These statements rely in no way on faith in any one individual but from an analysis of what these individuals represent. This is not, as is the case with Hong Kong a question of admiration for the skill of the capitalist monetary authorities and for the determination of the national bourgeoisie. This is admiration for the Russian people. It has been clear in recent weeks from report after report that however dire the situation, in towns and cities across Russia the endurance of the people is manifesting itself in their determination to survive, their solidarity, and their ingenuity. If no money, use potatoes. If no salaries for months, continue working. In Kirzach, block of flats was put up with no money changing hands.
If Zyuganov was able to outface Yeltsin without a blink of the eye, that is not necessarily anything to do with how good a marxist he is: he is an instrument of the determination of the Russian people.
It is western neo-liberalism that is bankrupt in relation to Russia, not the Russian people. No visit from Clinton could shore up Yeltsin with homilies about playing by the rules of the international market. No international economist can expect Russians to be seriously impressed. $40 billion dollars on short terms (3 month). What an example of the folly of short-termism. No wonder it disappeared so rapidly.
So thanks everyone for the details about Primakov. It is being put out in the media that he is no economist. CNN reports him to be very discrete and diplomatic. I suggest we should not under-estimate the extent to which strategically his appointment is bad news for US hegemonism. CNN reports that he does actually have a doctorate in economics, but this was specifically presented as not being relevant because it was about socialist Egypt in the 1960's. His close links to the Arab world, and his son's knowledge of Japan suggest an ability to integrate a perspective that can at least resist if not challenge US hegemonism. His former position on the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, I suspect is not as insignificant as it sounds, even if the body was not really marxist. As foreign secretary he effectively supported Iraq, and that problem is not dealt with as easily as was Sudan.
In his acceptance speech Primakov strikingly covered territory such as foreign relations which Yeltsin used to regard as his. It is clear there has been a demotion of Yeltsin.
His appointment of Geraschenko to head the central bank appears to signal a willingness to print roubles. Other likely appointments from the former Gosplan suggest a readiness to abandon laissez faire economics and make use of a significant state sector.
In what appeared to be a very authoritative analysis by Martin McCauley from the LSE on Sky News, the scenario is likely to be the imposition of an "inflation tax". The government will use this to eliminate its debt, and to pay past bills to get the economy circulating. Then on 1st January a currency board will be introduced.
No doubt this will be tough. No doubt it is not socialism. But it will allow more of the productive forces to produce wealth. And the currency board will I predict hold its reserves in Euros, as the Chinese have already pledged to do with some of their reserves.
This is a major weakening of the power of international capital freely circulating under its neo-liberal agenda with the patronage of the USA.
It is of course also only a partial victory. But if we are to think globally, and what is the point of the internet if we do not, then the scale of the struggle and the possibilities of victory need to be analysed concretely and dialectically, in detail and not excluding optimism.
To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war that is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complicated than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to refuse beforehand to manoeuvre, to utilize the conflict of interests (even though temporary) among one's enemies, to refuse to temporize and compromise with possible (even though temporary, unstable, vacillating and conditional) allies - is not this ridiculous in the extreme?
We are not ourselves an International, and certainly not organised on Leninist democratic centralist lines. We are only an internet. But if we each think for ourselves and also think collectively, I submit the previous paragraph, of course from "Left Wing Communism", is not irrelevant.
Chris Burford
London.