7 ms·

Can you explain how the US looted the former Soviet Union? Never heard that one before.

sprafa 7y ago
It’s considered among knowledgeable circles that the creation of the Russia we know of today was largely the work of the “Chicago Boys” type group of economists who were sent to liberalize the Russian economy through “shock therapy”. There are lots of well researched stories that show they did stupid badly thought of things such as, famously, handing over stocks in major companies to its workers, instantly making them shareholders. That sounds fine in theory. But with poverty at their throat workers simply sold their sto luck to the first person who asked. Often these were people with “connections” or some money stashed away or criminally-funded “entrepreneurs”, who with some barebones organisation and planning could quickly scoop up billions of dollars worth of stock and take a controlling position in major companies by buying them cents for a dollar. Thus the oligarchs were born which quickly led to the kleptocratic Russia we know of today. Liberal minded and educated Russians realised western economists were annihilating their country. One well known Russian independent magazine called the newly rebuilt Russia a “neoliberal dystopia”. Which more and more I think of as quite accurate.
- kmlx 7y ago
  i lived in eastern europe during my childhood. most of the issues of Russia of today (and the rest of eastern europe/ussr) stem from communism and its planned economy. during the latter days of the soviets the amount of graft/corruption was incredible. the factories would churn out garbage 24/7. while regular folk had no heating and electricity. this led to even more corruption and an individualist mentality post-breakup. the west might have contributed to this downfall, but 1. this downfall was completely normal and partly expected and 2. the main culprits can be found among the populations of russia and eastern europe. my 2 cents
  - sprafa 7y ago
    I think all you’re saying is true but I wonder whether the West shouldn’t have been more careful when we were called upon to help these countries transition away from planned economies.
    - kmlx 7y ago
      people from eastern europe were waiting for the americans to come and save them since 1947. unfortunately the west was pretty much destroyed after ww2. but even in 1989 there was still hope that the soviet nightmare would finally end. and it did, thankfully. unfortunately we’ve been left with the russian mafia state to deal further blows to the region.
  - ionised 7y ago
    The West contributed more than you think. The famines in the USSR were partially caused by US trade embargoes on the USSR preventing them from buying modern farming equipment and grain supplies. That's not to say the USSR itself bore no blame. They definitely did, but the US did everything it could to ensure that system would collapse.
    - bubblewrap 7y ago
      That doesn't sound very convincing - after all people didn't starve before Russia had modern farming equipment. Something else must have changed. The invention of modern farming equipment is unlikely to have caused existing farming methods to become less effective. Also, it seems unlikely to me that Soviet planning relied on buying farming equipment from the USA. Weren't they rather too proud for that? Did the USA also deny to sell them food? Edit, since YC doesn't allow me to write more comments: yeah ok maybe people were starving before that, the point was, the US did not cause that. Maybe their superior technology could have helped, but that is not the same as blaming them for causing the famine. If the US hadn't invented those machines, Russians would have starved all the same, and there would have been no US to blame for it. That is what I meant. As for trade embargoes, I am not a fan. But I can also not blame the US for wanting to curb the spread of communism, which is decidedly not a harmless ideology. So I guess trade embargoes tend to be a first step, preferred to actual war. Also not convinced that communists would have loved to trade. Wasn't everything Western frowned upon? You could get into jail for listening to Jazz music? That doesn't sound very open minded to me, and not a good basis for trade. I think they wanted to show that they could do better than capitalism, and to rely on capitalist products would have been an admittance of failure.
