economic and financial distance between the nation states would
seek a level. determined by how well our nations educated its youth..

Jen @ 25..
Putin's main concern has been to keep energy resources and essential industries in public ownership.
yes, i think holding monopoly powers off in Russia has paid off..

Hoarsewhisperer @ 26 says In a real democracy, the role of a government of the people is to regulate the activities of greedy and irresponsible individuals and businesses. Neoliberalism's successful smearing of a REGULATING government as the Enemy Of The People is a huge con job. A regulating government is only the enemy of greedy assholes of the 0.1% variety. <= but if you look at the constitutional documents of
the nation states you quickly understand that no nation state today has democracy as its intention.

by: vk 38 says , in capitalism, humans ("people") are literally a means to an end

but VK, when the government officiated the event space in which capitalism is practiced.
must of those workers did not mind being exploited because it was their way of learning how to
be a capitalist (business owner themselves). This worked well until the Oligarchs began
to use the nation states as their collection boy, which would collect up everyone's invention
and give it to the Oligarch. Once the Oligarch got ownership of everything, they stopped
unwanted competition (they buy the patents and copyrights for a few dollars to make
trillions) or to prevent a trillion dollar business they have going, from dying because
the new invention produced something better It is those trillions earned by monopoly
powers that make the one trillionaire from the billion paupers.

Solar energy seems perfectly adequate for the poor, allowing them to support "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" lives. For urban middle class I would recommend nuclear. by: Piotr Berman 59 If there were no copyright or patent issues solar would be the cheapest energy by far.. 87% of its cost is in the patents that allow it to be placed into production.

Posted by: snake | Feb 3 2021 16:05 utc | 92

@steven t johnson #33
Yeah buddy, you keep on with your perfectly wrong record.
Comparing Putin's policies with Yeltsin is just another amazingly inept analysis - one of an unbroken string which you keep spouting out.
And I repeat: it is a skill, of sorts, to be so utterly, completely, absolutely and consistently opposite of reality.

Posted by: c1ue | Feb 3 2021 16:17 utc | 93

WEll folks.
Bad Vlad Putin is not here to save the world.
He gives it a try, once or twice a year in important events, in a vague hope that the MSM presstitutes and their readers would listen.
(they never do, and MSM does it on purpose)
Bad Vlad has already saved Russia, back in the years 00 to 2008.
He further subsequently made Russia militarily unbeatable.
And strives to make it develop to a higher GNP, Gini and what else.
Those who ask him for super hero or divine powers should shape a russian political party and run for the Kremlin.
And when he is just a chapter in History, in 2040, the only thing left from the empire will be the English language. The same way the Latin language was still used by the elites for 10 centuries AFTER the Roman empire has crumbled to ashes.

Posted by: augusto | Feb 3 2021 16:22 utc | 94

@Debsisdead #75
It is always interesting to see people who think they are truly living off the fossil fuel grid.
The very internet we are using - it is literally impossible without fossil fuels: to create and lay cables connecting, to refine the silicon and power the enormous machines that create semiconductors, to refine the trace elements and semiconductor manufacturing processes to create the communications chips, CPUs, cell phone RF chips, etc etc.
For that matter: are these intrepid unelectrified islanders all living in palm hut or pressed earth houses? Using obsidian or wooden farming implements? Making their own medicines? Transporting in coconut tree canoes or shank's mare? Palm fronds for paper? Batik for clothing?
It can certainly be done and was in the past.
But I sincerely doubt it is being done today by anyone who doesn't have to.

Posted by: c1ue | Feb 3 2021 16:25 utc | 95

@Norwegian #91
The old washing machine is just the tip of the pyramid.
The actual pyramid is the huge amount of land being occupied by this person: the area receiving the water and the dam which is referenced.
Its great that the video's author has made use of that resource, but it is simply not replicable for 99.9% of humanity.
Nor is recycling of existing materials truly "self sufficient". Without industrial society, this would not be possible.

Posted by: c1ue | Feb 3 2021 16:31 utc | 96

"Humanity cannot move forwards by going backwards." @90 William Gruff

except with regards to cars, meat, nuclear energy, carbon energy, the MIC, nationalism, and a whole fuck ton of other social beliefs and practices of industrial capitalism, sure. the way forward is the way forward. only a dumbass would think "the way up is the way down."

the reality is the only thing to do is to turn around and go straight backwards. and look at the rubble.

can be very difficult to do in the US, esp for cars, but ending or limiting meat consumption and car use are 2 things people, individuals, can do differently.

and may the "economy" lose every "job" that exists today. how much actual work done in the world is women's labor, unrecognized because undeserving of "pay"? theft of women's labor, incl childbirth itself, and environmental exploitation is what we mean by "the economy." Xi and Putin just want to do this more better, this forcing nature to do what we want. but to give them both credit, obviously lessening international tensions decreases environmental stress, military conflict itself being the greatest ecological disaster, but the problem of massive overuse of natural resources remains in their proposals. Neither Xi nor Putin is calling for a radical redistribution of existing resources while greatly curbing present and future energy use. nope, just pump more oil, arctic oil especially, and share it a bit more fairly, while putting up solar panels or whatever.

