The issue of costs and benefits of empire is more complicated than the review makes it look. The same international demand for dollar assets that allows the US to run permanent current account deficits makes the dollar overvalued to the detriment of the American industrial base. It is however undeniably true that the empire was a net economic burden for the Soviet Union. One is tempted to conclude that the same must be the case, on a smaller scale, for the current Russian empire.
Indeed very fascinating review of the Bartel's book. With regard to Thatcher and Reagan's conservative neo-liberalism broken promises, they have not broke promise to whole labour market, around 30% of labour, very qualified and academic labour materially get much better in the 80's and 90's as result of heavily lowered corporation taxes . They could broke their promises to 60% of low qualified labour in the western economies as they enjoyed massive support from organised multinational lobbyists representing multinational and high-tech corporations, while the vast parts of low qualified labour couldn't organised strong labour unions beyond their national borders, neither the vast part of low qualified labour was very active in the western countries elections.
The impact of the oil crisis in the 70ies on subsequent poltics is a very interesting topic I would like to learn more about. Unfortunately, I only have time to "read" audiobooks ... anybody who can suggest a good audiobook on the topic?
This is so simplistic an analysis it astounds me. The Soviet Union was a massive oil and natural gas exporter and gained massively from higher oil prices. It was only in the 1980s when oil prices FELL that the Soviet Union had issues. Under Brezhnev, and especially during the high oil price years, the Soviet system became incredibly corrupted (aided by the lack of rotation of sector heads which allowed them to build their own power bases) and issues were solved with foreign money rather than internal changes. Once Gorbachev started loosening the controls, the deeply corrupted agents started pushing on the opening door to oligarchism.
Thatcher only survived because of the Falklands War, otherwise she would have been a one term Prime Minister. Reagan had to back off to some extent to get re-elected, the real hard work of neoliberalism was done by Clinton wrapped in the protective coat of the Democratic party. Gorbachev was an idiot who grew up in the Krushchev Thaw and believed that the West wanted to help the Soviet Union rather than conquer it. He could have taken the Chinese path, but did not understand that the Soviet Union would come apart without the CCP.
A much better comparison would be between the Soviet Union and China at this time. China consolidated from 1989-1993 both politically and economically to deal with the issues of liberalization. Once high inflation etc. had been dealt with a new wave of liberalization (but not touching the commanding heights such as finance and energy) was carried out, but without political liberalization.
"But that equation “we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us” could not continue forever. The economies sputtered, the rate of growth declined, social services deteriorated. The only answer was disciplining labor."
Can you expand on this? Why was that the "only answer"?
Fascinating review. Lots to chew on, including the statement about “democratic sugarcoating”. There is a complex dynamic in the west where the political and business spheres are run according to very different principles - politically we have democratic systems, however flawed, but in the work realm typically we do not have this at all in many countries - so people are at the same time treated as equal for political purposes and subject to hierarchy and experts for work purposes. However, overall, our societies do benefit from a sense of legitimacy derived from the democratic political arrangements as suggested
Naaah. The East was weakened and impoverished by (Western) Nazi attacks, while the US was enriched beyond imagining and could print money at will.
The collapse had nothing to do with communism, which is not a governance system in any case, and everything to do with incompetent governance.
The shoe is now on the other foot: the West is staggering under repeated challenges caused by governmental incompetence, while Godless Chinese Communists are thriving because they have a 2000 year history of good governance and their current team is the most competent government on earth (after Putin's).
The issue of costs and benefits of empire is more complicated than the review makes it look. The same international demand for dollar assets that allows the US to run permanent current account deficits makes the dollar overvalued to the detriment of the American industrial base. It is however undeniably true that the empire was a net economic burden for the Soviet Union. One is tempted to conclude that the same must be the case, on a smaller scale, for the current Russian empire.
Indeed very fascinating review of the Bartel's book. With regard to Thatcher and Reagan's conservative neo-liberalism broken promises, they have not broke promise to whole labour market, around 30% of labour, very qualified and academic labour materially get much better in the 80's and 90's as result of heavily lowered corporation taxes . They could broke their promises to 60% of low qualified labour in the western economies as they enjoyed massive support from organised multinational lobbyists representing multinational and high-tech corporations, while the vast parts of low qualified labour couldn't organised strong labour unions beyond their national borders, neither the vast part of low qualified labour was very active in the western countries elections.
The impact of the oil crisis in the 70ies on subsequent poltics is a very interesting topic I would like to learn more about. Unfortunately, I only have time to "read" audiobooks ... anybody who can suggest a good audiobook on the topic?
This is so simplistic an analysis it astounds me. The Soviet Union was a massive oil and natural gas exporter and gained massively from higher oil prices. It was only in the 1980s when oil prices FELL that the Soviet Union had issues. Under Brezhnev, and especially during the high oil price years, the Soviet system became incredibly corrupted (aided by the lack of rotation of sector heads which allowed them to build their own power bases) and issues were solved with foreign money rather than internal changes. Once Gorbachev started loosening the controls, the deeply corrupted agents started pushing on the opening door to oligarchism.
Thatcher only survived because of the Falklands War, otherwise she would have been a one term Prime Minister. Reagan had to back off to some extent to get re-elected, the real hard work of neoliberalism was done by Clinton wrapped in the protective coat of the Democratic party. Gorbachev was an idiot who grew up in the Krushchev Thaw and believed that the West wanted to help the Soviet Union rather than conquer it. He could have taken the Chinese path, but did not understand that the Soviet Union would come apart without the CCP.
A much better comparison would be between the Soviet Union and China at this time. China consolidated from 1989-1993 both politically and economically to deal with the issues of liberalization. Once high inflation etc. had been dealt with a new wave of liberalization (but not touching the commanding heights such as finance and energy) was carried out, but without political liberalization.
"But that equation “we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us” could not continue forever. The economies sputtered, the rate of growth declined, social services deteriorated. The only answer was disciplining labor."
Can you expand on this? Why was that the "only answer"?
Fascinating review. Lots to chew on, including the statement about “democratic sugarcoating”. There is a complex dynamic in the west where the political and business spheres are run according to very different principles - politically we have democratic systems, however flawed, but in the work realm typically we do not have this at all in many countries - so people are at the same time treated as equal for political purposes and subject to hierarchy and experts for work purposes. However, overall, our societies do benefit from a sense of legitimacy derived from the democratic political arrangements as suggested
Great photo of proven paid secret police agent Lech Wałęsa held aloft on the shoulders of two secret police agents! Those were the days, my friend.
Naaah. The East was weakened and impoverished by (Western) Nazi attacks, while the US was enriched beyond imagining and could print money at will.
The collapse had nothing to do with communism, which is not a governance system in any case, and everything to do with incompetent governance.
The shoe is now on the other foot: the West is staggering under repeated challenges caused by governmental incompetence, while Godless Chinese Communists are thriving because they have a 2000 year history of good governance and their current team is the most competent government on earth (after Putin's).