      - ionised 7y ago
        > after all people didn't starve before Russia had modern farming equipment. Yes, they did. You don't know your history or are deliberately ignoring parts of it. Russia and the Russian Empire was always struggling to produce enough food due to the nature of its landscape. Barely any of it is suitable for farming. This is the main reason Russia always tries to expand westward (that and its lack of warm-water ports for trade). It's simple self-preservation. I'm not excusing some or all of the horrible shit they've done to pursue this goal either, but it is understandable. The US did exactly the same when it swarmed over North America wiping out or subjugating every Native tribe it encountered. The arable land in Russia is incredibly slim and was mostly situated on its western countries bordering Europe. Most of Russia and many of its satellite states during the USSR is and were unsuitable for farming. On the subject of US/NATO trade embargoes, the US did a similar thing to Cuba and some South American states for decades for no good reason other than 'communism bad!'. Trade embargoes used as a tool to fight an ideological war by weakening the target country's economy, thereby discrediting its economic model by artificially limiting supplies of grain and efficient farming equipment. All they ended up doing was hurting the regular people who probably couldn't have cared less what system they were under. They were too busy trying to live their lives. There was nothing in the Soviet system that prevented it from trading with the west from an ideological standpoint either. The refusal to trade came from the west; and the only reason trade with the west was hindered was because the US wanted to fight an ideological war by undermining its enemies economies. The reality is, the so-called free-market champion that is the United States engages in market distortion to eliminate rivals all the time. The best example recently was the Iraq War. That was a response to Saddam Hussein's plan to stop trading oil in dollars and switch to Euros instead. I feel like you are deliberately ignoring information that doesn't satisfy your world view. I cannot help you with that. Some more info on Russia's motives: https://www.businessinsider.com/10-maps-that-explain-russias-strategy-2016-1?r=US&IR=T#-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/10-maps-that-explain-russias...
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  That doesn't sound like looting, though, unless the new shareholders were all US citizens? And was it their plan all along to make the factory workers sell their shares to oligarchs? It is still a very popular theory here in Germany that factory workers should be given shares in the companies they work for. Personally I think it is misguided and anti-freedom: obviously it would be better to just give them more money, with which they could opt to buy shares or other things. But seeing the popularity of the idea, I think people could be forgiven for actually implementing it?
  - sprafa 7y ago
    It was a stupid thing to do, that’s all I meant, with huge negative unforeseen consequences. Whether or not it should have been done is not my place to judge really.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >It’s considered among knowledgeable circles I wouldn't take history lessons from Naomi Klein.
  - sprafa 7y ago
    I’ve never read anything from Naomi Klein (I think she’s biased and opinionated to the point of being unreliable). I’ve taken this from very slight research and particularly from Russian magazines that were covering the events at the time. That being said I am no expert. Perhaps you can reply with a well researched rebuttal.
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      >and particularly from Russian magazines that were covering the events at the time. Why would those those magazines have particular credibility? Post-Soviet collapse was a shit show, but it was never going to be anything bug a shit show. They were trying to rebuild a corrupt, decrepit Soviet economy as a modern market-based economy, while at the same time building, from scratch, a modern functioning judicial and a democratic political system.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  You sure it isn't because they could only transfer their shares to accredited investors?
  - sprafa 7y ago
    I really don’t know enough of the subject just repeated what I can remember from memory. If you’re interested research.
    - rolltiide 7y ago
      I was being facetious
- bmmayer1 7y ago
  Which knowledgeable circles? This seems demonstrably untrue: "Thus the oligarchs were born which quickly led to the kleptocratic Russia we know of today" Oligarchs have been a mainstay of Russian society since at least the time of Peter the Great when one of his main policy positions as Tsar was reducing the influence of the oligarchs (then called Boyars). Plus, Russia under Soviet rule was unbelievably kleptocratic and corrupt.
  - sprafa 7y ago
    I really don’t see the connection particularly considering the new oligarchs post-Soviet period appear to be more intimately connected to organised crime than any soviet heritage power structures
  - crdoconnor 7y ago
    Most Russian oligarchs today trace their wealth back to the acquisition of shares in 1991, often with the help of loans from banks run by friends. Larry Summers, when he was "advising", didn't make a secret of the fact that he didn't really care who "owned" most Russian assets provided it was in private hands.
    - ionised 7y ago
      > Larry Summers, when he was "advising", didn't make a secret of the fact that he didn't really care who "owned" most Russian assets provided it was in private hands. Ideology over practicality. Lovely.