the value of Putin's speech, or Xi's, is to demonstrate how thoroughly degraded US public discourse is. many people in the US wouldn't even understand what the hell Putin is talking about. the prejudices of most others, the NPR/NYT crowd, has the same effect.

side note, why doesn't the US press, i.e. the state, regularly accuse Russia of stealing US technology for any of its tech innovations, as it *constantly* accuses China? the US press is paranoid in its rabid Russophobia, but for some reason Russkies usually get to be smart at math, STEM-stuff. but everything China has ever done ever was b/c their students came here and stole stuff from us or other nefarious reasons. China even stole its space program from Elon Musk! and from "dark side of the moon" by Pink Floyd.

Posted by: jason | Feb 3 2021 16:31 utc | 97

@ Posted by: Stonebird | Feb 3 2021 11:13 utc | 80

One of the main reasons Russian male life expectancy is rising is because it was so terrible 20 years ago in post Soviet times, it is still significantly lower than the US.

Bottom line is, it's hard to accept Putin's calls for a multipolar world with socialist values, when at home he's a leading example of unipolar rule and runs a government that has always sided with business interests and not done much for the little guy. Even Obama could give great inspiring speeches for that matter, and we all know what a hypocrite he turned out to be.

I won't deny Putin's superior wisdom and insight, beyond the hypocrisy lies some truth and a poignant message, it just would be nicer to see it implemented to promote a more equitable Russia, than as mere rhetoric against the failures of the West.

Posted by: Et Tu | Feb 3 2021 16:33 utc | 98

Putin weighs in on Yeltsin:

"Question: Today marks the 90th birthday anniversary of the first President of Russia. What does this date mean to you?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: It is not about me. It is about the country, our people, and our country’s future. Boris Yeltsin led the country during one of the most difficult periods in its history, one might say, a critical period when Russia’s existence as an independent, united and single state was at stake.

What made Boris Yeltsin special? He was never afraid to assume responsibility for what he did and for the fate of the country. Of course, one can always take a critical look at certain aspects of the life, steps or decisions made during such periods in history, or criticise for not making timely decisions. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, they say. But when things start snowballing, we are looking at a completely different situation, and Boris Yeltsin never shunned the burden of responsibility that fell on his shoulders or was laid on his shoulders by fate itself – we are now standing near his grave – or by God.

Of course, the country must remember people like Boris Yeltsin, and I, of course, remember him and will never forget him."

Vladimir Putin laid flowers on the grave of the first President of Russia Boris Yeltsin

It sounds to me like Yeltsin realized he had been naive, and picked to best person he know of to try to fix it. History is going to treat him well.

Posted by: Bemildred | Feb 3 2021 16:48 utc | 99

I'm reading the book "Molten Salt Reactors And Thorium Energy".

Now on p 227 in Chapter 8 of 16.

It is apparent that all the cutting edge work on TMSRs is done by the Russians.... with help from the Chinese...

Yes, the russians are working on Thorium Fueled Molten Salt Fission Reactors.... while the French pursue the "holy grail"
of Fusion... Guess who will produce power....

Sanctions imposed by the AngloZionists were among other things, designed to cripple.... if not destroy Russian Commercial Aircraft
industries. At first they offered 'partnerships' to get the Russians dependent on NATO avionics, engines, and structural components, then they created crises, like the 2014 color revolution in Ukraine, which resulted in Crimea rejoining Russia, which was the excuse to cut off supplies.

The Russians, provided essential support by the Putin administration, prevailed.....

After years of delays, both the SuperJet100R (100% russian components) and the CR-21 (100% Russian components) and the IL-142 (100% Russian components) and the IL-96-400 ( 100% Russian components) go into commercial service this year.

I expect both Russia and China to foot drag on approvals for Boeing aircraft of any stripe getting approval for commercial operation in and across their air space. They will threaten, off the record of course, to review certification of AirBus aircraft of all models, unless these aircraft and the C919 and the AR-21 are certificated for operation in the EU.

Meanwhile China has brought the winter outbreak under control, and has instituted sanitizing all imports, and prioritized vacciation of those who handle imports, particularly refrigerated imports.

Both Russia and China are pursuing mass vaccination of their populations, as we speak.

Sputnik-V's third stage results are in.... 20,000 vaccinated 5,000 placebos 92.5% efficacy

NATO countries continue into chaos.... $GameStop, etal.....

The CIA/NSA/MI6 trolls continue obfuscating here....

NATO halted infrastructure projects for 10 years in Myammar.... That was then... this is now....

Look for Myammar to shift solidly into the Chinese/Russian orbit, and projects like the Mysisone Dam to be fast tracked... the country needs the power...


Posted by: Dr. George W Oprisko | Feb 3 2021 16:48 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.