World Empire - or a world of Empires?

This article comprises our introduction to the book The Politics of Empire: Globalization in Crisis (Freeman and Kagarlitsky 2004) which we wrote jointly to introduce the articles in that volume, was the outcome of a seminar called in 2002 by the Transnational Institute to assess responses to ‘globalization’. Alan Freeman has added a foreword to introduce the article to modern readers, for which he bears sole responsibility, including for any errors it introduces

World Empire - or a world of Empires?

This article comprises our introduction to the book The Politics of Empire: Globalization in Crisis (Freeman and Kagarlitsky 2004) which we wrote jointly to introduce the articles in that volume, was the outcome of a seminar called in 2002 by the Transnational Institute to assess responses to ‘globalization’. Alan Freeman has added a foreword to introduce the article to modern readers, for which he bears sole responsibility, including for any errors it introduces

El estado ruso en la era del imperio norteamericano

Actualmente se está desarrollando en Rusia un debate entre una corriente de pensamiento que ve al presidente Vlaidimir Putin como un gran patriota ruso que defiende al país de las ambiciones imperialistas de Norteamérica, y otra que lo ve como un mero títere norteamericano. Naturalmente, el patriotismo de Putin no es más (ni menos) honesto que su proclamado deseo de mantener la democracia en Rusia. Su proclamada defensa de los intereses nacionales sólo puede ser considerada seriamente por quienes toman por cierta cualquier propaganda gubernamental. Pese a su retórica patriótica, la Administración Putin ha hecho importantes concesiones a los líderes de EUA. Las bases militares rusas en Vietnam y en Cuba fueron cerradas, lo cual, en el caso de Cuba, puede interpretarse como una invitación directa a que EUA invada la isla. Mientras tanto, se establecieron bases militares estadounidenses en Asia Central con la anuencia de Moscú. En el Kremlin se ve a la administración republicana de George W. Bush como un socio óptimo, que, a diferencia de los demócratas, no hace preguntas molestas acerca de los derechos humanos

The Challenge for the Left: Reclaiming the State

For the most part, left thinkers have become reconciled to the image of the state as a demoralized bureaucratic machine that is unable to carry out effective management and which merely swallows taxpayers' money. It has to be recognized that such images do not appear out of thin air. But in most countries it was not the left that created the state bureaucracy, even if the left figures in the consciousness of millions of people as the servant and defender of bureaucracy. At the same time the right effectively exploits for its interests both the annoyance of citizens with the state, and their no less powerful demand that the state defend them against foreign threats. Such threats more and more often turn out to consist not of hordes of foreign warriors, but of mountains of foreign goods, crowds of half-starved emigrants, and a mafia that is rapidly internationalizing itself - in short, the natural consequences of the economic policies pursued by the right itself. The problem of the state becomes insoluble for the left from the moment when it rejects the idea of the radical transformation of the structures of power. The established state structures start to appear unshakeable. They can either be accepted or rejected. On the symbolic level, many on the left do both. Practical politics, which unavoidably give rise to constant changes in state structures and institutions, becomes a monopoly of the right. The democratization of power and the participation of the masses in decision-making cannot in themselves guarantee that social reforms will be successful. But if progressive social forces, on coming to power, do not begin promptly to democratize the institutions of the state, this can only end in the degeneration and ignominious collapse of left governments

The Russian State in the Age of American Empire

If attempts to present Putin as a great national leader resisting US domination can hardly withstand any encounter with the facts, this doesn't mean that the opposite view is right. Those who see Putin merely as an American puppet are not very convincing either. Putin's tough declarations concerning the US invasion of Iraq brought an outburst of nostalgic joy among the patriotic community; for several minutes, in fact, it seemed as if Russia was opposing the US. But strangely enough, the threatening speeches that resounded in Moscow made no impact whatever on Washington, and were not even reflected in US-Russian relations. The members of the Bush administration understood not only how weak Putin's Russia really was, but also how dependent it was. The source of the USA's problems was quite justifiably seen as lying in France and Germany, which might have been suspected of advancing their own ambitious project as an alternative to US hegemony. What at first glance might have seemed like a struggle between Russia and the US was in fact a struggle over Russia, waged between the US and Western Europe. For precisely this reason Washington, which reacted with extreme irritation to the position taken in Paris, displayed only condescension with regard to Moscow. The contradictory images of Putin's administration, which can thus be labelled 'nationalist' and 'comprador' at the same time, reflect the objective contradictions of today's Russian political economy, and--partly as a result of this--a total lack of coherence in Moscow's foreign policy. Not only are Russian elites divided into pro-European and pro-American currents, but also, to make things even more confusing, neither current has a clear view or a consistent political line. Both sides base their perspectives on wishful thinking, believing either in American invincibility or in the unstoppable rise of a United Europe. Both sides are wavering

Global Journalist: America and Iraq and the 1 year anniversary of September 11

On September 5, 2002, Stuart Loory talked with experts and journalists about the Bush administration's appeal to the United Nations to help the U.S. invade and take out Saddam Hussein in Iraq to eliminate 'weapons of mass destruction'. Loory and guests discuss how other countries with ties to Iraq feel about this. Also, with the first anniversary of September 11 this year, Loory asks guests how other countries plan to commemorate the day

Between the public and the private: Svetlana Aleksievich interviews Ales\u27 Adamovich. Translator’s preface

This is a transcript and translation of an interview recorded in 1986 by Svetlana Aleksievich with her literary mentor, Ales\u27 Adamovich. The writers discuss Mikhail Gorbachev’s then-new perestroika policy, its potential for meaningful political change, and how both of them relate to the “new people” and “new times” perestroika brought with it. The interview is focused on Adamovich, who ruminates on important political events, including the Chornobyl nuclear disaster. The interview is a testament that documents the continuous dialogue in which the two Belarusian Soviet writers engaged for years as friends and collaborators. The interview also provides us with insight into the continuity between the Soviet and post-Soviet roles of the artist and public intellectual