  - slackfan 7y ago
    Anybody who was in a major Russian city in the 90s for instance, like myself and my family. Parent post is accurate to a disturbing degree.
    - sprafa 7y ago
      Thanks, would love to hear more about your experience (if you are willing to talk about it). It’s a dangerously underreported story in the West.
scottlocklin 7y ago
The US didn't loot the former Soviet Union; Harvard and their chosen oligarchs did. Harvard basically admitted they did this in a lawsuit[1]. It's one of the worst things done in the late 20th century; was basically genocide for a quick buck. The US media, being part of the sinister Harvard axis, of course, didn't report it, but people in Russia (the Exile guys, Russians) certainly know about it, which is why they elected a brute like Putin to keep Harvard economists and their oligarch orcs from destroying the place further. You can find stuff; even Schleifer's wiki page alludes to it. Unvetted example: http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Pseudoscience/harvard_mafia.shtml http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Pseudoscience/harvard_m... Two books every American should read: 1) Godfather of the Kremlin (the author of this book was assassinated) 2) Casino Moscow [1]https://web.archive.org/web/20160827112235/http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/Article/1020662/How-Harvard-lost-Russia.html?ArticleId=1020662&single=true#/.VyuOp-IrJD8 https://web.archive.org/web/20160827112235/http://www.instit...
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  That article starts with "Under supervision of Harvard mafia Russian economy has all but collapsed" - sorry, whatever bad things Harvard people did, I think the Russian economy was already collapsed or collapsing. That is allegedly why they opened up to the West. Any more balanced sources? Edit: since rate limiting prevents me from further replies, in response to the comment below: the quote specifically mentions the "Russian economy", not just looting of assets owned by the state.
  - james1071 7y ago
    It does not matter whether the Russian economy was booming or in deep trouble - the issue that is being discussed is the looting of assets owned by the state.
  - sprafa 7y ago
    Russian/Soviet economy was definitly not collapsing or at least nowhere near a quickly. Afaik quality of life and income collapsed during the 90s far faster than it ever had during the Soviet Union.

It’s considered among knowledgeable circles that the creation of the Russia we know of today was largely the work of the “Chicago Boys” type group of economists who were sent to liberalize the Russian economy through “shock therapy”. There are lots of well researched stories that show they did stupid badly thought of things such as, famously, handing over stocks in major companies to its workers, instantly making them shareholders. That sounds fine in theory. But with poverty at their throat workers simply sold their sto luck to the first person who asked. Often these were people with “connections” or some money stashed away or criminally-funded “entrepreneurs”, who with some barebones organisation and planning could quickly scoop up billions of dollars worth of stock and take a controlling position in major companies by buying them cents for a dollar. Thus the oligarchs were born which quickly led to the kleptocratic Russia we know of today. Liberal minded and educated Russians realised western economists were annihilating their country. One well known Russian independent magazine called the newly rebuilt Russia a “neoliberal dystopia”. Which more and more I think of as quite accurate.

kmlx 7y ago
i lived in eastern europe during my childhood. most of the issues of Russia of today (and the rest of eastern europe/ussr) stem from communism and its planned economy. during the latter days of the soviets the amount of graft/corruption was incredible. the factories would churn out garbage 24/7. while regular folk had no heating and electricity. this led to even more corruption and an individualist mentality post-breakup. the west might have contributed to this downfall, but 1. this downfall was completely normal and partly expected and 2. the main culprits can be found among the populations of russia and eastern europe. my 2 cents
- sprafa 7y ago
  I think all you’re saying is true but I wonder whether the West shouldn’t have been more careful when we were called upon to help these countries transition away from planned economies.
  - kmlx 7y ago
    people from eastern europe were waiting for the americans to come and save them since 1947. unfortunately the west was pretty much destroyed after ww2. but even in 1989 there was still hope that the soviet nightmare would finally end. and it did, thankfully. unfortunately we’ve been left with the russian mafia state to deal further blows to the region.
