Andrei Illarionov Resigns from Russia's Government

Congratulations to Andrei Illarionov, a good man, for speaking truth to power within the Kremlin for so long:

FT.com / World / Europe - Putin adviser quits, saying Russia "no longer free" : by Neil Buckley in Moscow December 27 2005 17:04: Andrei Illarionov, President Vladimir Putin's chief economic adviser but also an acerbic critic of the Kremlin's grab for economic power, offered his resignation on Tuesday, saying Russia was "no longer free." Mr Illarionov famously described Russia's partial renationalisation of the Yukos oil company 12 months ago as the "scam of the year"; days later he was stripped by Mr Putin of his role as Russia's "sherpa", or representative, to the Group of Eight industrialised nations.Still, he survived in his post as economic adviser another year despite evermore blunt outbursts, prompting some analysts to consider him him a "court jester" kept on to promote the appearance of plurality and tolerance within the Kremlin.The resignation of one of the most prominent champions of liberal economic reform occurred days before Russia takes over the presidency of the G8 amid scrutiny of its record on democracy and freedom of speech. It came as Russia's upper house on Tuesday approved controversial controls on charities and human rights groups....

Mr Illarionov added he had considered it important to remain in his job "as long as I had the opportunity to do at least something including speaking out", implying he no longer had that freedom.His announcement came a week after a press conference in which he said Russia was moving to a "corporatist" model, dominated by state-controlled companies chaired by government representatives which did not always function according to economic criteria.... "In six years, the situation in the Russian economy has changed radically," Mr Illarionov said. "There is no longer any possibility of conducting a policy of economic freedom."

Comments

[jon livesey]

"His announcement came a week after a press conference in which he said Russia was moving to a "corporatist" model, dominated by state-controlled companies chaired by government representatives which did not always function according to economic criteria..."

Isn't this a pretty concise description of 1920s/30s Italian fascism?

[Randolph Fritz]

'Russia was moving to a "corporatist" model, dominated by state-controlled companies chaired by government representatives which did not always function according to economic criteria....'

"Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss."

[ogmb]

"Isn't this a pretty concise description of 1920s/30s Italian fascism?"

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

[Carlos]

The fact that he was allowed to remain in his position for so long should have showed him that the Kremlin knew that his ourbursts would have little political support among the population. Without even the possibility of significative political support he was in effect, a court jester. He may have spoken truth to power, but he also spoke gibberish to the common russians.

[Bruce Moomaw]

You know, slink, there are better forums to do archy the cockroach imitations in.

As for the question of whether "corporatism" is fascism: of course it is. And it's no surprise that Putin is pushing it: before he became President, he was delivering speeches expressing his pride in being a "Chekist", which is to say a supporter of Russian totalitarianism. And, as Stalin pointed out, there's really not that much different between Leninism and fascism (which is why he fell for Hitler).

[Robin]

"As for the question of whether "corporatism" is fascism: of course it is."

Would you say that centralized relations over wages etc. in Sweden from the 1930s to the 1980s was fascist? It may have been inefficient. It may be, as some libertarians suggest, an infringment on freedom. But fascist???

[Robin]

And there are huge differences between Leninism and Fascism, even if they are comparable in terms of police surveillance, homicidal mania, and general loathsomeness.

There are many kinds of horrid political formations.

[Robin]

And there are huge differences between Leninism and Fascism, even if they are comparable in terms of police surveillance, homicidal mania, and general loathsomeness.

There are many kinds of horrid political formations.

[WatchfulBabbler]

Sadly, the replacement of the statute of Feliks Dzerzhinsky in November was only a signpost on the road to total authoritarianism in the new Russia (though we probably should be grateful Luzhkov didn't pay Zurab Tsereteli to create a 30-story homage to the Chekist chief). Not that Putin is conducting his coup in the shadows -- the Russian people are cheerfully trading their freedom for a little security.

