Paul
Goble
Staunton, June 27 – It has become a
commonplace in most analyses about the future of Russia that nothing major will
happen until latent divisions within the Putin elite break into the open, much
as divisions within the Soviet elite at the end of the 1980s did and led to the
demise of the Soviet system.
But if such a division is a
precondition for major change, Aleksandr Skobov says, then there is not going
to be “a new thaw,” “a new perestroika” or “a new détente” because the members
of Putin’s elite unlike those in the late Soviet period have all achieved “everything
they dreamed about” (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=5D1457FBE8745).
As Russian commentator Andrey
Piontkovsky pointed out long ago, the Moscow analyst says, “the perestroika split
of the Soviet nomenklatura elite became possible because a significant part of
it had a powerful stimulus for reform: the desire to live the way Western elites”
do in their everyday lives.
According to Skobov, “the
present-day masters of Russia are people who have achieved all they could have
dreamed of.” Why would any of them want change? And why would they not be
concerned first of all in maintaining the system that has made the achievement
of that goal possible for them?
Some observers “hope for a revolt of
the financial-industrial magnates (the oligarchs) who are dissatisfied that the
current regime significantly limits their freedom of disposing their own
financial-industrial resoures,” a hope that rests on “a right liberal myth”
that major property owners will rise up “if the state limits their entrepreneurial
activity.” But history shows that is rarely true.
“Under Hitler,” Skobov continues, “entrepreneurial
freedom was limited to an incomparably greater degree than under Putin. All
financial-industrial magnates worked under the Nazi ‘Gosplan’ which was no less
a Gosplan than its Soviet counterpart. And now signs of free thinking emerged” from
that quarter.
Some members of the old Prussian military
caste did rise up against Hitler, but not the business community. There was one
exception: Thyssen, who fled to France and played the role of “a German Prince
Kurbsky.” But after Hitler occupied France, he had Thyssen seized and put in a concentration
camp where he remained “an outcast” for the business elite.
“In limiting the entrepreneurial
freedom of the major owners, Hitler’s regime did not at any point touch the
level and form of their ‘personal consumption,’” Skobov says. Putin has done
the same – and he can expect the same lack of any challenge from that quarter
whatever the commentators say.
No comments:
Post a Comment