The Nineteen Eighties through to the first half of the Twenty First Century was a busy time, with massive changes worldwide, some epoch-making, others less conspicuous but just as significant, in retrospect this period was all about restructuring.
Restructuring, or the Russian word for it, Perestroika, kick-started it all, although at the time few understood what it all meant or the vast implications that thirteen letter word beginning with R would have around the globe.
People took restructuring to mean the Soviet Union was enacting reforms, presumably on the road to abolishing Communism; at least that was what the headlines implied when the Soviet Empire dissolved in 1991.
Although Soviet and KGB defectors were quick to point out Perestroika was an exercise in deception as the envisioned changes were cosmetic, they also criticized western journalists for accepting the hype at face value and neglecting to ask the hard questions or delve deeper.
Might this be because it served their agenda to play along and to present the event as the ‘real deal’?
If Perestroika was a sham, the joke was on the west who failed to appreciate that it was their societies that were earmarked for dramatic restructuring.
Or as KGB defector to the U.S. Antoliy Golitsyn explained, the USSR undertook a superficial transformation to facilitate its own convergence with a restructured west.
To get to grips with what this restructuring meant, imagine an organogram, a corporate diagram revealing the structure of an organization from top to bottom along with established reporting lines.
It makes sense to recognize Russia’s as the west’s controlled opposition, for appearances sake they present as an independent rival, but the reality is they on the same team.
For Russia, the first step on the road to capitalism was to establish an oligarchy reporting directly to the country’s president, very different from the western model where the elites drive a political system they corrupted through the backdoor by special interests to serve their goals.
Nevertheless, Russia wasn’t the only country in restructuring mode; the west was in flux too, with its oligarchy consolidating control en route to final stage capitalism, drawing society deeper into its spider-web-like structure of surveillance and supervision that’s understood as the grid.
With dividing lines between the political, economic and civil eliminated it is fait accompli for final stage capitalism because with the elites controlling all three tiers they maintain full control, the question is where to from here?
President Putin’s recent constitutional changes have met with mixed reactions, some say he’s feathering his own nest in an attempt to grab more personal power when he relinquishes the presidency in 2024 but others say exactly the opposite.
They call his constitutional amendments an example to Europe with more power surrendered to parliament and the legislative branch of government as opposed to the executive.
Although there’s a twist to the tale, just yesterday it was reported the Kremlin is considering making Vladimir Putin Supreme Leader of Russia on the recommendation of the Government Commission as his reward for instituting the recent constitutional reforms, on Putin ‘s thoughts on the matter they had this to say; ‘Putin has no view on this’
Russia like China has a hankering for ‘the strong man leader’ whether a Tsar, Emperor or Supreme Leader that’s because their culture tends toward the autocratic, that’s just the way it is and there’s a historical imperative for this.
Where the West is headed
A Post Capitalist society is just a question of time, with one analyst blaming the failed Soviet transition on ‘its utter theoretical confusion’.
He reckons the west can do better and be more theoretically sound, first, he says, enable the emergence of a non-market sector of the economy, consisting of mutuals, co-operatives and pools of relative abundance.
Second, expand the state sector to provide universal basic services and a basic income.
Third, enhance network effects, to create free utility not captured by private ownership and market exchange and, fourth, enact laws to break up tech monopolies and discourage rent-seeking business models.
An opinion piece in the Financial Times reckons the west needs its own perestroika moment.
The writer opines the perestroika of the west involves restructuring the pluralistic co-operation of multiple stakeholders, including governments, parliaments, businesses, universities, non-government organizations and individuals.
He references the worldwide anti-liberal counter-revolution of 1989 and the spread of financial capitalism that resulted from it, speaking to the ignorant assumption capitalism and socialism, or capitalism and communism, are mutually opposed instead of the other side of the same coin, however.
He mentions the Theresa May and Donald Trump administrations and how they have challenged the political system also the tension between representative and direct democracy so it’s obvious plain where all this is leading, majority rule.
Proving the point, this is what he says about cultural dimension of populism;
A big responsibility falls on the media to report with imaginative sympathy the sometimes crudely expressed frustration of the left-behind in our societies. For an “inequality of respect” has compounded the inequality of wealth. Our universities, which are in danger of looking like institutions that reinforce the divide between haves and have-nots, need to find better ways to help overcome it.
He concludes by saying; again, the geopolitical west cannot simply carry on with business as usual. It, too, needs perestroika as a response to systemic crisis.
Both the above opinions indicate this is about a post capitalist restructure to a transitionary socialism on the road to communism.