At least Putin's global strategy is clear: during the Soviet era, as the Maoist phrase had it, power came from the barrel of a gun; today, it flows from the mouth of an oil well. Energy is the new strategy, and China and Russia are both intent on controlling exploration and production directly. Yukos was simply the strategic schwerpunkt of Moscow's bid to regain its superpower status.

[Bruce Moomaw]

"Would you say that centralized relations over wages etc. in Sweden from the 1930s to the 1980s was fascist? It may have been inefficient. It may be, as some libertarians suggest, an infringment on freedom. But fascist???"

The tiny little difference is that Sweden is politically democratic, which most definitely is not what Putin has in mind for Russia. As for there being "huge" differences between Leninism and fascism: tell that to Lenin and his New Economic Policy, in which he re-introduced a considerable measure of capitalism while maintaining political dictatorship -- a skill later refined by Deng Xiopeng. (Of course, this means that it's "crony capitalism" and inefficient as hell compared to the real thing. Milton Friedman eventually got off his duff and declared that Pinochet proved not that capitalism is necessary for freedom, but that freedom is necessary for real capitalism, as compared to Pinochet's cronyist version.)

[a different chris]

>Not that Putin is conducting his coup in the shadows -- the Russian people are cheerfully trading their freedom for a little security.

Well, the underlying story here is that once again we see a group of people who found that "economic liberalism" just didn't work for shit .... was it a "good man" that let the near-Mafia level Russian oligarchies run wild because he cared more about what was in a textbook?

This is no doubt true:

"The fact that he was allowed to remain in his position for so long should have showed him that the Kremlin knew that his ourbursts would have little political support among the population."

This is quite likely *NOT* the reason:

"He may have spoken truth to power, but he also spoke gibberish to the common russians."

It wasn't gibberish at all, I bet. It was the same old "this is better" crap that the common Russians could see was just being used by the corrupt to funnel Russia's wealth to a very small group. That's why he got tuned out.

I'm inferring this all from the info given, if you have quotations from him showing some sort of solidarity with the working class and concern over the massive and growing wealth gap, please post it. I'll sure be surprised, though.

I hasten to add that this is in no way supposed to be supportive of Putin's actions -- but why the hell is this any sort of surprise?

[RKKA]

>Not that Putin is conducting his coup in the shadows -- the Russian people are cheerfully trading their freedom for a little security

Putin is bad for freedom, compared to Yeltsin, who turned tanks on his legislature?

Oh, I forgot. Then the Russians had neither freedom nor security.

[Arun Khanna]

I think Russia wants to move towards a hybrid-China model. What Russia is actually moving towards is unclear except that it is the road best not taken.

[Angry Economist]

Well they tried economic liberalism without any fundamental and effective reform to law in terms of property rights. And this is coupled with a very poor set of democratic and human rights. Combine all this with endemic corruption and hey presto, the cocktail is fiefdoms of money combined with political power and patronage... which extends out of Russia and into the rest of the world, and well, we tolerate it.

Russia's economy is way more developed than China. China is catching up fast, but Russia ain't such a backward country you know.

Having said that, things in Russia will get worse before they get better. Its a tremendously corrupt and centralised state, with a poor rule of law (especially commercially). Personally I do not see it having sufficient institutional infrastructure to maintain or develop an advanced economy - and that includes human and political rights and freedoms. Despite no shortage of human and natural resources to achieve this...

[Bruce Moomaw]

Even the appalling P.J. O'Rourke pointed out that "it takes a huge amount of properly functioning government to make a free market work properly" -- and, as Friedman among others pointed out, that government HAS to be democratic in nature or you end up with classic crony capitalism, right up to and including flat-out gangsterism. (O'Rourke suggested that if anarchist libertarians really want to see their ideas in action, they should just go to present-day Albania.)

Pooty-Poot's idea, like that of China's leaders, is to move in the other direction and throw properly functioning capitalism to the wolves in order to retain SOME kind of dictatorship (now clearly fascist, abandoning almost every trace of socialism)that will benefit the current established apparatchiks.