Well, I guess the cat is out of the bag

[Muzh]

Russia's Chief Justice Advocates A Return To Serfdom
 

Valery Zorkin, the head of Russia's Constitutional Court, wrote an article that was published in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta in which he praised serfdom.
 
(In Russia, Zorkin is the equivalent rank of the US Supreme Court's Chief Justice John Roberts.)
 
In the article he says the global situation is becoming increasingly more dangerous and that the system of international law is now based on "free interpretations from a position of strength."
 
He doesn't agree with the "free interpretations" of international law and suggests that it must be corrected by increased legal authority.
 
And then he switches gears to serfdom.
 
He advocates for serfdom and says that it was the main "staple" holding Russia together in the 19th century. He justifies his argument by saying that serfdom is beneficial for the serfs.
 
In the article he writes (translated from the original Russian by Business Insider):
 
Even with all of its shortcomings, serfdom was exactly the main staple holding the inner unity of the nation. It was no accident that the peasants, according to historians, told their former masters after the reforms: 'We were yours, and you — ours.'

Business Insider

[Muzh]

I think that would go well with this:


Book Review: 'Putin's Kleptocracy' by Karen Dawisha
Every major business that sprouted up in Russia in the early 1990s had the help of former KGB officers—and their money.

What we know from the author's meticulous reporting—that KGB agents and party officials scrambled to get a hold of party funds that they reinvested in companies and banks—suggests they were acting to save their behinds, not rebuild an empire. In fact, the whole trajectory that Ms. Dawisha lays out paints a picture of a leadership bent on personal interest at the expense of the state. It's hard to imagine Mr. Putin "deciding" at any point in the 1990s to rebuild a country when he is described as exclusively concerned with lining his own pockets.

WSJ


Already bought the book.
I remember reading in another (now defunct) forum some theories about this. It was coldly planned and calculated in Hungary when the Soviet relics saw the "writing on the wall" before the implosion.

[Gator]

I think that would go well with this:


Book Review: 'Putin's Kleptocracy' by Karen Dawisha
Every major business that sprouted up in Russia in the early 1990s had the help of former KGB officers—and their money.WSJ


Already bought the book.
I remember reading in another (now defunct) forum some theories about this. It was coldly planned and calculated in Hungary when the Soviet relics saw the "writing on the wall" before the implosion.

I have heard part of this several times from Russians and from those who study contemporary Russia. 




It is a contradiction for Putin to becry the dismantling of the Soviet state as a massive tragedy in Russian history when he played (and still does play) an instrumental role in the transfer of Soviet enterprises from the public ledger to private owners with the public receiving so little.  BTW, speaking of tragedies I consider the 20 million Soviet fatalities in WWII as far more tragic than the Soviet collapse.


Question Muzh, do you have a guess about what percentage of the privatization of Soviet wealth was done through KGB officers?  The officers were bright and unscrupulous, and they were connected enough to top Russian government and outside funding sources to pull this off. 


Most of the Soviet enterprises followed a multiple-stage privatization strategy involving first setting the value of enterprises at artificially low levels to accommodate the evolving oligarchs.   There seemingly was no unfettered bidding process for the various enterprises.  The artificially low price had to be approved at the top levels of government.  And how were the oligarchs selected to benefit from such fire sales?    There was also the secondary tactic of giving workers shares of the private companies formed from the Soviet enterprises,  only to have selected oligarchs subsequently give the workers refrigerators or whatever for the shares.   


On the whole many billions of dollars were required to buy the privatized companies even at artificially low  prices plus pay the workers for their shares.  What was the source of such money?  Did the oligarchs possess such wealth in Soviet days?    Did the KGB have enough money squirreled away?  Did sources from outside Russia fund the takeover?   Was this outside money funneled through the KGB?   I guess the box to check is "All of the Above."


When you read this book, maybe you will be able to give better answers to these questions.

[Gator]

Russia's Chief Justice Advocates A Return To Serfdom
 

Is the chief justice another right wing clown? 


Maybe my wild prediction in another thread is not so crazy, namely in 10-15 years Russia will be a petro rich North Korea, the Donbas will resemble Chechnya, and Crimea the Turkish part of Cyprus.   Then again, maybe the Russian democracy will run Putin out of town.    More than likely, Europe reaches some appeasement position with Putin and same o' same o'. 

[SANDRO43]

Serfdom in Russia was established in the 12th century, and abolished by Tsar Alexander II in 1861, so this very medieval institution lasted for 700+ years.

The relationship between landowner and serfs varied, depending on whether the former was an absentee mostly living in the capital or a frequent local resident. In the latter case, he was viewed as the patriarch of an extended family of the people  living and working on his lands.

A shrewd landowner might subsidise higher education for a bright serf's son, who would eventually return home and provide his talents to the community almost for free. I already recounted that my granny told me that they had converted a hunting lodge into a convalescent home for their wounded peasants returning from the WWI fronts.

The Soviet collective farms were actually a form of serfdom by another name . No wonder that some may feel nostalgic about this centuries-old institution .

[Muzh]

I have heard part of this several times from Russians and from those who study contemporary Russia. 




It is a contradiction for Putin to becry the dismantling of the Soviet state as a massive tragedy in Russian history when he played (and still does play) an instrumental role in the transfer of Soviet enterprises from the public ledger to private owners with the public receiving so little.  BTW, speaking of tragedies I consider the 20 million Soviet fatalities in WWII as far more tragic than the Soviet collapse.


Question Muzh, do you have a guess about what percentage of the privatization of Soviet wealth was done through KGB officers?  The officers were bright and unscrupulous, and they were connected enough to top Russian government and outside funding sources to pull this off. 


Most of the Soviet enterprises followed a multiple-stage privatization strategy involving first setting the value of enterprises at artificially low levels to accommodate the evolving oligarchs.   There seemingly was no unfettered bidding process for the various enterprises.  The artificially low price had to be approved at the top levels of government.  And how were the oligarchs selected to benefit from such fire sales?    There was also the secondary tactic of giving workers shares of the private companies formed from the Soviet enterprises,  only to have selected oligarchs subsequently give the workers refrigerators or whatever for the shares.   


On the whole many billions of dollars were required to buy the privatized companies even at artificially low  prices plus pay the workers for their shares.  What was the source of such money?  Did the oligarchs possess such wealth in Soviet days?    Did the KGB have enough money squirreled away?  Did sources from outside Russia fund the takeover?   Was this outside money funneled through the KGB?   I guess the box to check is "All of the Above."


When you read this book, maybe you will be able to give better answers to these questions.

To answer some of your questions, I have no clue how much money was squirreled away. Now, keep in mind, they didn't need billions and billions of dollars to pull this off. As you mentioned, a lot of state property was sold for a song under dubious circumstances.


My wife tells me that in her city, many factory managers suddenly became "owners" by claiming that just because of the sheeple mentality prevailing in those days. What the hell, even today. Anyway, my father-in-law decided to quit and run away from all that kakashka rather than becoming an "oligarch."

[Drew]

My wife tells me that in her city, many factory managers suddenly became "owners" by claiming that just because of the sheeple mentality prevailing in those days.

Another tactic was commonly used.

Distribute common stock shares of the factory to all employees working there.  Made everything look fair.

But some time later, officers and directors issued huge number of additional shares to themselves only.

Huge dilution in value per share, so 95 percent of employees held a tiny, tiny percent of the outstanding shares which added up to almost nothing.