- ionised 7y ago
  The West contributed more than you think. The famines in the USSR were partially caused by US trade embargoes on the USSR preventing them from buying modern farming equipment and grain supplies. That's not to say the USSR itself bore no blame. They definitely did, but the US did everything it could to ensure that system would collapse.
  - bubblewrap 7y ago
    That doesn't sound very convincing - after all people didn't starve before Russia had modern farming equipment. Something else must have changed. The invention of modern farming equipment is unlikely to have caused existing farming methods to become less effective. Also, it seems unlikely to me that Soviet planning relied on buying farming equipment from the USA. Weren't they rather too proud for that? Did the USA also deny to sell them food? Edit, since YC doesn't allow me to write more comments: yeah ok maybe people were starving before that, the point was, the US did not cause that. Maybe their superior technology could have helped, but that is not the same as blaming them for causing the famine. If the US hadn't invented those machines, Russians would have starved all the same, and there would have been no US to blame for it. That is what I meant. As for trade embargoes, I am not a fan. But I can also not blame the US for wanting to curb the spread of communism, which is decidedly not a harmless ideology. So I guess trade embargoes tend to be a first step, preferred to actual war. Also not convinced that communists would have loved to trade. Wasn't everything Western frowned upon? You could get into jail for listening to Jazz music? That doesn't sound very open minded to me, and not a good basis for trade. I think they wanted to show that they could do better than capitalism, and to rely on capitalist products would have been an admittance of failure.
    - ionised 7y ago
      > after all people didn't starve before Russia had modern farming equipment. Yes, they did. You don't know your history or are deliberately ignoring parts of it. Russia and the Russian Empire was always struggling to produce enough food due to the nature of its landscape. Barely any of it is suitable for farming. This is the main reason Russia always tries to expand westward (that and its lack of warm-water ports for trade). It's simple self-preservation. I'm not excusing some or all of the horrible shit they've done to pursue this goal either, but it is understandable. The US did exactly the same when it swarmed over North America wiping out or subjugating every Native tribe it encountered. The arable land in Russia is incredibly slim and was mostly situated on its western countries bordering Europe. Most of Russia and many of its satellite states during the USSR is and were unsuitable for farming. On the subject of US/NATO trade embargoes, the US did a similar thing to Cuba and some South American states for decades for no good reason other than 'communism bad!'. Trade embargoes used as a tool to fight an ideological war by weakening the target country's economy, thereby discrediting its economic model by artificially limiting supplies of grain and efficient farming equipment. All they ended up doing was hurting the regular people who probably couldn't have cared less what system they were under. They were too busy trying to live their lives. There was nothing in the Soviet system that prevented it from trading with the west from an ideological standpoint either. The refusal to trade came from the west; and the only reason trade with the west was hindered was because the US wanted to fight an ideological war by undermining its enemies economies. The reality is, the so-called free-market champion that is the United States engages in market distortion to eliminate rivals all the time. The best example recently was the Iraq War. That was a response to Saddam Hussein's plan to stop trading oil in dollars and switch to Euros instead. I feel like you are deliberately ignoring information that doesn't satisfy your world view. I cannot help you with that. Some more info on Russia's motives: https://www.businessinsider.com/10-maps-that-explain-russias-strategy-2016-1?r=US&IR=T#-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/10-maps-that-explain-russias...
bubblewrap 7y ago
That doesn't sound like looting, though, unless the new shareholders were all US citizens? And was it their plan all along to make the factory workers sell their shares to oligarchs? It is still a very popular theory here in Germany that factory workers should be given shares in the companies they work for. Personally I think it is misguided and anti-freedom: obviously it would be better to just give them more money, with which they could opt to buy shares or other things. But seeing the popularity of the idea, I think people could be forgiven for actually implementing it?
- sprafa 7y ago
  It was a stupid thing to do, that’s all I meant, with huge negative unforeseen consequences. Whether or not it should have been done is not my place to judge really.
macspoofing 7y ago
>It’s considered among knowledgeable circles I wouldn't take history lessons from Naomi Klein.
- sprafa 7y ago
  I’ve never read anything from Naomi Klein (I think she’s biased and opinionated to the point of being unreliable). I’ve taken this from very slight research and particularly from Russian magazines that were covering the events at the time. That being said I am no expert. Perhaps you can reply with a well researched rebuttal.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >and particularly from Russian magazines that were covering the events at the time. Why would those those magazines have particular credibility? Post-Soviet collapse was a shit show, but it was never going to be anything bug a shit show. They were trying to rebuild a corrupt, decrepit Soviet economy as a modern market-based economy, while at the same time building, from scratch, a modern functioning judicial and a democratic political system.
rolltiide 7y ago
You sure it isn't because they could only transfer their shares to accredited investors?
- sprafa 7y ago
  I really don’t know enough of the subject just repeated what I can remember from memory. If you’re interested research.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    I was being facetious
bmmayer1 7y ago
Which knowledgeable circles? This seems demonstrably untrue: "Thus the oligarchs were born which quickly led to the kleptocratic Russia we know of today" Oligarchs have been a mainstay of Russian society since at least the time of Peter the Great when one of his main policy positions as Tsar was reducing the influence of the oligarchs (then called Boyars). Plus, Russia under Soviet rule was unbelievably kleptocratic and corrupt.
- sprafa 7y ago
  I really don’t see the connection particularly considering the new oligarchs post-Soviet period appear to be more intimately connected to organised crime than any soviet heritage power structures
- crdoconnor 7y ago
  Most Russian oligarchs today trace their wealth back to the acquisition of shares in 1991, often with the help of loans from banks run by friends. Larry Summers, when he was "advising", didn't make a secret of the fact that he didn't really care who "owned" most Russian assets provided it was in private hands.
  - ionised 7y ago
    > Larry Summers, when he was "advising", didn't make a secret of the fact that he didn't really care who "owned" most Russian assets provided it was in private hands. Ideology over practicality. Lovely.
- slackfan 7y ago
  Anybody who was in a major Russian city in the 90s for instance, like myself and my family. Parent post is accurate to a disturbing degree.
  - sprafa 7y ago
    Thanks, would love to hear more about your experience (if you are willing to talk about it). It’s a dangerously underreported story in the West.

scottlocklin 7y ago

The US didn't loot the former Soviet Union; Harvard and their chosen oligarchs did. Harvard basically admitted they did this in a lawsuit[1]. It's one of the worst things done in the late 20th century; was basically genocide for a quick buck. The US media, being part of the sinister Harvard axis, of course, didn't report it, but people in Russia (the Exile guys, Russians) certainly know about it, which is why they elected a brute like Putin to keep Harvard economists and their oligarch orcs from destroying the place further. You can find stuff; even Schleifer's wiki page alludes to it. Unvetted example: http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Pseudoscience/harvard_mafia.shtml http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Pseudoscience/harvard_m... Two books every American should read: 1) Godfather of the Kremlin (the author of this book was assassinated) 2) Casino Moscow [1]https://web.archive.org/web/20160827112235/http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/Article/1020662/How-Harvard-lost-Russia.html?ArticleId=1020662&single=true#/.VyuOp-IrJD8 https://web.archive.org/web/20160827112235/http://www.instit...

bubblewrap 7y ago
That article starts with "Under supervision of Harvard mafia Russian economy has all but collapsed" - sorry, whatever bad things Harvard people did, I think the Russian economy was already collapsed or collapsing. That is allegedly why they opened up to the West. Any more balanced sources? Edit: since rate limiting prevents me from further replies, in response to the comment below: the quote specifically mentions the "Russian economy", not just looting of assets owned by the state.
- james1071 7y ago
  It does not matter whether the Russian economy was booming or in deep trouble - the issue that is being discussed is the looting of assets owned by the state.
- sprafa 7y ago
  Russian/Soviet economy was definitly not collapsing or at least nowhere near a quickly. Afaik quality of life and income collapsed during the 90s far faster than it ever had during the Soviet Union.